Would American PTB Use Gas on American Citizens Durring Uprising?

"The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor."

en.m.wikipedia.org...



a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Logarock

You mean chemical weapons to kill Americans? Ummmm, no? Instead, they'll use local police and SWAT to fire off non lethal gas, rubber bullets, and good old fashion beat downs because that's what they've always used.
.....Doesn't scare me.... It tickles me that it scares you.

US Law says the government can use chemical or biological agents for "Any law enforcement purpose; including any purpose related to riot control."

Public Law 105-85-Nov.18, 1997

Seems to me they wouldn't make a law like that unless they intended to use it.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Oh, they do and they would. Any argument to the contrary is the height of naivete and worse than false "patriotism."

a reply to: Logarock


The enemy are the Fascists that have taken over the CIA, they have been taken over by far right ideologies after the second world war, Paperclip seems to have been a Trojan horse that went very very wrong, it might have even infected the state with Himmler's occult ideologies.

I have but one thing to say about the question posed in the OP.

DDT is good for you... perfectly safe to spray on civilians...

How'd that work out?

a reply to: Logarock



According to this demonstration, scientist can convert human gas into a bio-weapon.

a reply to: ketsuko

Chlorine Gas was nominated for military use by the Union's scientists. But it was rejected as being too inhumane. Gases may still be used, since a few hundred well armed militants can cause so much more trouble than ACW Warriors carrying muzzle loading rifled muskets.

Another thing to consider is that every time the discussion comes up here, a civil war is talked about in terms of urban v. rural since the divide is red/blue which is usually a urban/rural thing.

The first strategy talked about to choke off the urban megaplexes is to basically create a siege where they are cut off by the citizens of flyover. Most big cities are extremely dependent on a constant stream of supplies being shipped in overland. They no longer have much more than a three day supply of food on hand at any time.

So basically what is being talked about is starving them out. Starving men, women, children ... babies?

originally posted by: Logarock
Would we have a smooth transition of power toward the end of hostilities or would the american ruling class start tossing nerve agent around? This is a what if question certainly but should be asked. It goes to the question as to how deep we are really in. How real is "We the People" to those that really don't have to give a dam about the people at some point. Just a bunch of economic units anyway......eaters and sh*ter, breeder and pains in the ass at any number of levels.

I think gas would be the least of your worries. An "armed" rebellion or civil war would consist of the American populace armed with normal guns versus the government which has tanks, bombs, missiles, aircraft carriers, planes, RPG's, Gatling guns etc etc.

It's like taking a knife to a gun fight, so to speak.

a reply to: Kryties

We have an all volunteer force. In the event of a Civil War, it is highly likely that you would see what happened the last time there was a Civil War -- the armed forces splitting into two factions.

a reply to: Kryties

I will be honest, regardless of technology, there's not enough military force in the world, much less this country to prevent 100s of millions, perhaps billions, depending if you're talking about a national or global uprising, from getting to perceived culprits. Besides, it's in question as to whether the military would even side with the elite in such a scenario.

This argument that a government will "always" be victorious over a pissed off populace is ludicrous. There have been too many government overthrows in the last few years to substantiate that claim.

There are systems available for use today that if the general public were aware of the potential and capabilities they would never mass assemble. And I will tell you now, there are people who just itching and looking for a reason to use them against the general public.

There is no need for gas or any other type of antiquated devices.

Oh and by the way, Frog Snot !!!

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

Oh, there's no doubt they have things that would cause massive casualties. There's no doubt about that.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The rabid Left would.

They have already! Have you watched the videos from the Berkeley riots? The leftist routinely use pepper spray against the Trumpians. Pepper spray is nothing but an aerosolized chemical.

a reply to: Logarock

Given the current mode and method of law enforcement and the massive amounts of military grade gear and vehicles they have received in recent years I think the answer is: if we are lucky.

originally posted by: Kryties

I think gas would be the least of your worries. An "armed" rebellion or civil war would consist of the American populace armed with normal guns versus the government which has tanks, bombs, missiles, aircraft carriers, planes, RPG's, Gatling guns etc etc.

It's like taking a knife to a gun fight, so to speak.

A "smart" rebellion would recognize that the key to victory isn't firepower, it's logistics. The Army may peel a lot of potatoes, but they don't grow them. A poisoned food or water supply makes a tank just a rusting hunk of metal. And while military members may be safe on bases and ships, their families are exposed in neighborhoods just like everyone else.

a reply to: Kryties

So, you kill the bad guys and steal their stuff. It's what any insurgency does.

Those oh, so invincible drones have to be fueled, and armed. That requires bases. Bases require supply. Supply lines are vulnerable. No fuel, no munitions, no oh so invincible drones. Or tanks. Or guns. Or ammo for guns.

Attack logistics. Turn the country around those bases into a wasteland, or some place they don't want to go.

War isn't about who has the biggest and most guns, its about getting there firstest, with the mostest. An insurgency that gets that right is going to win. Provided they don't muck it up by acting in ways contrary to their stated goals, what ever those may be.

It's all about logistics.

a reply to: ketsuko

Every civil war ever as an example of that. Some portion of the standing military always, always goes over.