Based on Boston, how would we fair in a large scale attack of this type?

As in “large scale” I mean multiple (as in 20, 30, or more) gunners/bombers moving through a large city shooting and bombing anyone they see fit. All at the same time.

It took what…….. 9000 cops to contain one individual? And that was just a limited geographical area.

Think of how many cops it would take to contain 50 fighters that have descended on a city.

When you get so many people attacking across a diverse geographic area, then the idea of “containment” is no longer functional. When you can not contain the enemy, then you have to shift to a different far more fluid mode of combat. That being seeking and hunting.

Does the method we used on this person create a false sense of security? A false sense that we can rely on the PD to handle larger problems when those larger problems will make it impossible for them to use the methods they used here.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Let you take over all the countries on earth and make sure that no one wants your freedom and lifestyle gone.

God forbid something of this magnitude taking place.
If they did all of this for a 19 year old pansy, you can imagine the martial law like clampdown across the U.S.

Well I think the Mumbai attacks of 2007 give us a fairly good idea of what would happen.

I know that UK police have plans in place for the event of 20-30 armed terrorists taking to the streets and have measures in place to limit casualties and I would bet that American police forces have similar plans in place.

The difference was is that this guy was hiding out from police it was a man hunt it was not a hostage rescue or anti-insurgent type of operation so the comparison might not be such a good one. In the case of the type of attack you are talking about reports would identify were the terrorists were assuming they were attacking and resources would be directed as necessary but there really is only so much that could be done to contain the situation although it is containable.

The best way to get around that type of attack is prevention but if they did get to launch such a attack in say a large shopping mall the damage would be devastating it is worth noting that liberal gun laws in America do make American particularly venerable to this type of attack (no i am not anti-gun, just making a point).

good question op

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

The best way to get around that type of attack is prevention but if they did get to launch such a attack in say a large shopping mall the damage would be devastating it is worth noting that liberal gun laws in America do make American particularly venerable to this type of attack (no i am not anti-gun, just making a point).

I think maybe more pressure on American people will help it work. More TSA and ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IMO , we should wait and see how US govt is going to use this one.

The agencies would get all messed up. I think our local cops, with their personal connections to the people would work the best if they were taught awareness. The FBI seemed to blow off the concerns of a person in Russia that notified them. What did they expect, the Russians to give them all of the evidence so they didn't have to do their job. The FBI would have probably discounted the evidence anyway if they were given it. An egotistical agency that needs a haircut. Homeland Security is getting worse than the FBI now, taking charge when they have less experience than the police they take control of. Maybe they have better degrees

Get rid of the overpriced Homeland Security agency presence in these social function and hire a few more police officers. Put good sensible people in charge, not a bunch of egotists.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


Actually, I believe you already saw the answer to that as they used this as part legitimate fear of exactly your point and then, larger part training event by opportunity to test out how well their plans would have worked if it were more than 2. Given what I mentioned about terrorist attacks like Beslan where over 100 children were murdered by Chechen rebels? That is where I think they initially feared and geared for JUST such a possible outcome.

So how did they fare? It sounds like they shut down transportation in and out for close observation and checking where it couldn't be outright halted like planes and trains. They obviously have more armored vehicles than I would have guessed available on short notice to a major city like that. One or two..maybe, I'd have guessed. They apparently let no DHS grant go to waste in orders.

I'm also wondering how much was done that no one ever hears about? How many odd vehicles were seen in Boston which could well have held rather comfy conditions inside the van/truck/converted bus while scanning millimeter wave radar out both sides of the streets they were driving down? I'm sure the physical searching was only part of things.

All in all? I'd say it went okay for a full dress rehearsal as it turned out and no real need turned out to exist for the near military response. It showed just HOW ready they are to put what amounts to that level of response on the street though and MUCH more, I'm sure. Even Boston with the fears they likely had, couldn't justify all I'll bet they COULD have deployed had those fears began to show basis for many people involved and ongoing.

The people will follow the homefront pledge.

One thing that interested me from a UK perspective was how much heavy-duty military style equipment the BPD had access too. It doesn't surprise me that the PD of a major city has a fair amount of heavy armour and vehicles, but the huge Humvees and such were marked as belonging to the local district - suggesting that the Police have very heavy stocks all over the city.

We have this in the UK too, but not on that scale. Not only that, but the SWAT squads looked like shock troopers with all their gear.

It just seems very over the top given this sort of equipment would 100% not been able to stop the initial bombing. It might look intimidating, but terrorists aren't afraid to die which makes them nigh on impossible to effectively police in a live, ongoing incident..

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
The best way to get around that type of attack is prevention but if they did get to launch such a attack in say a large shopping mall the damage would be devastating it is worth noting that liberal gun laws in America do make American particularly venerable to this type of attack (no i am not anti-gun, just making a point).

good question op

I don’t see guns laws as being detrimental at all. Someone that is going to carry off one of those attacks will have outside help. If they can’t buy guns locally, they will smuggle them in.

The line of thinking I am going along is more along the lines of…….

People will have the idea that the police can produce such a lockdown across a wide area, and be at your house in minutes, if not seconds, when you can for them.

If a large scale attack happened. Someone may see someone right in front of his house shooting people. He would call the cops thinking they will swoop in and lock everything down. He may get a surprise of his life when they tell him, we can’t do anything about it right now, we are already completely tied up with other people shooting people in the streets. They tell them to hide and hope the person goes away.

To be let down, when you had no illusion that you would be helped in the first place is one thing. But to be let down when you have just been given the impression that the response to such an event would be massive and direct, is another.

It sets up the population to be psychologically dropped, when a big event happens, and there is no help.

And it makes the population more vulnerable because, instead of taking action on their own, they will waste precious time waiting for help that won’t arrive. And they will be in shock at first because they won’t be able to comprehend that they are being put into such a situation. That will give the attackers a deadly advantage over the population.

Because, once the number of attackers gets over a specified level, then the police will be of no use. It will be the citizens against the terrorist, and there will be no one there to help.

So, in that regard, I think the lax gun laws, and widespread ownership will be a benefit, and not a hindrance. That is, if the citizens have the will to use them.

If you see multiple attacks in multiple cities then you are going to see chaos.

If the terrorists ever get really organized then watch out.....

reply to post by Mr Tranny


In the case of a mass terrorist attack with 30 trained and armed terrorists lax gun laws won’t help they would be a problem.

Currently in the US it would be straight forward for 30 terrorists to go buy a gun, even easier if they are American citizens than it would be for example in the UK.

Now say these 30 terrorists split into 3 groups, one attacks a busy shopping mall, the others go for a busy underground station and the rest take a bunch of hostages in a hotel. In those scenarios which would be more likely to be how a attack with multiple terrorists would pay out American gun laws would not help. Now I am pro-second amendment but I am also a realist, yes if 30 armed terrorists were to walk down your street and you and all your neighbours have guns then yes that’s going to give the terrorists a lot of problems. However really they would probably go for “soft targets” with large gatherings of people who ordinarily won’t be armed.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
If you see multiple attacks in multiple cities then you are going to see chaos.

If the terrorists ever get really organized then watch out.....

edit on 21-4-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

That is what I mean, that or multiple attacks across a large geographically diverse city.

The reason they can produce such numbers across a small area is because they are pulling in resources from a large surrounding area. If each of those areas had their own problem to deal with, then you can no longer concentrate manpower in one specific area. That is because the surrounding areas will have no spare manpower to lend.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


I think as well in the situation you are talking about FBI HRT (who had little involvement it would seem in Boston) would be called in with force early on and as well as that the President would probably have military special forces on stand by and would have congress called to discuss invoking the War Powers resolution they could theoretically be mobilised very quickly.

Like I said before the comparison between the hunt for the Boston bomber and a scenario with 30 terrorist and multiple attacks isn’t really a fair one.

The PD almost never provides security or protection in any way shape or form, despite the money they've stolen to buy the best gear available. They use it more against us, then the supposed criminals. So they are not an option when it comes to an attack on US soil. They'll be just as idiotic as the lynch mob gun owners roaming the streets.

Instead, what you will have is complete fear, paranoia of one's neighbor and random lynch mob idiots roaming the streets pretending to help law enforcement. Locked doors, scared people and eventually a military take over of EVERYTHING. Guns and cameras will be pointed at everyone...

reply to post by Mr Tranny


The short answer is not very well. The DHS and like-minded letter agencies are full of incompetent individuals who basically do nothing to justify their salaries. Also, the psychological states of the majority of the population is such that they will freak out over absolutely nothing, so what do you think will happen if something truly serious happens that results in more than just a paltry 3 deaths. 3 words: Mass uncivilised panick. Judging by how Bostonians cheered when the one suspect (key word: SUSPECT) was apprehended under the understanding that he would be given zero due-process without any real proof that he did it other than that they were told by the government that he did it. With that in mind, I shudder to think what will happen when the government (yes that's when, not if) starts detaining civilians for no reason other than their perceived threat to TPTB and their neighbours cheer. I hate to say it, but the States looks more like late-Weimahr Germany with every passing development. For instance, the reaction in Boston kind of reminds me of a documentary I saw from the mid-to-late thirties, but it was a little hard to understand because it was in German! (Gotta love George Carlin [RIP] lol). Meh, just food for thought.

Originally posted by KingIcarus
One thing that interested me from a UK perspective was how much heavy-duty military style equipment the BPD had access too. It doesn't surprise me that the PD of a major city has a fair amount of heavy armour and vehicles, but the huge Humvees and such were marked as belonging to the local district - suggesting that the Police have very heavy stocks all over the city.

We have this in the UK too, but not on that scale. Not only that, but the SWAT squads looked like shock troopers with all their gear.

It just seems very over the top given this sort of equipment would 100% not been able to stop the initial bombing. It might look intimidating, but terrorists aren't afraid to die which makes them nigh on impossible to effectively police in a live, ongoing incident..

I noticed that first and foremost myself. They didn't have a police response as much as a paramilitary/militia (as other nations would know that to be termed). I think they watched movies like these far too many times.

Invasion USA

The Siege

The scary thing to me is? Invasion USA, while a wild action movie, played on a realistic enough core scenario before we got militarized response ...and likely still would work shockingly well and for a surprising length of time before being stopped outright.

Still.. that isn't the scariest thing... in reference to the second movie? Well... This scene is one I have never forgotten and it's one I believe has been played out in different forms, in just this type of setting. I hope it wasn't in ANY way for the Boston response. Not even once.



I have absolutely no question we have Generals like Bruce Willis's character in that film. I hope the opposing viewpoint is the stronger one.

Having studied and worked as a volunteer in Emergency Management (firefighting/search & rescue), I can tell you that no city could handle 50 active shooters spread out all over the city at the same time much less in one area. It will turn into a war zone. They will need active military units to respond. The blood shed would be incredible and the collateral damage unimaginable.

That is just my opinion though.

I pray an event like that never happen. If it did the best response to counter that threat is a well armed populace.

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
Having studied and worked as a volunteer in Emergency Management (firefighting/search & rescue), I can tell you that no city could handle 50 active shooters spread out all over the city at the same time much less in one area. It will turn into a war zone. They will need active military units to respond. The blood shed would be incredible and the collateral damage unimaginable.

That is just my opinion though.

I pray an event like that never happen. If it did the best response to counter that threat is a well armed populace.

I am going to have to disagree with you, I think Texas for one would do just fine, and probably say bring it on!