Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "Rural VS Urban" Erik Prince Discusses....

I believe that the gov will be locking the cities down , keep the population under control but to also try and keep the “rural areas” handicapped by keeping supplies from them to survive, trying to get them to move to the city

Many of the supplies tho - food/fuel come FROM the rural areas TO the cities. .Gov will go out and try to secure but they can't let the urban areas go wild and they don't have the capabilities to take and hold that much land and space.

Maybe they could just lock down the "Distribution Yards".

I hope you're right Teal.

Predictions are often prove unpredictable

I'm not saying I'm right - just thinking out loud.

The US hasn't ever had to take and hold ground the size of the US while ALSO having to hold cities the size of NY, LA, Houston, Denver, Chicago, etc. while also fighting a chunk of 3 million GWOT vets in rural areas who are WELL versed in US tactics/doctrine/COINOP etc.

Like I said - we have 1 Abrams for every 750 square miles.

The US military would be stretched far beyond sustainment to take and hold large swaths of rural America.

Laughin' here..........Erik says he has a "few" guns.

At least he has a sense of humor; I like him a lot.

MM

And add to it what foreign entities would bring to the table and their level of involvement.

Look at what is going on in Haiti, the gangs don’t have shoes, but yet have the best weapons money can buy. I wonder who the Santa Claus is there?

I have always wondered how large a percentage of US military personnel acting overtly or surreptitiously against orders would it take to render our armed forces ineffective as a whole?

Were it to come to an actual rural vs urban civil war, just how many country boys and girls would be willing to blindingly go along with acting against like folks?

Not having read through the whole thread by the time I got to your post, I would have to contradict something in your statement.

The govt will have a harder time "getting supplies to" the urban areas should the rural folks decide that's the way it should go.

Here in our county of approximately 4 people per sq mile, we have just about every supply needed to survive. I've never counted them, but there appears to be more beeves here than people, plenty of goats and sheeps, more than enough firewood for keeping warm, and decent areas for farming grain and taters as they used to before a lot switched to alfalfa and hay for export to outside the county. Springs and rivers for water. Plenty of places to dig pit toilets without screwing up the land or having open sewers as will happen in the cities.

If by rural areas you are including what I consider suburbs, as in the parts of back east that have a sort of country look, with lots of "estates" and such, yeah folks around the metro areas there will be fugged.

We here in the outback will likely do fine, and go back to doing things the old way. Should we desire to stop sending our hay and alfalfa to the outside, and start growing for ourselves again, the dairies and feed lots that are supplying the urban areas will suffer and folks in the cities will be much worse off than we are here.

And don't forget, we have more firearms per capita than they have over the hill.

I just don't see a foreign entity wanting to get involved. What's the upside to them to help the admin wipe out Ma and Pa kettle?

I was thinking just the opposite, outside entities helping the resistance against the establishment

Thinking that the mil/LE etc. would all act against their friends and family is representative of the CF pundits who have never served. Those organizations represent cross sections of society as it exists today with a slight bent to the conservative side.

To those that have actually served in a public service/mil capacity I pose a simple question, would you act on anti-constitutional orders against fellow Americans?


mike r

Erik would make a good POTUS.

Served 2002-2006, son served 2018-2022. Both of our experiences have shown us that without a DOUBT the .mil and members would without question follow orders to go against Americans. ZERO doubt in my mind. We've started preparing for that inevitability.


They don't see it as un-constitutional, that's just it. See basically every Dem ever for understanding what the Constitution is or isn't - what law or order would or would not be constitutional.

Not all of course. I worked in intel, my son was Army Engineer so those are the communities we were in and talking to.

Are you saying that you and your son would do so?


mike r

Nope. I am saying that there are enough that would, I'd say 70% of my shop (EASY) and my son figured at least 70% of his too - the idea that it can't/won't happen is completely unrealistic.

If called upon to do so - there are enough in the .mil that they could mount an effective military action against US citizens, particularly in urban areas.

They would not be effective in rural areas for the reasons (I believe) I've said in this thread. USA is simply too large and current .mil is not able to handle continental action on their own.

Difference between "will to" and "executed successfully" but I saw it at the start of GWOT, my son saw it at the end of GWOT - there's enough that would follow that order for it to be a concern. For a lot of people to die where/when they do. Of that I have no doubt. If given the orders - they'll attempt to do it.

To believe otherwise ignores history.

The 'BEST' soldiers would be the ones to refuse illegal orders.

The best soldiers would be educated enough (not necessarily by the schools) to determine a "legal" order vs and "illegal" one.