Urban Areas Vs. Rural Areas and a Possible Civil War

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Merkava_4, Jan 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Merkava_4

    Merkava_4 New Member

    This is an interesting web page I ran across:


    The only thing I take exception to, is that the author of the article assumes everyone living in urban areas are leftists. I disagree. I live in an urban area, but I'm certain we have a mixture of leftists and conservatives living on the same street. One guy in my neighborhood has even resorted to hanging an American flag upside down on his garage door. To some people driving by who wouldn't know any better might look at that flag display and think the homeowner is unpatriotic, but I know better because that upside down flag went up the day after the Romney sign that he had planted in his front yard came down. Suddenly it all made perfect sense to me without having to utter a single question to the home owner. Incidentally, the house directly across the street from the one I just mentioned had an Obama sign out in front. That goes to show you how politically diversified people living in urban areas are.

    What is my point you ask? I'm just saying when, or if a civil war breaks out, I'm hoping you guys living in rural areas won't consider me your enemy.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  2. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    What is going to happen in rural areas is people that are related or are long time friends are going to form clans. All bets are off once the SHTF. People from urban areas are a PITA in stable times. How do you think they will be received when SHTF?

  3. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    Why do you think they're pushing so hard for U.N. agenda 21??? To force everyone into the cities!!:mad::mad:
  4. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    If their plan is to force people into the cities, they're beyond ignorant of tactics, let alone history...

    Cities are where wars grind to a halt. Cities are where insurgencies last for decades. Cities are the modern day gates of Thermopaylae.


    Wars are never won on the battlefield, they're won politically, at the political centers. The Vietcong didn't win battles, but in the end, they won the politics of America, and drew us out.
    Every major insurgency operates along the same lines....

    That said. I would never want to be in a city in SHTF...but face it, if you're fighting, the city is the place to be.
    There is very little the enemy can do. Even when you're fighting an adversary that could care less about collateral damage, like the Russians vs. the Chechens, there was still little the Russians could do in response to urban snipers.
    Chechen would shoot a Russian officer, Russians would level a city block... 50 more Chechens would join the fight because now their home is gone and their families killed.

    This isn't a place you can just drop a bomb on and call it a day...


    In Iraq, you see extreme constraints of war, soldiers stressed to the max, trying to avoid civilian casualties, but still making mistakes, which recruits more people to the cause.

    If you saw on the news, In America, a leaked video from the internet, showing some GI, National Guard, SWAT, or whatever authority figure, fire into a crowd out of stress, or run over some grandmom because he was trying to get through an area he thought was an ambush, you'd see the political clout for sustained operations dry up overnight.
    We're STILL talking about Kent State today.

    The cities are veritable mazes, large dense populations to recruit people, create networks, blend into civilian sectors.
    Look to the IRA, and the troubles...look at the "South Armaugh Boys."


    These people blend right back into the civilian population.

    Here is FLIR footage from a city...note, the insurgents are hanging around, making themselves visible, and still, it's hard to see them. Had they used better tactics, this wouldn't have happened... I highly doubt the US pilot would have had authorization to shot, had the insurgents been inside a house, or if innocent people had been present.


    As opposed to being in a rural area...


    How do you defend against something like Juba, in an urban area?

    (Turn off the crappy propaganda music)

    It should be noted that they believe Juba, as he is called, made his shots from inside a vehicle.

    Cities in America already have extensive underground networks, which funnel drugs and guns to gangs in cities. Keep in mind, these cities are places where the constitution doesn't exist, because no one really bats an eye if the police knock down the doors to every section 8 housing center in Chicago. So these people (drug dealers, organized crime elements), have mastered the art, already.
    Believe it or not, every city in America is already running an active insurgency, similar to what is happening in Iraq. Instead of shooting soldiers and running bombs, they're selling drugs, evading police, and fighting each other. How hard would it be for these people to switch to a "resistance type insurgency."
    And don't underestimate, if there was an "insurgency" in any city, it will be masked, hidden or helped by active LA style looting, riots etc...
    I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, but let's just say, for every 1 person fighting an "insurgency", how many people in the cities will just be looting, causing trouble for the heck of it, or using the opportunity to "stick it to the man." 10? 20?...

    Keep in mind, that this is occurring as we call society at its pinnacle...things are in place, like funding, the court system, etc...

    If there was ANY type of disruption like economic collapse, martial law, whatever you want the scenario to be... The cities are going to be a veritable nightmare for ANY occupying force, domestic or foreign...

    I think rural areas will be extremely easy to "clean up", by a force. The problem with rural areas in America will be the sheer volume of land. What is Iraq? the size of Texas? Include Afghanistan, and you have lets just call it, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Nevada.
    I don't think it's possible to do any type of campaign based on the sheer size and volume.

    Look at massive manhunts in rural areas, look how many resources and dollars something like that ties up. DB Cooper and Eric Rudolph come to mind...
    I couldn't imagine trying to carry out manhunts for 10-20 people at the same time, across the country.

    Either way, I think an occupying force will have a nightmare on their hands...

    Also, keep in mind that these above scenarios IRA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya...these are all countries that are populated by people who are used to not being free. These people have been told what to do most of their lives, and they have little or no legal access to guns. Yet they operated a counter insurgency which was and is a nightmare for the occupying force.

    Also keep in mind that (in my opinion), the longer the US is occupied with problems, other countries can use that time to expand.
    If the US is bogged down with internal troubles, China and Russia can use the time to secure oil in the ME, and rare earth minerals in Africa and Afghanistan.
    South American dictators can use the chance to expand across Latin America, and the ME might see an opportunity to attack Israel.

    If any type of large internal trouble happened in America, I would bet bottom dollar that Russia, China, and Venezuela (and potentially Cuba) will start tossing weapons, including explosives into America to keep the fire burning.

    Just my take on it....Cities are not a good place to be, unless you're actively trying to fight.

    I hope something like this never happens due to the global implications. I see a distracted America, while the rest of the planet uses the opportunity to grab a piece of the global pie. I see America coming out of it, to an entirely different planet.

    Just my opinion, again. But still scary, none the less...
  5. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    To add.. I think the 1934 NFA is going to HURT any occupying force.

    The British learned the hard way, just what a skilled American marksman could do, and it cost them, A LOT...

    Look at any major urban fighting from WW2 on, and you see the majority of fighters, spraying bullets from the hip, not aiming, shooting around corners...

    Like so. :)


    Well, Americans have single shot rifles... No one really has an AK or AR15 they can just spray around corners like a moron. Most know how to aim and shoot. How many actually hunt with their FALs, AR15s, and AK47/74s...

    I'd expect to see a lot more well placed shots coming from Americans than you get from foreign fighters, because of single shot weapons being how Americans grew up shooting...
  6. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    .... Double post....
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  7. Mack Bolan

    Mack Bolan New Member

    well hopefully you'll have plenty of hay piled up when I catapult myself out of this city condo, across the collar counties, and into your little rural red barn hideout.

    Not like you wont need forward observers, or folks behind enemy lines for intel and what not, or for pointing laser guided devices on hyde park headquarters, if you even manage to capture some of that hi-tech heavy artillery...:):p

    i think the likelihood of the lines being drawn between urban and rural are as likely as they will be drawn between north and south.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  8. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    nothing to do with legal or activists issues
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.