Discussion in 'Preparedness & Survival' started by chariot13, Jan 19, 2014.
generally no, oddly enough the higher up the tech ladder you go the more vulnerable the entity becomes. Police that have no idea how to operate without their cameras, databases, drones, and MRAPs, are infinity more vulnerable than one that never learned to depend on them.
I saw this very theory play out in the real world involving military missions, when Sat surveillance, or drone Intel, or they weren't able to have complete over watch over a mission, many times the mission just didn't get done, or the target got skipped.
And make no mistake, every technology has vulnerabilities, maybe not what you would think of but they do have them.
There is no defense against the black helicopters except tin foil.
Technology can either be a force multiplier or a crutch, the problem is, as more and more technology gets put into the hands of civil authority the more it's used as a crutch. At this point, all of the tech that's been deployed is either surveillance/non-lethal/non-interdictive. Thus while you have the civil libertarians making noise about it, most people have other things to do, like drop the kids off at the mall, and work to pay for two jetskis they never use. Once more and more of the lethal military tech gets rolled out on the streets, it will be only a matter of time until the "wrong person" gets hit and SHTF in terms of these agencies.
In many ways the drone war we've taken to executing over pakistan and afghanistan is little more than a more expensive, more persistent, and higher tech version of what the soviets did... dump drums full of small toe-popper mines all over the place. The major difference between the soviet and ISAF presence in afghanistan is that ISAF is orders of magnitude more bureaucratic than it is pragmatic. I would not argue that even the pragmatic approach will succeed in the face of the chaos-ocracy that will fill the void after ISAF leaves. It seems the best course of action to actually maintaining peace and stability in afghanistan would be to simply dump huge amounts of cash out of the back of airplanes, as delivering pallets of cash to government officials seems to have only a token effect when really evaluated. They will only maintain peace as long as that's what's required for the cash to continue to flow.
That said, there is little doubt in my mind that the police agencies who are all hot to adopt these military technologies will eventually find themselves in the same predicament the militaries who pioneered this technology currently face. Slow response times (19T vehicles are not sports cars), so they are depending entirely on surprise. What I think will be interesting is as these technologies filter down to the population at large the advantage the police force has in using them will largely disappear. Just imagine the police trying to use surveillance drones on the drug dealers, and the drug dealers using surveillance drones on the police. I'm sure this is already happening somewhere. Will police drones be duking it out with drug dealer drones in the skies over major urban centers? I really hope not.
The general cycle of technology is that first governments adopt it, and then gradually it filters down to all savvy users, that includes hobbyists and criminals, and eventually the police. The odd thing about drone and certain surveillance technology is that it originated in hobby and private industry, was adopted by government, and now criminals and police are getting their hands on it. Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about it for the simple reason that it increases administrative load, and negates most of the advantages gained. Hobbyists and criminals will have many of the new technologies first, then government, and lastly the police. What police don't seem to understand is what the counters to these technologies are and how to implement them, instead they are focused on following the military's lead. Good for them, it's a fantastic way to waste taxpayer dollars.
Unless they live in the MRAPs they are vulnerable. Unless they live in the stations with their families they are vulnerable. Police forces only ever have the upper hand when the majority of the citizens respect the law. If that respect goes away, you really see just how thin the blue line really is, especially when a good percentage of it would melt away in a hot lead breakdown of law and order.
Mexico is Exhibit A. There, the police rarely tangle with the cartels. The local police spend their time with low level crime and many are just looking to profit from their position. It takes the Federales or even the Army to even go into certain parts of the country.
I agree with most of that but the big difference between mexico and the US is that they call in the federales there in mexico because they have the heavy machines, guns and people. Here in the States and as the article mentions that even rural local police with basically zero crime and 2 or 3 police officers are getting bearcats, likely small drones very soon and automatic weapons. The sheriffs department near New Orleans has MK19's (fully automatic grenade launcher) & m249 saw's on a couple of their river boats. That just seems absurd for police to have, to fight 'crime'. There's no need for any local or state police agency's to ever call in the federales here in the states. The local and state police are already way over armed compared to the civilian population. The federal government is full of un-needed redundancy.
Just goes to show that the better rifle in your safe would be a serious caliber bolt rifle with good glass on it rather than a neutered AR-15.
Well unless its a Nemo Arms Omen. An AR styled 14 round semi auto 300 win mag.
Nemo OMEN Match 300 Win Mag AR pattern rifle, Black, New.
why? I can effectively engage point targets to 600 meters with the 5.56. If i had to grab one gun for anything it would be my suppressed 300 blackout, but the 5.56 is quite capable and very effective when you use it correctly. But when it comes down to it the firearm is almost ancillory, you don't shoot drones, you shoot the transmitter, and that can be done with a 22lr. You don't use firearms against armor, typically to defeat armor you use heat.
To definitively defeat mechanized warfare domestically you take the humans out before they armor up.
With the shot triangulation software out there, in an actual insurrection taking more than one or two shots is going to bring down hell on a more and more refined position reading.
IMO a shooter is better off training to shoot like a sniper rather than like a door kicker.
High tech has two weakness's, electricty and fuel. Why fuel?? generators don't run on water, yet. Cut those two items out and everything come to a slow halt. Then its caveman style.
The problem with that is high tech is mostly abused by governments, and governments will always have fuel. If they're not the creator of slave labor they certainly are the greatest exploiter of it. Which means as long as there are resources to be pulled from the earth, they'll have the man power to pull it and make the machines to process & utilize it.
If it's a Mad Max type scenario then fuel would not be flowing so easily. It is really easy to stop tanker truck from delivering.
Current state of affairs - we can sit at our computers and enjoy a good old bubblegum session. Sort of like campfire ghost stories. It is fun and loosely based on reality .... and it is best when done while sipping a good beer
They probably have families... Duh.
We have the same problem as in most of these survival discussions. It as to be practiced shooters.
The other ever-present issue in survivalist discussions it that they have a rather loose relationship with reality.
Says the person that had to do more than one thing today along with every single other day, where they weren't sucking on their mamas tit to survive. Just because you're complacent in what you have to do to survive each day doesn't mean at some point in your life things won't change. You had to learn to adapt to use that microwave and someday you may have to learn to adapt no less without it.
Don't you have kids to disappoint or a wife to fail? Maybe a job to suck at or something.
Separate names with a comma.