6 ms·

s/drone/guerilla tactics/ and the answer, speaking as a veteran, is nothing. I expect to get downvoted for this, but after a tour in Iraq I firmly believe ther

s/drone/guerilla tactics/ and the answer, speaking as a veteran, is nothing. I expect to get downvoted for this, but after a tour in Iraq I firmly believe theres no weapon or countermeasure thats going to be unilaterally effective at arresting the concept of guerilla warfare and terrorism except negotiation. Otherwise, you end up dividing your city into red and green zones, and pretty soon even if a terrorist attack hasnt happened in a few months, terrorism is pretty successful in making peoples lives outright miserable. smoking kills more americans than terrorism in 2017, but we still have to take our shoes off at the airport. People just want equality, some measure of freedom, liberty, and prosperity. Show up with tanks, rig an election in favor of your candidate, and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population like we did in Iraq, and you will find people will adopt all sorts of creative and clever methods to not only sabotage your mission, but actively eliminate your high value targets youve come to rely upon for 'nation building' or whatever geopolitical pursuit du-jour is popular. In Iraq, we called it "winning hearts and minds." doing things to fix problems like providing clean water or just a few meals made incredible progress in crushing the enemies ability to recruit anyone more sophisticated than an angry goat herder. And he quit being angry once we fixed the sidewalk to the mosque. In maduros case, he is reviled by a sizeable majority of his population. he openly ignores major problems like starvation, he engages his people with violent tactics, and he disregards basic human rights and living conditions. Nothing, no technology on this earth, will keep you safe if your people turn on you. There is no police or military force that can endure sustained guerilla terrorist tactics indefinitely. Not even the US Military.

xenadu02 8y ago
This is the correct answer. What can defend against someone who is resourceful, determined, and has an axe to grind? Not much. Anyone remember Killdozer?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Anyone remember Killdozer? Go over to ar-15.com or some prepper forums and everyone will know exactly who you're talking about, here probably not so much. This crowd doesn't tend to idolize that kind of thing.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    You don't have to idolize it to understand it, and learn from it. Same with the Unabomber. Everyone likes to make jokes, but how many of those people have read what he wrote?
    - verbify 8y ago
      I read it and I don't think it's worth reading - it struck me as the ravings of a disgruntled pseudo-intellectual.
- taneq 8y ago
  Killdozer is a perfect example of how we CAN defend against this kind of attack: Make sure that everyone has something to lose. If they'd just cut that guy some slack, like maybe not destroying his business, or helping to relocate, or anything that left him with a reason to keep being a productive member of society, then the outcome would have been very different. But they fucked him into the ground, until eventually he fucked back.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    http://archives.durangotelegraph.com/04-06-24/mountain_exchange.htm http://archives.durangotelegraph.com/04-06-24/mountain_excha... > The story of the batch plant also goes back to 1992, three years after Heemeyer had moved to the area. Heemeyer bought his two acres from the Resolution Trust Corp., the federal agency set up to handle the assets of failed savings and loan institutions. He bought the two acres for $42,000 but later agreed to sell it to the Docheff family, which wanted the property for a concrete batch plant, for $250,000. They agreed, but then he wanted $375,000 and at some later point wanted a deal worth approximately $1 million. All of this was well before the rezoning proposal hit town hall. He got a quarter of a million for land he bought for $40k. That's hardly fucked into the ground.
    - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
      Sure, but it's more that he felt he had no power and wanted to invert that powerlessness. The (afaik) plan started after they repeatedly denied him the ability to create his own path to his property, and hit him with fines etc due to a forced rezoning. The guy (apparently) tried to negotiate and got hung out to dry a bit. Don't know the exact details of whether they were in the right to do so, but the point is the guy felt like he had his back against the wall and had nothing left to live for. Not condoning the guys actions though.
    - icantdrive55 8y ago
      1. Why does it matter if the wanted more for his land? That's how the wealthy keep wealthy. The aim of most of you on here? 2. So many municipalities are indifferent fee monsters, whom know they have the power to ruin your life/livelyhood with a "no" vote. In my town, it's $1500 for a variance. They never approve variances, but happily take money. The wealthy, with lawyers, do seem to get what they want. The power of the average town hall is out of control in America. Building codes have gone beyond safety. Fees for anything seem to be pulled out of the air, or they use some big city as a example. 3. There's a lot I don't know about the story, but going up against a town council is daunting. They know they have the power. My town seems to go out of their way to pass ordances that do nothing but give authorities more things to fee, and fine, or say no to. Hell, this guy once cane home from trip, and saw a cop in a cherry picker taking down his political sign on the side of his office building. He was livid. He sued the town because he was a lawyer. He then ran for town council, and won. Nothing has changed. He votes opposite to the the other egos, but he is only one person.
- sizzle 8y ago
  Never heard of killdozer, thanks for sharing!
- baud147258 8y ago
  You don't need so much work to make an impact, a truck is enough.
staunch 8y ago
> Show up with tanks, rig an election in favor of your candidate, and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population... I protested the Iraq invasion in 2003 but this is a revisionist and historically inaccurate version of why it failed so spectacularly. The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. It erupted immediately into a civil war and that was further inflamed by third parties. "The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of Al-Kut and Nasiriyah launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country, and the U.S.-led Coalition quickly found themselves embroiled in a potential civil war. U.S.-led Coalition forces ordered the cities to cease hostilities immediately, explaining that Baghdad would remain the capital of the new Iraqi government. Nasiriyah responded favorably and quickly backed down; however, Al-Kut placed snipers on the main roadways into town, with orders that invading forces were not to enter the city. After several minor skirmishes, the snipers were removed, but tensions and violence between regional, city, tribal, and familial groups continued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. The US got a lot of good will right after the invasion. It destroyed that by disbanding the Iraqi army, by failing achieve basic safety for the country and by managing the country in an incompetent fashion. Moreover, the country was in horrific shape due to ten years of draconian sanctions. They were theoretically against Saddam but the average Iraqi suffered horribly - the looting of priceless Iraqi artifacts by destitute mob was an expression of what US sanctions had reduced the country to (along with Saddam himself, of course).
- BurningFrog 8y ago
everdev 8y ago
In counter-terrorism they call defensive measures "hardening the target" because they know it can never be completely secure as you mention. Guerilla tactics are the evolutionary counter-balance to an overpowering force. If there's a day when a power becomes so great it can't be resisted we're all in trouble. We like it when we're resisting (Revolutionary War) but not when we're being resisted (Iraw and Vietnam). But the tactic exists because it's effective.
- antitree 8y ago
  What is the best way to disagree with this unilaterally?
  - acct1771 8y ago
    I don't even understand what this means, let alone how you could disagree with what was said.
    - WalterSear 8y ago
      https://youtu.be/-B0dqvXyx84?t=38s https://youtu.be/-B0dqvXyx84?t=38s
  - foxyv 8y ago
    The same way you disagree with anything unilaterally. By yourself =)
partycoder 8y ago
If the occupation force used cheap, throwaway drones then guerrilla tactics are rendered obsolete. But even that scenario would be inefficient. The most efficient form of occupation is by getting the benefits of the occupation without the occupation: discretely hijacking a government + their media + most important companies, turning every citizen of a country into a debt slave. Why fight millions of people if you can pay off a few dozen senators?
alkonaut 8y ago
Nothing will make you safe from cheap attacks like IED's or Drones dropping explosives. The Q is: what will make it "safe enough to operate" under the threat. The IED threat made vehicles heavy and expensive, movement restricted. The drone threat is similar but different. Protection of a single high value locatoin like a presidential speech (Maduro situation) is quite doable. Some combination of surveillance and kinetic and electronic countermeasures. It's not foolproof but it appears to work ok-ish (there are still high value targets speaking around the world and zero drone assasinations and now nonzero failed assasinations). The problem is that it's resource intensive and asymmetric as hell. And it's still just a question of time until the first successful attack. A more interesting question is, what does a group of soldiers do to protect from a drone threat? They don't have a fixed location and huge resources, like a presidential speech. You can't fire a hugely expensive AA weapon at an off the shelf drone. It would seem you need some kind of weapon that is light, cheap, and reliably kills an off the shelf drone up to max altitude, and can be re-used or carried in large numbers by a single rifle squad. It could be as simple as another drone? This is at least my guess. The most reliable and cheap thing to use to attack a drone is another drone. That would then be effectively the start of an arms race of drones. Higher, faster, better armed, better countermeasures. We'd see a replay of the evolution of fighter planes, but for plastic UAV's?
- Chris_Jay 8y ago
  I would add to your list, "cheaper". Any drone that can be swarmed and taken down by cheaper drones is probably a bad investment.
jnurmine 8y ago
Such "asymmetric warfare" can be very effective: if defending costs much more than mounting an effective attack, then an underdog attacker can keep on bleeding the better-resourced defender or even eventually force the defender to give up. The use of COTS drones might not become a trend though, since jamming/spoofing the GPS and the radio frequencies used would prevent the drones from being directed effectively. Customizing the drone radios would add to effort and costs, and require somewhat specialized skills.

xenadu02 8y ago

This is the correct answer. What can defend against someone who is resourceful, determined, and has an axe to grind? Not much. Anyone remember Killdozer?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Anyone remember Killdozer? Go over to ar-15.com or some prepper forums and everyone will know exactly who you're talking about, here probably not so much. This crowd doesn't tend to idolize that kind of thing.
- acct1771 8y ago
  You don't have to idolize it to understand it, and learn from it. Same with the Unabomber. Everyone likes to make jokes, but how many of those people have read what he wrote?
  - verbify 8y ago
    I read it and I don't think it's worth reading - it struck me as the ravings of a disgruntled pseudo-intellectual.
taneq 8y ago
Killdozer is a perfect example of how we CAN defend against this kind of attack: Make sure that everyone has something to lose. If they'd just cut that guy some slack, like maybe not destroying his business, or helping to relocate, or anything that left him with a reason to keep being a productive member of society, then the outcome would have been very different. But they fucked him into the ground, until eventually he fucked back.
- cwyers 8y ago
  http://archives.durangotelegraph.com/04-06-24/mountain_exchange.htm http://archives.durangotelegraph.com/04-06-24/mountain_excha... > The story of the batch plant also goes back to 1992, three years after Heemeyer had moved to the area. Heemeyer bought his two acres from the Resolution Trust Corp., the federal agency set up to handle the assets of failed savings and loan institutions. He bought the two acres for $42,000 but later agreed to sell it to the Docheff family, which wanted the property for a concrete batch plant, for $250,000. They agreed, but then he wanted $375,000 and at some later point wanted a deal worth approximately $1 million. All of this was well before the rezoning proposal hit town hall. He got a quarter of a million for land he bought for $40k. That's hardly fucked into the ground.
  - JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
    Sure, but it's more that he felt he had no power and wanted to invert that powerlessness. The (afaik) plan started after they repeatedly denied him the ability to create his own path to his property, and hit him with fines etc due to a forced rezoning. The guy (apparently) tried to negotiate and got hung out to dry a bit. Don't know the exact details of whether they were in the right to do so, but the point is the guy felt like he had his back against the wall and had nothing left to live for. Not condoning the guys actions though.
  - icantdrive55 8y ago
    1. Why does it matter if the wanted more for his land? That's how the wealthy keep wealthy. The aim of most of you on here? 2. So many municipalities are indifferent fee monsters, whom know they have the power to ruin your life/livelyhood with a "no" vote. In my town, it's $1500 for a variance. They never approve variances, but happily take money. The wealthy, with lawyers, do seem to get what they want. The power of the average town hall is out of control in America. Building codes have gone beyond safety. Fees for anything seem to be pulled out of the air, or they use some big city as a example. 3. There's a lot I don't know about the story, but going up against a town council is daunting. They know they have the power. My town seems to go out of their way to pass ordances that do nothing but give authorities more things to fee, and fine, or say no to. Hell, this guy once cane home from trip, and saw a cop in a cherry picker taking down his political sign on the side of his office building. He was livid. He sued the town because he was a lawyer. He then ran for town council, and won. Nothing has changed. He votes opposite to the the other egos, but he is only one person.
sizzle 8y ago
Never heard of killdozer, thanks for sharing!
baud147258 8y ago
You don't need so much work to make an impact, a truck is enough.

staunch 8y ago

> Show up with tanks, rig an election in favor of your candidate, and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population... I protested the Iraq invasion in 2003 but this is a revisionist and historically inaccurate version of why it failed so spectacularly. The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. It erupted immediately into a civil war and that was further inflamed by third parties. "The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of Al-Kut and Nasiriyah launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country, and the U.S.-led Coalition quickly found themselves embroiled in a potential civil war. U.S.-led Coalition forces ordered the cities to cease hostilities immediately, explaining that Baghdad would remain the capital of the new Iraqi government. Nasiriyah responded favorably and quickly backed down; however, Al-Kut placed snipers on the main roadways into town, with orders that invading forces were not to enter the city. After several minor skirmishes, the snipers were removed, but tensions and violence between regional, city, tribal, and familial groups continued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

joe_the_user 8y ago
The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. The US got a lot of good will right after the invasion. It destroyed that by disbanding the Iraqi army, by failing achieve basic safety for the country and by managing the country in an incompetent fashion. Moreover, the country was in horrific shape due to ten years of draconian sanctions. They were theoretically against Saddam but the average Iraqi suffered horribly - the looting of priceless Iraqi artifacts by destitute mob was an expression of what US sanctions had reduced the country to (along with Saddam himself, of course).
BurningFrog 8y ago

everdev 8y ago

In counter-terrorism they call defensive measures "hardening the target" because they know it can never be completely secure as you mention. Guerilla tactics are the evolutionary counter-balance to an overpowering force. If there's a day when a power becomes so great it can't be resisted we're all in trouble. We like it when we're resisting (Revolutionary War) but not when we're being resisted (Iraw and Vietnam). But the tactic exists because it's effective.

antitree 8y ago
What is the best way to disagree with this unilaterally?
- acct1771 8y ago
  I don't even understand what this means, let alone how you could disagree with what was said.
  - WalterSear 8y ago
    https://youtu.be/-B0dqvXyx84?t=38s https://youtu.be/-B0dqvXyx84?t=38s
- foxyv 8y ago
  The same way you disagree with anything unilaterally. By yourself =)

partycoder 8y ago

If the occupation force used cheap, throwaway drones then guerrilla tactics are rendered obsolete. But even that scenario would be inefficient. The most efficient form of occupation is by getting the benefits of the occupation without the occupation: discretely hijacking a government + their media + most important companies, turning every citizen of a country into a debt slave. Why fight millions of people if you can pay off a few dozen senators?

alkonaut 8y ago

Nothing will make you safe from cheap attacks like IED's or Drones dropping explosives. The Q is: what will make it "safe enough to operate" under the threat. The IED threat made vehicles heavy and expensive, movement restricted. The drone threat is similar but different. Protection of a single high value locatoin like a presidential speech (Maduro situation) is quite doable. Some combination of surveillance and kinetic and electronic countermeasures. It's not foolproof but it appears to work ok-ish (there are still high value targets speaking around the world and zero drone assasinations and now nonzero failed assasinations). The problem is that it's resource intensive and asymmetric as hell. And it's still just a question of time until the first successful attack. A more interesting question is, what does a group of soldiers do to protect from a drone threat? They don't have a fixed location and huge resources, like a presidential speech. You can't fire a hugely expensive AA weapon at an off the shelf drone. It would seem you need some kind of weapon that is light, cheap, and reliably kills an off the shelf drone up to max altitude, and can be re-used or carried in large numbers by a single rifle squad. It could be as simple as another drone? This is at least my guess. The most reliable and cheap thing to use to attack a drone is another drone. That would then be effectively the start of an arms race of drones. Higher, faster, better armed, better countermeasures. We'd see a replay of the evolution of fighter planes, but for plastic UAV's?

Chris_Jay 8y ago
I would add to your list, "cheaper". Any drone that can be swarmed and taken down by cheaper drones is probably a bad investment.

jnurmine 8y ago

Such "asymmetric warfare" can be very effective: if defending costs much more than mounting an effective attack, then an underdog attacker can keep on bleeding the better-resourced defender or even eventually force the defender to give up. The use of COTS drones might not become a trend though, since jamming/spoofing the GPS and the radio frequencies used would prevent the drones from being directed effectively. Customizing the drone radios would add to effort and costs, and require somewhat specialized skills.