5 ms·

It's more like.. a disaster happens, so police response times have lapsed, dropped to days. Not everyone is stranded on their roof, tons of people have food bu

It's more like.. a disaster happens, so police response times have lapsed, dropped to days. Not everyone is stranded on their roof, tons of people have food but the real problem is that now heavily armed and well organized drug gangs are able to operate with impunity, and brutality, seizing whatever they wish (including the food)... It's a power-grab situation for a few days, or for however long the power stays off, or it would be, if combat veterans and ordinary Americans weren't so well armed.

dalke 11y ago
In the last 50 years of European history, has something like this happened? For example, in 2014, southeast Europe received record levels of rain, which lead to wide-spread flooding and landslides. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Southeast_Europe_floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Southeast_Europe_floods which points out that it was the most rain in 120 years of recorded history. Some areas were isolated for a few days, 300,000 households were left without electric power, etc. How close were they to having drug gangs or other groups take over local power? Do you have any evidence to back up your thesis? How would additional weapons have helped the situation that actually did occur? What mix of weapons should they have had? Are there any lessons from other European floods (the recent British floods, the North Sea flood of 1962, the 1953 storm and floods, etc.) to show how perilously close things were to total discord, which would have been solved by more weapons backed by combat veterans? (Of course, in the 1950s and 1960s, most of Europe lived through WWII and many were combat veterans. But they didn't have the weapons you think are essential. Yet somehow they survived.)
- hackercomplex 11y ago
  There's ample evidence in particular if you study the Kosovo War outbreak there were situations where regions were cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling. Ireland comes to mind, there are some examples..
  - dalke 11y ago
    Could you be a bit more definite about those? What were they, how would more arms have helped, and which side should have had the arms? Would you characterize them as being part of the respective civil conflicts? Or were they more like the aforementioned "now heavily armed and well organized drug gangs"?
    - hackercomplex 11y ago
      You can do your own homework, there are well documented historical accounts. There are situations where a large city was cut off, for weeks no supplies in or out, the lights were off.. and the "shit hit the fan" for those people well before the shelling began. You can read for yourself how important the requirement to have at least a single firearm was for households.
      - dalke 11y ago
        I think it's the other way around. You gave an incomplete answer and now imply that I should be doing your homework for you. You wrote: > if you study the Kosovo War outbreak there were situations where regions were cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling. Ireland comes to mind, there are some examples.. In case I was wrong, and missing something well-known, I reviewed the Kosovo War summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War and The Troubles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles . I cannot find a relevant example. For Kosovo, the closest I could find was the Izbica massacre, where FRY and Republic of Serbia forces stole from several thousand villagers then killed 130 Kosovo Albanian men, and the Battle of Junik, where Junik was under siege for 20 days. However, both actions were carried out by partisans, and don't show sign of a third party filling a power gap. There were 10 or so shell fired in Newry, and unpredictable power during the Ulster Workers' Council strike of 15 to 28 May 1974. Otherwise I found nothing like a city or village being cut off for weeks with no supplies or power in Ireland, and being shelled. Certainly there are historic instances of cities being cut off, like the Siege of Leningrad or the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII, and the Siege of Sarajevo during the Bosnian war. The German tally after the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising suggests that there were fewer than 100 firearms in the ghetto, and nowhere near one per family, so that's not more a counter-example to your point. In any case, third party "drug gangs" or the equivalent power grab do no appear to play any significant role. So I ask again, can you point to any post-war European examples?
Pamar 11y ago
Your scenario is not very common, at least in the West. (Even more so in Europe because we have higher population density, so a whole region getting "lost" to the national government would be really extraordinary). Let's talk instead of real cases, ok? Marauders and Warlords were really a big problem during Katrina Hurricane? Was New York able to survive Sandy only because Frank Castle was patrolling the streets? In comments below you cite Kosovo. I think that in cases like that there was already plenty of social unrest so if a city was cut off from the powergrid or the main roads I can imagine that someone would have tried to get the upper hand. Something similar could also happen in some areas of Mexico, where the government presence is already pretty weak. I can see how a veteran or ex-serviceman could always be very handy in a natural disaster, but that would be because they are able to lead, to follow orders, have plenty of practical skills and are trained to be self-sufficient. But the actual combat training or experience - nevermind the weapons - is not necessarily the most important thing to have when you are hit by a flood or a earthquake or a tsunami.

dalke 11y ago

In the last 50 years of European history, has something like this happened? For example, in 2014, southeast Europe received record levels of rain, which lead to wide-spread flooding and landslides. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Southeast_Europe_floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Southeast_Europe_floods which points out that it was the most rain in 120 years of recorded history. Some areas were isolated for a few days, 300,000 households were left without electric power, etc. How close were they to having drug gangs or other groups take over local power? Do you have any evidence to back up your thesis? How would additional weapons have helped the situation that actually did occur? What mix of weapons should they have had? Are there any lessons from other European floods (the recent British floods, the North Sea flood of 1962, the 1953 storm and floods, etc.) to show how perilously close things were to total discord, which would have been solved by more weapons backed by combat veterans? (Of course, in the 1950s and 1960s, most of Europe lived through WWII and many were combat veterans. But they didn't have the weapons you think are essential. Yet somehow they survived.)

hackercomplex 11y ago
There's ample evidence in particular if you study the Kosovo War outbreak there were situations where regions were cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling. Ireland comes to mind, there are some examples..
- dalke 11y ago
  Could you be a bit more definite about those? What were they, how would more arms have helped, and which side should have had the arms? Would you characterize them as being part of the respective civil conflicts? Or were they more like the aforementioned "now heavily armed and well organized drug gangs"?
  - hackercomplex 11y ago
    You can do your own homework, there are well documented historical accounts. There are situations where a large city was cut off, for weeks no supplies in or out, the lights were off.. and the "shit hit the fan" for those people well before the shelling began. You can read for yourself how important the requirement to have at least a single firearm was for households.
    - dalke 11y ago
      I think it's the other way around. You gave an incomplete answer and now imply that I should be doing your homework for you. You wrote: > if you study the Kosovo War outbreak there were situations where regions were cut off from supplies, power was lost, but yet there was no invasion or shelling. Ireland comes to mind, there are some examples.. In case I was wrong, and missing something well-known, I reviewed the Kosovo War summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War and The Troubles at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles . I cannot find a relevant example. For Kosovo, the closest I could find was the Izbica massacre, where FRY and Republic of Serbia forces stole from several thousand villagers then killed 130 Kosovo Albanian men, and the Battle of Junik, where Junik was under siege for 20 days. However, both actions were carried out by partisans, and don't show sign of a third party filling a power gap. There were 10 or so shell fired in Newry, and unpredictable power during the Ulster Workers' Council strike of 15 to 28 May 1974. Otherwise I found nothing like a city or village being cut off for weeks with no supplies or power in Ireland, and being shelled. Certainly there are historic instances of cities being cut off, like the Siege of Leningrad or the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII, and the Siege of Sarajevo during the Bosnian war. The German tally after the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising suggests that there were fewer than 100 firearms in the ghetto, and nowhere near one per family, so that's not more a counter-example to your point. In any case, third party "drug gangs" or the equivalent power grab do no appear to play any significant role. So I ask again, can you point to any post-war European examples?

Pamar 11y ago

Your scenario is not very common, at least in the West. (Even more so in Europe because we have higher population density, so a whole region getting "lost" to the national government would be really extraordinary). Let's talk instead of real cases, ok? Marauders and Warlords were really a big problem during Katrina Hurricane? Was New York able to survive Sandy only because Frank Castle was patrolling the streets? In comments below you cite Kosovo. I think that in cases like that there was already plenty of social unrest so if a city was cut off from the powergrid or the main roads I can imagine that someone would have tried to get the upper hand. Something similar could also happen in some areas of Mexico, where the government presence is already pretty weak. I can see how a veteran or ex-serviceman could always be very handy in a natural disaster, but that would be because they are able to lead, to follow orders, have plenty of practical skills and are trained to be self-sufficient. But the actual combat training or experience - nevermind the weapons - is not necessarily the most important thing to have when you are hit by a flood or a earthquake or a tsunami.