MrJonno wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Babel wrote:@ Orpheus: Belgium, in a small rural town. I grow some of my own crops and my parents in law raise cattle on a small scale. So food is not really a short term worry. We have water supplies and firewood in abundance, just in case. But this is something that's standard, not something we did to prepare for some kind of semi-apocalyptic event.
In 2003 in the northeastern US there was a massive "blackout" of electrical power which lasted several days to a couple of weeks for many people over a large area. In my town, which was a suburban neighborhood outside of a medium sized city, people began panicking after the first day. It took two or three days for all the stores to be closed and all the supermarkets to be empty. People who live in urban and suburban areas are completely dependent on the energy grid, not only to cool and heat homes and fill gas tanks for transportation, but for their very lives.
Luckily, in my neighborhood and most neighborhoods everyone remained effectively calm, although agitated and worried. But, the power was only out for a few days and then came back on and everything went back to normal. It got me to wondering -- what if the power stayed out for a month?
I don't think civil unrest on a grand scale is more than 30 days -- 60 tops -- away, if the electricity goes out.
We like to to think that things like that can't happen and they are only the ravings of paranoid lunatics. But, World War 2 happened in Europe. There is nothing in the human condition that has changed so much in the last 75 years that ought to lead one to the conclusion that we can't get involved in other such events. And, in this day and age, our modern populations are more dependent on systems like the electrical grids than the people were 75 years ago. 75 years ago, half of Europe and the US didn't have indoor plumbing, let alone electric light/heat.
Isn't that what the army was invented for to deal with such situations, if civilian forces can't deal with such situations you bring in the military . If they can't deal with it well its serious do do's . I believe the UK has around 2 weeks fuel if we get cut off but that can last for months if only the military gets it. If Her Majesty Armed Forces can't deal with a bunch of unarmed peasants rioting then I want a refund on my taxes!
We do not have military personnel of sufficient numbers to address this situation throughout the nation. The US has 3,077 counties. So, all US active and reserve personal figures to around 741 military personnel per county (that includes all personnel, not just soldiers) per county in the US, and figuring what would be needed to control even our major cities -- there just aren't enough.
But, to answer your first question, no, the US military was not invented to deal with domestic unrest. Our army was invented to deal with external threats. It is always a dicey thing in the US for the army to be called in to counter civilians. Not good. We were not traditionally a military police state.
I find it loathsome, almost unfathomable, that your concern in the situation we're discussing is the quelling of rioting peasants. I mean, good grief, man. The situation presented was one where something has happened akin to a complete loss of the electrical grid for an extended period of time. Mr. Jonno's answer: have the military take all the available fuel, and leave the peasants with nothing, and then use the force of the military to quiet (or kill, if they don't pipe down) the peasants. Problem solved.
How common would you say your point of view is in Britain? Do you see yourself as relatively middle of the road? You are espousing commonly held philosophical viewpoints? Is yours, do you think, arguably in line with the majority view? I sure hope not. The absolute repugnance of your views is mind boggling -- I mean -- really --- "isn't that what the military is for...." to show up and gun down the rioting peasants to keep things quiet, while we use all the fuel for the military?