The Fringe | Conspiracy, News, Politics, and Fun Forum!

Full Version: Myth about the 2nd civil war. Martial law.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Okay, so I'm seeing a lot of talk about civil war on the internet, and one of the main argument I hear about how it will stop is martial law.

I would really like to explain to you how nuts it is to expect that people who have it in them, to go out and shoot and kill people will be dissuaded by a few more people with gun on the street.

The national guard is a very small number of people, and the people are also a relatively small group of people. On your average day, there are usually too many crimes in a city for cops to get to in one day. The national guard are maybe in some cases more trained or far more trained than the average cop, but they are usually only a few hundred guys at most.
So let's say for sake of argument you have 300 NG guys, and 1500 cops, for a city of 300,000 people. out of those 300k people, say just 50k want to revolt, or even 20k.

1800 people vs 20,000 people in an urban firefight is a losing proposition. And remember, this would be the implementation of martial law, it might not even be considered an open insurrection at this point, so what does that mean? That would mean the revolting people would not be considered enemy combatants at the time, so no air support, and probably no tanks either. So these martial law enforcers would be using tear gas, small arms and maybe some armored cars to try to put down an open revolt. Even if the number were 10000, this would be a nigh impossible tasking, with probably a terrible effect.

The end result of 10-20,000 armed combatants destroying the martial law enforcers 90% loss rate or higher, would then most likely result in the area being consider an open insurrection. The combatants would then go from mere criminals to enemy combatants.

But no, martial law defeating people who are dead set on revolt, who are in fact killing people, will not be deterred by more people to kill. I have to put that terrible, and frankly stupid argument to bed.

This isn't an argument for civil war or violence. But it's just I'm tired of that stupid, and short sighted argument.
so you're saying you don't think there will ever be martial law?
(03-07-2019, 01:40 PM)~mc~ Wrote: [ -> ]so you're saying you don't think there will ever be martial law?

smh...What?

No, I'm saying that in event there is martial law for people revolting there will be;

1) People willing to kill people(the revolting)

2) usually a large group of people, set to and willing to revolt. One or two people is not going to be a revolt, it has to be a large group to be an honest attempt at revolt.

So in the event of revolt, martial law will be ineffective, and the resulting deaths of the enforcers, of martial law, will lead to the declaration of an open insurrection.
(03-07-2019, 01:48 PM)Dire_effects Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2019, 01:40 PM)~mc~ Wrote: [ -> ]so you're saying you don't think there will ever be martial law?

smh...What?

No, I'm saying that in event there is martial law for people revolting there will be;

1) People willing to kill people(the revolting)

2) usually a large group of people, set to and willing to revolt. One or two people is not going to be a revolt, it has to be a large group to be an honest attempt at revolt.

So in the event of revolt, martial law will be ineffective, and the resulting deaths of the enforcers, of martial law, will lead to the declaration of an open insurrection.

Chuckle sorry

I get it now