Paul Hughes wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> > I very much doubt this unless it goes on a for a good while. If you
> > recall during the gas crunches in the 70's people were, outside of a few
> > small incidents, very calm and organized about handling things. They
> > patiently waited for hours in line for gasoline ( I remember sitting in
> > my parents car waiting in line in Massachusetts), and what day of the
> > week you could get gas depended on the numbers on your license plate...
>
> Yes, but the difference here is possible widespread power outages or even a
> total power outage. Since this could lead to a lot of mayhem, it may make
> it very difficult for the skilled people to coordinate long enough to get
> the whole thing up and running again. So if a power outage does last more
> than 4-6 weeks, most of us could be in serious trouble. We shouldn't forget
> that last year, Auckland, New Zealand's power grid was down for six weeks!
> Lucky for them, the rest of their country and the world was doing fine, so
> they were able to coordinate safely in order to get it back up again - and
> it still took them six weeks to do it! That scenario has made me really
> wonder about all this.
Why did their grid go down? How did the fact that Australia had power make any difference to the fact that New Zealand did not? I think that emergency management agencies have plenty of generator capacity to maintain C3I during such emergencies. Anyone who does not buy a generator even for minimal houshold tasks deserves what they get, considering the amount of advanced wanring. Its not like this is an earthquake or something. We know its coming.
> > I also doubt that they will do this as part of y2k panics. They may do
> > this as part of a general anti-gun sweep once they've killed off the gun
> > manufacturers, but I doubt very much that much of the military will
> > agree to go along with such a stupid idea. It will fall to the FBI,
> > BATF, etc. who won't have the manpower, and will try to deputize local
> > law enforcement.
>
> I hope your right about this. But why is it that the ex-military boys I
> know are the ones saying the military *will* do this? Perhaps the
> ex-military people I know are skewed from the norm in their assessment of
> this?
Most of the ex-military I know feel that the government is shafting them somehow (some actually) The persecution complexes that are generated by vets not getting the benefits they were promised can lead to all sorts of BS. Keep in mind that barracks rumormongering is the only known form of faster than light communication, and it is just as inaccurate and incomprehensible as any other theoretical kind of FTL communication. Vets are used to making up situtational assessments based on absolutely no data.
> > > 7) Once this all sweeping Martial Law is instituted, why
> > > would they reverse it? Since they now have the control they
> > > have long sought, they will not give it up without a fight.
> > > Since the majority of the population will now be under their
> > > control, such an organized "revolution" will *not* likely
> > > materialize in any reasonable period of time - we may be
> > > stuck in a totalitarian hell for decades or longer.
> > >
> >
> > Nah, I don't see this, unless something really bad happens like some
> > Chinese or Russian nuke missiles get launched in the panic....
>
> Are you saying they won't or they can't? And for their purposes, why not?
> Can't they just manufacture their own artificial panic by detonating one of
> their nukes in the US? But of course, now I am getting off topic! :-)
>
Well, the seismic and other signatures of any nuke blast are fingerprints as to its origins...