Conjecture Zone: Future American Revolution Against the US

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff, you're obviously obfuscating now and your service branch boasting has become distracting so I'm going to dismiss you at this time.

Of course you are. That's what you always do to those who correctly refute you. As I said a long time ago, I should have known better than to take you seriously.

Cranking the volume on Wild Blue Yonder to 11 does not constitute refutation. This isn't Falcon Stadium in November and I'm not the hated Army quarterback from which your boys are going to strip the pigskin. Your contributions so far have been unconstructive and ridiculous.

yes, yes, Woodruff - we're all paying attention to you

[BigBallinStalin]

I want to change the direction of the US Air Force debate, so the following is directed not just at Woodruff (whose opinions are insightful in these matters) but also at you other people.. yes, you.

(sax, be nice. You're polluting my thread too much).

I think Saxi's question has merit still. How can these Special Forces "control" a battlefield when said battlefield is a weapons manufacturing plant that they do not wish to do significant damage to?

The Air Force Special Forces are not at all just a destructive force. In fact, they quite often parachute into an area to secure, for instance, a runway.

I can only imagine that the weapons being held there would be seized by the time they get there (from Florida? I think it said Florida), and if need be the rebels could just rig the place with explosives as a last resort.

And the Special Forces guys wouldn't be aware of and prepared for that possibility?

Aside from the "ground troop" aspect, you guys are ignoring the vast array of tactics that don't directly "seize or hold territory" that the Air Force does in fact provide. I'm not sure why you all think that only ground troops are relevant to this sort of an activity. It's really quite confusing. Control of the air is in fact control of the battlefield.

(1) In regard to aerial reconnaissance, I mostly agree with you.

(2) It would depend on the aircraft's (acceptable) uses.

Strategic bombing
(2a) WW2, bombing civilians didn't seem very effective in reducing the morale of the enemy. (possible exception: nuking civilians + a few military and industry)
(2b) WW2, bombing economic infrastructure seemed very effective (as I far as I can recall), yet many civilians are killed in the process, so again there's the issue of it being acceptable.

(2c) Vietnam, I've heard good arguments for and against the actual effectiveness of US air power and its capability to win the war for the US, so I'm not sure.

(2d) Persian Gulf War. Worked like a charm, so this suggests that resistance groups in dry, arid regions would be out of luck. Heavily forested regions (vietnam)? Maybe. Mountainous areas (Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan)? Perhaps not.

Criticisms with strategic bombing also apply to air interdiction (namely, targeting supply lines, but not so much against troop movements). Why supply lines? In guerrilla wars, the line between soldier and civilian in the role of supplying is very vague.


Close air support/tactical bombing:
This is probably where air superiority would be most effective, and most acceptable in regard to minimizing civilian casualties. Yet, from what I recall, the risks of incurring more losses are higher (depending on the rebels' weaponry, Stinger missiles? or other MANPADS?)

--I'm beginning to think that foreign "aid" would be necessary for the rebels' success.


So, a few questions:

(1) Would CAS be the most effective for the US government? And... how effective?

(2) How necessary is aerial intel versus ground intel? As in, if the US is deficient in ground intel (due to resistant local civilians), would the benefits of aerial intel (satellites included) offset this imbalance?

(3) During a revolution, how much in revenue could the US print and collect from the population?
---US has plenty of money for the Iraq II and Afghanistan wars, and after ten years, the results are inconclusive--and that's with a local population being generally resentful and against US intervention or at least prolonged occupation. And with US/ISAF soldiers "dealing" with non-Americans.

(4) Assuming that UAVs are part of the air force (and not CIA's pet project), how would this change the game--in regard to debate about US Air Forces?)

[GBU56]

I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard that Ron Paul receives the most donations from US soldiers than any other president.

100% True. That's what these people who can't see 5 minutes in front of their face do not realize. WE are the military. The fact that we have so many lard-asses is just a by-product of mastering food production, distribution, markets. Mix that with Freedom and Liberty, and people are going to eat however much they want. Nobody is going to apologize for having too much food or eating until we are done eating in the face of centuries of starvation all around the world.

I am not ashamed that my countrymen have an overabundance of food. I am proud. We just need a little self control and a better parenting, and our people will get better as we take our country back in the Revolution.

Leave it to the Ron Paul fear mongerers to wish a real revolution of blood and terror upon the over-eaters of America.

I'm gonna start cleaning up all this garbage [Ron Paul campaign signs] and start burning them. Nobody is going to get between me and my fast food.

[BigBallinStalin]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175379&start=60#p3835701
explains why--to a degree.

[saxitoxin]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

That's correct. Your average U.S. Army infantryman is more effective than 20 armed civilians.

So, an insurrection should not attempt to engage the U.S. military in a set-piece battle.

Some method of neutralizing the Army and Marines would first be necessary through civil action, which is a tactic available to a domestic rebellion that adversaries in foreign wars can't employ. The example I gave was a police strike, but it could be any number of things.

Once the Army and Marines have been neutralized, the Air Force is de facto neutralized since the third word in Close Air Support is "support" - if there's nothing on the ground to support there's no CAS. On a macro scale, the only other thing the USAF brings to the table, strategic bombing, won't be used by the USG because its first goal will be conservation of capital.

[Woodruff]

IAside from the "ground troop" aspect, you guys are ignoring the vast array of tactics that don't directly "seize or hold territory" that the Air Force does in fact provide. I'm not sure why you all think that only ground troops are relevant to this sort of an activity. It's really quite confusing. Control of the air is in fact control of the battlefield.

(1) In regard to aerial reconnaissance, I mostly agree with you.
(2) It would depend on the aircraft's (acceptable) uses.

Yes, if you're speaking only of a specific type of use of aircraft, rather than the overarching multiple uses. I think you're recognizing this, but just in case..."control of the air" doesn't have anything to do with a specific aircraft. What it means is that you have free reign to do as you will in the air, and the enemy has little to no ability to do anything in the air.

Therefore, if you control the air, you have almost all of the recent reconnaissance information, you have almost all of the ability to react quickly to a changing battlefield, you have almost all of the ability to interdict opposing forces, you have almost all of the ability to enact softening of the opposition's defenses, etc...you see my point.

(1) Would CAS be the most effective for the US government? And... how effective?

Depends on the location/terrain and the defenses of the opposition. As you mention, if the opposition has access to AA weaponry, this becomes much more problematic, especially in mountainous or heavily forested areas.

(2) How necessary is aerial intel versus ground intel? As in, if the US is deficient in ground intel (due to resistant local civilians), would the benefits of aerial intel (satellites included) offset this imbalance?

In my opinion, they are both pretty important. There are things that can be discovered "boots on the ground" that simply won't be via the air. So I would say that the aerial reconnaissance provides much more of a "broad overview" type of view while ground intel provides more of a specific view of things ("here are a group of buildings" versus "this building is the HQ building"). So it really depends on which type of intel is needed.

(3) During a revolution, how much in revenue could the US print and collect from the population?
---US has plenty of money for the Iraq II and Afghanistan wars, and after ten years, the results are inconclusive--and that's with a local population being generally resentful and against US intervention or at least prolonged occupation. And with US/ISAF soldiers "dealing" with non-Americans.

I can only assume it would be dramatically reduced, given that they would only be collecting from the governmental sympathizers.

(4) Assuming that UAVs are part of the air force (and not CIA's pet project), how would this change the game--in regard to debate about US Air Forces?)

Intelligence becomes far more effective, in my opinion. CAS becomes far more "specific", as well, which can be very useful in some circumstances. UAV's are absolutely part of the Air Force, and becoming widely used.

[Woodruff]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

That's correct. Your average U.S. Army infantryman is more effective than 20 armed civilians.

So, an insurrection should not attempt to engage the U.S. military in a set-piece battle.

Some method of neutralizing the Army and Marines would first be necessary through civil action, which is a tactic available to a domestic rebellion that adversaries in foreign wars can't employ. The example I gave was a police strike, but it could be any number of things.

Once the Army and Marines have been neutralized, the Air Force is de facto neutralized since the third word in Close Air Support is "support" - if there's nothing on the ground to support there's no CAS. On a macro scale, the only other thing the USAF brings to the table, strategic bombing, won't be used by the USG because its first goal will be conservation of capital.

Your view of the importance of intelligence-gathering is seriously flawed.

[saxitoxin]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

That's correct. Your average U.S. Army infantryman is more effective than 20 armed civilians.

So, an insurrection should not attempt to engage the U.S. military in a set-piece battle.

Some method of neutralizing the Army and Marines would first be necessary through civil action, which is a tactic available to a domestic rebellion that adversaries in foreign wars can't employ. The example I gave was a police strike, but it could be any number of things.

Once the Army and Marines have been neutralized, the Air Force is de facto neutralized since the third word in Close Air Support is "support" - if there's nothing on the ground to support there's no CAS. On a macro scale, the only other thing the USAF brings to the table, strategic bombing, won't be used by the USG because its first goal will be conservation of capital.

Your view of the importance of intelligence-gathering is seriously flawed.

What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?

(a) information for the sake of having it, or, (b) information to facilitate action

answer: "B"

High-res aerial photos of rebels holding the Boeing Wichita plant are totally useless if there are no assets available to engage those rebels; which is the point of neutralizing government ground forces before beginning direct action.

I sincerely don't know how to make this clearer or more concise since this is a question you keep bringing up and, when a rational answer is proffered, respond with a maniacal, screamed insult.

[Woodruff]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

That's correct. Your average U.S. Army infantryman is more effective than 20 armed civilians.

So, an insurrection should not attempt to engage the U.S. military in a set-piece battle.

Some method of neutralizing the Army and Marines would first be necessary through civil action, which is a tactic available to a domestic rebellion that adversaries in foreign wars can't employ. The example I gave was a police strike, but it could be any number of things.

Once the Army and Marines have been neutralized, the Air Force is de facto neutralized since the third word in Close Air Support is "support" - if there's nothing on the ground to support there's no CAS. On a macro scale, the only other thing the USAF brings to the table, strategic bombing, won't be used by the USG because its first goal will be conservation of capital.

Your view of the importance of intelligence-gathering is seriously flawed.

What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?

(a) information for the sake of having it, or, (b) information to facilitate action

answer: "B"

High-res aerial photos of rebels holding the Boeing Wichita plant are totally useless if there are no assets available to engage those rebels; which is the point of neutralizing government ground forces before beginning direct action.

I sincerely don't know how to make this clearer or more concise since this is a question you keep bringing up and, when a rational answer is proffered, respond with a maniacal, screamed insult.

Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now. Seriously.

[saxitoxin]

In my OP, Woodruff, I was discussing how an insurgent force could overcome 1.2 million ground troops. Was I not 100% inclusive for failing to add in 3,000 USAF operators? Yes. Was I also inconclusive for not accounting for whatever SOC units the Coast Guard undoubtedly has? Sure. Does NOAA also have some kind of armed security element that could, potentially, be used to engage insurgents? I don't know but they very well might.

Do I feel, what was intended to be, a broadly stated point - versus an operational plan ready for execution - is mitigated at all for saying ~1,200,000 instead of ~1,203,012? Not really.

Sax, aggregating numbers like that to estimate effectiveness and power would lead to false conclusions.

That's correct. Your average U.S. Army infantryman is more effective than 20 armed civilians.

So, an insurrection should not attempt to engage the U.S. military in a set-piece battle.

Some method of neutralizing the Army and Marines would first be necessary through civil action, which is a tactic available to a domestic rebellion that adversaries in foreign wars can't employ. The example I gave was a police strike, but it could be any number of things.

Once the Army and Marines have been neutralized, the Air Force is de facto neutralized since the third word in Close Air Support is "support" - if there's nothing on the ground to support there's no CAS. On a macro scale, the only other thing the USAF brings to the table, strategic bombing, won't be used by the USG because its first goal will be conservation of capital.

Your view of the importance of intelligence-gathering is seriously flawed.

What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?

(a) information for the sake of having it, or, (b) information to facilitate action

answer: "B"

High-res aerial photos of rebels holding the Boeing Wichita plant are totally useless if there are no assets available to engage those rebels; which is the point of neutralizing government ground forces before beginning direct action.

I sincerely don't know how to make this clearer or more concise since this is a question you keep bringing up and, when a rational answer is proffered, respond with a maniacal, screamed insult.

Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now. Seriously.

yep, like that

comment 1: X+Y=Z
comment 2: I don't actually have a counter-argument to present but you're wrong and you're stupid and I'm going to keep screaming that until I drown you out.

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

The concept that airpower alone can enforce the national will in low intensity conflicts is very attractive to the US Air Force. It certainly supports the idea that the Air Force ought to be the primary military service of the United States. The problem with Dr. Pape’s example of the effectiveness of airpower as a means of threatening an enemy army, as well as the argument by others that with airpower one can control regions and populations, is that the idealized air-control system described by US Air Force writers never really existed. - James Corun

[Woodruff]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

[saxitoxin]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

Woodruff, this -

Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.

- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.

You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.

[puppydog85]

Stalin, just a quick note. I heard from a respected Air Force researcher (Jeffrey Ethell, but again in air force matters I bow to Woodruff) that the Air Force was vastly underused in Vietnam.

[Woodruff]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

Woodruff, this -

Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.

- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.

You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.

Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.

[puppydog85]

Woodruff,

I am thinking for some reason that the AT-10 Warthog was the best troop support airplane we have.
I was further thinking that the National Guard was in charge of those.

Am I right on those two thoughts?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,

I am thinking for some reason that the AT-10 Warthog was the best troop support airplane we have.
I was further thinking that the National Guard was in charge of those.

Am I right on those two thoughts?

The A-10 is absolutely the best close air support plane we have, and most particularly if the opposition is armored (it's also by far my favorite aircraft, as an aside). The National Guard definitely has some Warthogs, but I would say it's actually about a 50-50 split between the National Guard/Reserves and Active Duty. Why do you ask?

[puppydog85]

I will submit though that this thread is rather ridiculous. Any event sparking a widespread insurrection against the U.S. Government would either have already incapacitated the military (natural disaster/solar flare) or would have them used against the government (super taxation/commie takeover).

But, if for some weird reason they were used against us, then the demonstrated method of overthrowing/disrupting a suppressive occupation is terror (French Resistance/Israelis) via bombings and assassinations. Anyone who thinks they can take on and hold against the full might of the U.S. military has never fought in the dark against someone with night vision/heat sensors and superior weapons/body armor. Idaho is about the only place that could fight toe-to-toe against the U.S. and win. (just my humble opinion here folks)

[patches70]

Woodruff,

I am thinking for some reason that the AT-10 Warthog was the best troop support airplane we have.
I was further thinking that the National Guard was in charge of those.

Am I right on those two thoughts?

AT-10 is a fine aircraft, and the Air National Guards have them in service. The primary user of the AT-10 is still the Air Force, especially considering that the Air National Guards are part of the Air Force. The only ground support aircraft the ANG's use are the AT-10's. (Combat support, that is. ANG has reconnaissance, EW, transport and other logistic aircraft as well).

So on your first thought- Probably yes
Second thought- Sort of

[puppydog85]

I thought that in a ground fight/insurrection that everyone seemed to be talking about a close support airplane was the only one that mattered (I mean if your enemy has no cities to bomb or tanks to fight the F-16 is really just wasting fuel). So if my second supposition was correct then the Air Force was not a major threat.

I got all my info from the son of a guy called Jeff Ethell. If you are into airplanes/air force maybe you knew of him (he died about 10 years ago though).

[Woodruff]

I thought that in a ground fight/insurrection that everyone seemed to be talking about a close support airplane was the only one that mattered (I mean if your enemy has no cities to bomb or tanks to fight the F-16 is really just wasting fuel). So if my second supposition was correct then the Air Force was not a major threat.

The Air Force certainly wouldn't be the major threat, I would agree. Though cities/tanks aren't necessary for bombing to be useful or effective. As well, there are other uses for the aircraft to make them useful.

[saxitoxin]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

Woodruff, this -

Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.

- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.

You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.

Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.

Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.

[Phatscotty]

[Woodruff]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

Woodruff, this -

Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.

- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.

You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.

Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.

Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.

I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. I do wish you'd discuss the subject rather than trolling, though.

[PLAYER57832]

I will submit though that this thread is rather ridiculous. Any event sparking a widespread insurrection against the U.S. Government would either have already incapacitated the military (natural disaster/solar flare) or would have them used against the government (super taxation/commie takeover).

But, if for some weird reason they were used against us, then the demonstrated method of overthrowing/disrupting a suppressive occupation is terror (French Resistance/Israelis) via bombings and assassinations. Anyone who thinks they can take on and hold against the full might of the U.S. military has never fought in the dark against someone with night vision/heat sensors and superior weapons/body armor. Idaho is about the only place that could fight toe-to-toe against the U.S. and win. (just my humble opinion here folks)

None of that is necessary. Our money is in banks.. we work for large corporations. Stop that and we devolve into anarchy pretty quickly.

[saxitoxin]

Anyway, Woodruff's irrational obstinance is fairly doctrinal USAF head-in-the-sand acrobatics. I understand most of this is what he's been told and, on the basis, he trusts it's true even if he has been - thus far - unable to articulate why it's true.

Frankly, I have articulated it quite well. You seem to be the only one having difficulty with it. It is you who seems to be clinging to an irrational obstinance. You should work on that.

Woodruff, this -

Saxi: What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?
Woodruff: Your willingness to continue to overstate this simply shows your desperation to prove that I'm wrong regarding your claims, when I'm not. You should just stop now.

- does not constitute articulation of reasoning.

You have, thus far, been unable or unwilling to articulate an answer to the simplest of questions regarding the utility of intelligence in the absence of a means of actualizing intelligence; you just scream and shout "YOU'RE WRONG!", louder and louder. I understand the reason for this. You have a technician-level understanding. You have been told an answer but have not been explained the theory behind the answer so are unable to cognate beyond the operational situations outlined by whatever Field Manual you're quoting.

Please stop the trolling. It's quite ridiculous.

Three pages after the question is posited and we are still left with nothing more than an empty sack of invective statements. It's good that you don't embarrass easily, Woodruff. Most people in your position would be absolutely beet red in the face right now.

I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. I do wish you'd discuss the subject rather than trolling, though.

Agreed. So, does that mean you'll answer the question now? Or will you, once again, wildly wave your arms in the arm and madly exclaim people are out to get you?

Here it is, for the fourth time:

[Woodruff] What is the ultimate purpose of intelligence?