Slashdot Mirror


Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami

Okian Warrior writes with word that, as of Monday evening, multiple police agencies and the military were "conducting training exercises over Miami and elsewhere in the county. The exercise includes military helicopters firing machine-gun blanks while flying over highways and buildings. This YouTube video shows helicopters strafing highways with blank rounds near the Adrian Arts center. There are reports of similar actions in Houston From the Houston article: 'if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it's only a drill.'" Note: this time, it's not in The Onion.

120 of 1,130 comments (clear)

  1. Provoking by Budgreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trying to provoke the gun nuts into attacking?

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
    1. Re:Provoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With "exercises" of this nature, are you sure the gun nuts are so nuts after all?

    2. Re:Provoking by ByOhTek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes... because in all but a few cases, the weaponry they so desire to protect, is not terribly useful against the military, and is better suited for harassing/abusing minimally defended/hardened targets, like unarmed civilians in medium-large numbers or similarly armed civilians in small numbers.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Provoking by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet, how well is the US Military doing against the Taliban, etc. who are also armed with mostly small arms and some improvised explosive devices?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    4. Re:Provoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. With such limited weapons, they would probably be hiding behind trees and picking off targets of opportunity on their own timetable.

      Seems I've heard of those kind of tactics somewhere before....

    5. Re:Provoking by RoboRay · · Score: 5, Informative

      And defending themselves against other civilians. Firearms are the equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, or simply against the many. If you look at the documentation of incidents, legal gun-owners are almost never the... "abusers" as you put it.

    6. Re:Provoking by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How much of this is because committing another crime means they are an illegal gun owner?

      If I buy a gun legally, then use it to protect my drughouse and in the course of that action kill someone. Will your statistics capture me as a legal gun owner?

    7. Re:Provoking by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Funny

      Calm down citizen. It's just part of our new anti-terrorist Tactical Helicopter Offensive Response program. It's for your protection.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    8. Re:Provoking by sco08y · · Score: 2

      And yet, how well is the US Military doing against the Taliban, etc. who are also armed with mostly small arms and some improvised explosive devices?

      Great once we got the locals on our side.

    9. Re:Provoking by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With "exercises" of this nature, are you sure the gun nuts are so nuts after all?

      What possible excuse is there for doing this over civilians? I can't think of one.

      Even if this is only "training", is there no way they could have painted some roads on the ground out in the desert or something?

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Provoking by bmo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In a time before 9/11, I had this prof...

      Here in RI, we have the Scituate Reservoir, the water source for northern Rhode Island. The land surrounding it is state property. Couple this with the fact that if you grow weed on your land you lose your land (thanks Ronnie!) people either grow indoors or on state/city/town property.

      The National Guard does training flights/drug interdiction over the Reservoir property, at low level, in their ageing Hueys and Cobras. This gets neigbors irate. So much so they call up and complain.

      This is met, more often than not, with flat out denial that there are any helicopters in the area at all. "No sir, we don't have any scheduled flights there today."

      Which was responded to by my prof, who lived in the area, "So if i discharge my gun accidentally, it *won't* hit one of your aircraft? Good to know."

      Flights over his property ceased.

      This could have been just a story, but it was entertaining anyway.

      --
      BMO

    11. Re:Provoking by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is how these statistics are often mangled.
      Like the ones MADD kept for years that made any accident in which any passenger or pedestrian was in any way intoxicated into an alcohol related accident even if the driver was stone cold sober.

    12. Re:Provoking by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I buy a gun legally, then use it to protect my drughouse and in the course of that action kill someone. Will your statistics capture me as a legal gun owner?

      Since being a drug dealer in the first place makes owning a firearm illegal (yes, the background check for every sale by a gun dealer will catch that sort of thing, if you're a known criminal. and if you're not known, it's still illegal and can be used as an additional charge when they catch you - "lying on a Federal form" or some such), I'd say that that makes your case impossible, and the statistics won't make you a legal gun owner, they'll make you one of those guys who bought his gun illegally.

      Note that while it is possible to avoid the background check by buying a gun in a private sale, the law still doesn't recognize you as a "legal gun owner" if you're a criminal, and if the guy who sold you the gun knows this, HE is now a criminal as well....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    13. Re:Provoking by vlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, here's someone never in .mil nor looked at a map. Even wargamers know tanks are dead meat in cities under any circumstances other than a peaceful show of force, and more generally without infantry support they don't last long even in the "open" countryside. Generally speaking tanks vs infantry turns out pretty well for the infantry as a group given identical intelligence / experience / skill. Stupidity or desperation can force infantry into being slaughtered by armor, but it usually doesn't turn out that way. Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits where they are, admittedly, pretty much invincible. Tanks are really good at helping infantry take out a hard position like a machine gun bunker, plus or minus the bunker having some anti-tank rounds or more hilariously anti-tank minefield in the "obvious" firing positions.

      Combined arms only works if... its combined... not just merely exists or deployed separately in complete isolation

      Now what infantry really doesn't like is trained experienced snipers operating defensive at time and place of their choosing on their own very well known turf aka gun nuts.

      Also if you think the supply line for a bunch of, basically, overgrown hunters, is insecure and easy to cut, you surely have never seen an armor supply line. The best way to fight armor (and air!), if you're in no great hurry, is to hide from / avoid / ignore it and go after the fuel / food / water / supply convoys. Hmm sound like a scenario where the US has recently lost the war? A broken tank is basically useless tactically and the MTBF isn't as good as you'd like to think under combat conditions.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    14. Re:Provoking by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

      Problem is the well placed part. It is easier to place the shot when the helicopter is stationary but then it is probably shooting at you or will be shortly. If it is moving you had better be really fucking good at gauging speed and distance because you will need to account for a large amount of drop and lead the thing. To put this in perspective at 400 meters there is probably going to be about 2/3 to 1 meter of drop (rough estimate but good enough) for your bullet. Also at those distances wind starts to play an important role. I have been able to consistently make shots at that distance against pop cans but that was on a day perfect for long distance shooting, hot, high humidity, low barometric pressure, no wind using low drag bullets fired from a Russian ex sniper rifle with a good scope. Toss in some wind and questionable consistency bullets (non match grade) and best of luck having consistent shots.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:Provoking by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "y i.r.id10t" said it, but it deserves saying again.

      In Afghanistan, a bunch of guys with rifles (the weaponry the gun-rights advocates are trying to protect) and improvised explosives have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate for more than 12 years. That's a country of 30M people and about 650K sq km. The contiguous 48 states in the USA are 12X the land area of Afghanistan with 10X the population. What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?

    16. Re:Provoking by bmo · · Score: 2

      It's like I'm really on 4chan.

      --
      BMO

    17. Re:Provoking by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I guess killing your mother to steal her guns is totally a legal way to acquire them...

    18. Re:Provoking by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crap.... Illegal means they magically do not exist and cant be created no matter how hard you try! CURSES!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Provoking by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No excuse necessary, apparently.

      But this is as likely a desensitization exercise. When we're used to our own military overflying us in urban areas we will be less likely to ask 'why?' Since our military is supposed (as in -used to be-) to not be operating against us as citizens, this is important. Get us to accept that, and a giant hurdle is overcome.

      And gunfire would be a logical next step. I see they combined the two, very efficient.

      Seriously, I've joked for years that I will buy another gun when my government tells me I can't have one. I should not wait, for that is too late.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    20. Re:Provoking by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      We can put up at least as much fight as any group of Somalis. Even with shotguns and the odd .300 Savage. Save the .30-06 for more dire circumstances.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    21. Re:Provoking by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was an interesting observation, thank you. I have long been concerned about this observation of Orwell:

      And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak.

      This is from an article he wrote about the atom bomb. When I look at the rising expense and sophistication of modern militaries, and at the neo-colonialism my own dear patria and its allies seem willing to engage in, the future looks quite dark. But the cheapness and effectiveness of modern small arms and guerrilla tactics may be just coming into its own.

      There is a scenario where the new possibilities for independence may not lie with people but with large organizations like governments. What makes it possible for asymmetrical warfare to be successful on the part of the weaker defender is that he is able to inflict asymmetical costs on the attacker. Drones may be changing that. If drones do not also find their way into private hands, like small arms, or if they don't turn out to be easily hackable, then future wars will rarely involve liabilities like tanks. In several countries the U.S. in involved in, this is already the case.

    22. Re:Provoking by Antipater · · Score: 3, Funny

      The ammo box was a viable option at some point in our history. I don't know when it stopped being so, but it definitely isn't now.

      I'd say it was sometime around April 9, 1865.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    23. Re:Provoking by zakkie · · Score: 2

      With very few exceptions, that's unlikely. A person used to luxury, comfort and abundance versus a person who fights daily for survival whether in an actual physical confrontation or merely by having to go out and get water or food - not much smart money will be on the pasty-face keyboard warrior, even if he's got some fancy firearm.

    24. Re:Provoking by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe they're illegal in Afghanistan too.

      Drugs are illegal in the US.

      Point?

    25. Re:Provoking by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      beware of THOR's hammer. its been upgraded.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    26. Re:Provoking by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a friend who worked in a factory that built many of our combat helicopters. She said movies always frustrated her, because everyone shot at the cockpit trying to kill the pilot. She said that glass is pretty well armored against small arms fire. And that they should shoot the rotors. Rotors are fragile. If they get damaged, they become unbalanced and will tear themselves apart.

    27. Re:Provoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"

      As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.

      1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.

      2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.

      3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.

      4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.

      "Combined arms only works if... its combined... "

      Yes. That also applies to the infantry.

      So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.

      Good luck, pal.

    28. Re:Provoking by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Funny

      What happens when those citizens start shooting back?

      It's not like Miami is an unarmed area.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    29. Re:Provoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ask stalin how he pacified the USSR which was the heaviest armed society in the world at the time.

    30. Re:Provoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the defectors that don't want to kill their own families.

      How'd that work out in every other civil war in the history of man?

    31. Re:Provoking by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Even wargamers know tanks are dead meat in cities under any circumstances other than a peaceful show of force, and more generally without infantry support they don't last long even in the "open" countryside.

      I think dead meat may be a bit of an exaggeration, depending on who it is fighting against. Modern tanks (e.g. the Challenger II---the Abrams is somewhat older) are quite resistant to a variety of ordnance. Apparently they are essentially immune to RPG7s now (surviving 70 hits). While not invulnerable, none of those has been knocked out by enemy action, though the occupants have been injured.

      One of the devices was an RPG 29 which being a tandem charge device is much. much harder to improvise.

      Stupidity or desperation can force infantry into being slaughtered by armor, but it usually doesn't turn out that way.

      Well, yes, but like how suppressing fire isn't expected to kill anyone they are there to stop the infantry doing something that would get them killed.

      Your points generally stand, though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:Provoking by dave420 · · Score: 2

      It is conceivable they are practicing for doing this over foreign cities, which obviously they can't do in training. Yes, they could paint lines in the desert, but that won't exactly provide the same setting as a city drenched in neon and full of tall buildings at night, would it? The police are involved, but then they would have to be if distractions such as these are happening in a crowded city - I've not seen it written anywhere that the police are actually practicing the same thing as the military.

      I'm the first one to doubt the intentions of the US military, but there really are simple explanations for this which first have to be discounted before leaping to the conclusion that it is planning for attacks on US citizens at home. That's what critical thinking is all about.

    33. Re:Provoking by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?

      much bigger targets

    34. Re:Provoking by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We (civilians) already have basic drone capability - at least via RC enthusiasts. For example, my local hacker-space put together a UAV. I could easily see that being used to drop a wad of C4 (which I'm sure they could manufacture) somewhere to cause some damage.

      If the shackles were removed (law enforcement and FAA) I'm sure progress in this area would speed immensely. Especially given suitable need.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    35. Re:Provoking by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      So, because old people fuck up in traffic too, we should look at preventing people from driving?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    36. Re:Provoking by fuzzybunny · · Score: 2

      If you're in a position where you are trying to win it, you've already lost. You need to make it too uneconomical to happen in the first place. That's the point.

      An armed population is not a war-winner against a modern military. It's a deterrent against a government ever disregarding the will of enough people to spark a civil war. The people advocating armed resistance to the government are a small crackpot minority. If it ever came down to serious fighting, that would mean you'd have pissed off a really large portion of your population. Isn't it better to just avoid that in the first place?

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    37. Re:Provoking by locketine · · Score: 2

      Afghanistan was costly for the USSR because they were fighting rebels armed with the latest US military hardware and training. Check out "Charlie Wilson's War" for the docudrama about the conflict.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
    38. Re:Provoking by asylumx · · Score: 2

      I guess those guns were sure useful in her personal defense.

    39. Re:Provoking by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They wouldn't be killing American citizens, they would be killing "Terrorists". And they probably don't have the time between one mission and another to try and check if the orders were actually right.
      And their families would be likely in entirely another part of the US. Those giving orders, be their accurate or evil, are not dumb.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    40. Re:Provoking by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That "hearts and minds" thing is complete and utter bullshit. I sorta believed in that shit when I was a boot, fresh out of boot camp. Sorta. That wore off, though.

      YOU DO NOT WIN HEARTS AND MINDS BY MARCHING ARMED GRUNTS AROUND FOREIGN CITIES AND COUNTRIES!!

      Either you were genuinely, openly invited to be there - or you're an invader. Invaders aren't loved anywhere. Hearts and minds are dead set against invaders, always and forever.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    41. Re:Provoking by vlm · · Score: 2

      I think you're confusing tanks with APCs. APCs are full of infantry who have nothing better to do. Tanks don't have holes in their armor (well, not like that anyway) and the crew is too busy doing "stuff" to shoot at infantry. APCs are troop carriers. Generally lightly armored (as in, shell fragment proof but you don't want to put them up against tanks or heavy caliber). M1A1 vs a Bradley.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    42. Re:Provoking by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      Just tell them they're terrorists, that they're "anti-american", and all that stuff. For every person with a spine, not to mention brains, there are 10 bootlickers.

      I don't know about you, but I was witness via video to George Bush being told about about an attack on America, and the person who told him that immediately stepping back (not waiting for any reaction or orders), while Bush kept reading about goats. That right there proved the president of the USA is a mere puppet with exactly nothing to decide, but I don't recall much hesitation of the armed forces to "follow" their commander in chief into attacking Iraq, a totally random country considering the context. Now there's Mr. Hope & Change with his kill lists and drone strikes. I can't wait to see the next one in the queue.

      But sure, if it just gets worse enough... well, I don't believe it anymore. I don't see the human material capable of any of this. As long as there are other people or so-called obligations to hide behind, people will do that. By the time that's not an option anymore, it's too late. People in general have Stockholm Syndrome, soldiers doubly so.

    43. Re:Provoking by reasterling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mod parent up. This is one of the most insightful post I have seen. There is no way that shooting blanks over our own cities (or real bullets in foreign cities) is going to make anyone love our government or the millitary. Our millitary has testing grounds to fire real bullets at. The only reason to perform this exercise over civilians is to get some form of reaction from the civilian. It has worked. There are now many of us who believe that those who previously were considered crazy, are infact right. I am now convenced that our government is actively against us. Who could have imagined that the day would come when I would be affraid of my own government?

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
    44. Re:Provoking by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right back to my original "Stupidity or desperation can force infantry into being slaughtered by armor, but it usually doesn't turn out that way"

      Yes, when standing in an empty field and throwing rocks, or an unarmed refugee column, infantry have a rough time of it vs tanks

      The ideal way to fight a tank is not to make a better tank out of hardware store parts and then slug it out on fair ground fighting tank style using tank rules. Now yes yes you are correct a M1A1 can actually do that and win vs an old T-72. But that's not the point.

      One thing will stop a tank dead in the city... a bedsheet. Whats behind that sheet... hmm. You can fire a round to clear, but sheets are cheaper than rounds and the ammo supply truck is unarmored and the sound of a tank firing does kind of give away your position. Its fun to pile junk up in the road and make a roadblock, especially since who knows what is under the pile that can go boom if you crash into it. Also you're going to freeze for a second thinking about it, great time for the opposition to... Also throwing tracks isn't very hard to do and hardware stores are full of tough tangly stuff. Tanks burn pretty well too and the underbelly armor isn't very impressive although layers of sandbags help. Really all you need to do is blow a track off and its all over, you hardly need to vaporize the entire hull. Regardless of whatever else, the crew eventually have to get out of the tin can, we have no armored fuel tankers that I know of, etc. Yes combined arms action with infantry helps with these tank-busting tactics. But then you're right back to snipers popping infantry on their home ground and you're making the infantry less effective than sending them in without the tanks.

      I think we're rather talking at cross points. The original claim was tanks are a magic silver bullet. I say they aren't. You say they're really very capable tanks. I say, yeah, but they're still tanks, not silver bullets. Not sure where we'll go from here.

      Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.

      LOL you pop the first one and the last one to block them into the narrow city street in an ambush and then the real fun begins. Again this is one of those things where doing something dumb in an open field probably won't turn out well, but the professionals can pretty much have their way with the tanks as long as its on their own schedule.

      Warfare is all about position rather than specs. Get in the right position and you win. True, the specs might limit the "proper" position, but it always exists.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    45. Re:Provoking by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What was he supposed to do? Stop reading to the kids, stand up, and say "Children, I must save the United States! Begone!"? Or, "Aircraft have hit the World Trade Center, we don't know anything else, we don't know why"? The only important order that day was the one that grounded all flights immediately, given by the head of the FAA.

      Look, just because you can't figure out that there might have been a real geopolitical reason to invade Iraq doesn't mean there wasn't one. See, we were already in Afghanistan at the time. And Iraq was totally a target of opportunity - we had a very good excuse to invade them, and they just happened to be the country on the other side of Iran, which was the one we wanted to operate against anyway (because it's definitely operating against us) but didn't have an excuse to invade. The original Afghan campaign was a brilliant piece of work, and if we hadn't let the fucking nannies get involved (oh no! don't let them grow drugs on their land! make them grow something that earns a third as much, that will work!) it would have continued to work. The point of Afghanistan wasn't to take the country - you can't - it was to deny it to the Taliban, which is a small and sensible goal that actually could be accomplished. Iraq turned out badly, but it wasn't without its successes - it certainly brought Libya to heel. And yes, we did it to help protect the Saudis, who are disgusting human beings who nonetheless control a vital component of the world economy. Well, they did. With fracking and oil sands, it is increasingly looking like North America is the energy capital of the world, so we can ignore those thugs and let them go on ahead with what amounts to the Wars of the Ottoman Succession.

    46. Re:Provoking by RearNakedChoke · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"

      As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.

      1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.

      2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.

      3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.

      4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.

      "Combined arms only works if... its combined... "

      Yes. That also applies to the infantry.

      So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.

      Good luck, pal.

      Nobody in their right mind would attack a tank head-on. The M1 has TERRIBLE fuel efficiency. It eats 1.7 gallons per mile, 10 gallons to start up and 10 gallons per hour idling. You attack the logistics of the tank - its supply convoys.

      100 abrams? The US is a big country, with thousands of cities. We don't have enough M1s to put 100 M1s in every city and every point of conflict. On major battle fronts, sure. But we're not talking about a war between nations, we're talking about civil war. And you'd be naive to think that every tank platoon, with families and friends are going to all fight for the same side.

    47. Re:Provoking by Applekid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Breaking my rule responding but how many in the military do you think will carry out orders to attack and kill American citizens?
      I know the oath they and I took says to defend the constitution not trample all over it.

      If it came down to that I think a lot would develop a backbone and "just say no" as it is their families and friends in the kill zones also.

      100%.

      All that has to be done is declare those American citizens terrorists. Or drug dealers. Or pedophiles. If all your squad mates go along with it, or at least you think they will, you will too or else YOU will be appropriately labelled. That's the power of mob mentality, and the secret motivation behind "we're just following orders." Because if you stand alone you get a bullet in your back. It's a brotherhood, right? You gotta trust your team?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    48. Re:Provoking by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      "We could have killed the Taliban already if we were willing to just level any settlement in the country, but that isn't good PR."

      Could we, now? You're certain of that?

      Osama stood and duked it out with our forces, for awhile, in the Tora Bora hills. He and his forces dug in, and basically invited us to come get him. We were unable and/or unwilling to get down and dirty with him, going hand-to-hand in the trenches. Osama bragged that American soldiers had no stomach for man-to-man combat. We sat back, and shelled his positions, never venturing out to make personal contact.

      I don't know about individual soldiers on the front line - maybe THEY were willing to go. But, our leaders had no balls.

      Saying that "we could have killed" is easy. Going out and killing is a whole different story.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    49. Re:Provoking by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Worked pretty OK in 1946 - see the Battle of Athens, Tn

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    50. Re:Provoking by KagakuNinja · · Score: 2

      All Bush had to do on 9/11 was "look presidential". Sitting in a fucking classroom for 7.5 minutes listening to kids read "My Pet Goat" was not the actions of a true leader. All he had to do was politely excuse himself, and get into his armored limo and drive somewhere, and he didn't even have the balls to do that. The reality is that listening to kids read books is what vice presidents and first ladies normally do The fact that Dick Cheney was back in Washington D.C. while Bush Jr was being flown around the country to "undisclosed locations" tells you everything you need to know about who was really running the country.

    51. Re:Provoking by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Russia, at the time, wasn't rich enough to be in the top 10 most heavily armed societies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    52. Re:Provoking by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Because it has no legitimate civilian use.

      Sure it does - long range (1km and beyond) sniping, for sporting purposes and entertainment.

      and it's not reasonable for civilians to be owning military weapons.

      Why not, if nothing bad comes of it?

      By the way, if you insist on everything that everyone owns having a "legitimate use", why don't you start with the inventory of your own house? Anything that does not have a legitimate use, you clearly don't need, so we'll take that away from you. What's "legitimate", we'll decide by a Slashdot poll.

    53. Re:Provoking by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it comes to the point of a civil war, the people involved with the most guns are people precisely like you: people with both training and actual combat experience. There are more ex-military than there are military, so even without a single active military defection (probability zero), there will still be more of you than there are of them. It will be people like you who are doing the fighting, because you have decided the people giving orders have well and truly gone completely batshit insane and thrown out the Constitution.

      At which point, there will be very few operational tanks left, in short order. YOU have training for how to deal with tanks, supported by infantry or not. Yes, the modern Abrams is a tour de force of technology. Its armor is so ridiculously effective that the story of an Abrams attempting to destroy another, disabled Abrams and FAILING has been heard even on Slashdot. But they are still vulnerable. The machine guns have only so many rounds, and they will run out of rounds long before the opposition runs out of bedsheets (or whatever gimmick you thought up).

      Or perhaps you don't have training for how to deal with tanks. I find that odd. Because there wasn't anything goofy about his "the real fun begins" statement. Sure, it's damn hard to break through tank armor with kinetic rounds. So duh, don't attack them kinetically. Attack them chemically.

      Thermite is trivial to make in large quantities in any machine shop, and no armor in the world will stop it if you have enough of it. But you don't even have to get that exotic. Napalm or something that acts just like it is even more trivial to manufacture, and in truly vast quantities. Disable the front and rear tanks in a column in tight quarters and they're sitting ducks to be coated in as much napalm as you can loft at them. Will it kill them immediately? No. Will they break down buildings and escape from the column? Some of them will. Some of them who try will get stuck in basements, nose in a hole. (Yes the tank commanders are supposed to know better, but mistakes will be made.) And all of them will be radically reduced in capability. No, you're not going to burn through the hull with napalm, but you're going to completely disable the thermal imaging sensors instantly, and utterly destroy them shortly thereafter. Likewise the robotic aiming system for the machine guns is going to go out fairly quickly too. Hell, the weapon itself is likely to be disabled when the heat starts to distort the shell casings of its own ammunition, jamming it. And eventually, you will kill the tank, simply by cooking its occupants.

      No, the tanks are not an issue. The tanks can be taken out with materials available at your local gas station and warehouse, delivered with nothing more sophisticated than muscle power. Add a delivery system even a tiny bit more sophisticated than muscle power (like say a pump and a hose, activated remotely) and you dramatically improve the survivability of the attackers, too.

      No, the problem would be all the shit that flies. A handgun isn't going to hit much of anything in the air and the number of people capable of hitting even a low-flying drone with a rifle is pretty damn small too. Anti-aircraft guns aren't all that effective even when professionally made, and they have serious problems with ceilings. And missiles are anything but easy to build. No, I wouldn't worry about tanks. UAVs, on the other hand...

      But again, you're stupid if you're trying to attack them kinetically. So there's a UAV after you. Jam the fuck out of its control systems. Any ham radio operator worth his callsign could deafen a drone long enough to crash it. A really good one can probably confuse it enough to induce a crash. And now you have missiles of your own, to use on the tanks. Ok, so you don't have the codes to arm and fire it conventionally, but you might be able to jerry-rig something if you spend enough time with the wirecutters. Failing that, you still have the warhead. Extra

    54. Re:Provoking by Bensam123 · · Score: 2

      I think some people have been playing too many games. The other poster was correct in asserting infantry have relatively little chance of defeating a modern tank without some serious anti-tank gear. You can still hide from them, which is hard with thermal sights (sheets wouldn't block a thermal sight), but generally it's hard to defeat one. It's not as simple as shooting one with a AT rifle or a RPG, none of those things are effective against tanks anymore. Even land mines (which are illegal even for military use as they maim individuals), generally aren't powerful enough to even disable one.

      A M1A2 or T-90 is not the same as a Sherman from WW2, which seems to be what a lot of people think modern tanks are. There is a gross difference in firepower, armor, utility, and versatility and it's almost sick to make people think they can defeat one with a improvised explosive.

      Even if you block a city street, tanks always have the option of driving THROUGH a building or simply plowing through the roadblock.

  2. This is why by glueball · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there's a second amendment.

    1. Re:This is why by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to admit, this is more than a little bit sinister. Even if it's not, using civilian infrastructure to conduct fire training exercises is extremely irresponsible. I mean what if someone on the ground had panicked and crashed their car?

    2. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You clearly know nothing about American history.
      Start reading the Federalist papers. Just a few pages at a time since it will be difficult for you to understand.

    3. Re:This is why by DeDmeTe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What if someone on the ground started shooting back?

      --
      -Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
    4. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you should ask an American Indian.

      If you can find one.

    5. Re:This is why by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a sweet spot between paranoia and complacency in which all reasonable men should dwell.

      The State is a wild animal that must be kept on a leash, yet can do great good when properly trained and handled correctly.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:This is why by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      more importantly what's the possible benefit ? ? ?

      why train like this? they could be training in nevada with live ammo. is the point to litter shell casings everywhere? (I'm aware that systems can be fitted that catch casings as they're extracted).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:This is why by Velex · · Score: 2

      No, it is not.

      Wha? Huh? What part of

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      don't you understand?

      This, by the way, is the language where they talk about a state-sponsored army in the enumerated powers of congress:

      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

      Now granted, there's this bit:

      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

      Except I can't help but to read that the power of the president to be "Commander in Chief of the... Militia" in a kind of jury nullification sense. Just because a judge says you have to convict if so-and-so is presented as evidence, doesn't mean a damned if that jury really doesn't want to convict. The power to rebuke authority is built into the system.

      The only thing I don't understand is why the Militia doesn't work the same way as in Switzerland (or why feminists have no interest in being part of said Militia, but that's another topic entirely). The only ambiguity that's often raised is whether the National Guard constitutes said well-regulated militia. It's unclear since service isn't universal (or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms).

      Although in order to really get any context, you need to read the federalist and anti-federalist papers where it becomes apparent that most of the founders recognize that an armed populace is the only real check against the office of president or the government as a whole becoming a tyranny.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    8. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called blind trust, and he's certainly not alone. He will never accept that "his" government could become tyrannical and turn against him.

    9. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      An automatic weapon won't fire a blank without an attachment called a "BFA". If you fire real ammo with a BFA attached, you will have a very bad accident which will destroy the weapon and likely injure the person firing it, but likely not the person being aimed at (if any). At any rate, only one round will fire.

    10. Re:This is why by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only ambiguity that's often raised is whether the National Guard constitutes said well-regulated militia. It's unclear since service isn't universal (or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms).

      Read the Militia Act, and it's pretty clear that the Guard isn't the Militia.

      The line "every able-bodied male..." is pretty clearly NOT the Guard.

      And I agree - why don't the feminists insist on being included in the militia?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:This is why by sherpajohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love the fella who says something to the effect of "if its to protect the kids I'm all for it". Right. Miltary helicopters to protect schoolchildren. you people really are fucking looney aren't you?

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    12. Re:This is why by Sentrion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good point. Any time I hear how magnificent, holy, Christian, or righteous our nation is or was, I just invoke the names of many of the native American tribes who were driven into desolate reservations in deserts and badlands that white immigrants couldn't grow corn on. I love how wealthy white people complain when they lose their homes to squatters that laws such as "adverse possession" are immoral, antiquated, and should be repealed. But adverse possession is a cornerstone of our democracy. Without such laws we would have to give it all back to the people we took it from.

      It was old white men who put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution, but defending your limited rights against a powerful government is something I'll support any day. It doesn't mean that the armed citizen will always win, but arms and the potential use of force allows people a stronger negotiating position. The US Cavalry couldn't "tame" the West until the introduction of the Gattling gun, which had a higher rate of fire and ammo capacity than any over-the-counter assault rifle you can buy today.

      But if native peoples with rifles on horsebackwere no threat to US interests then I guarantee we would not have so many treaties that are still in effect today. Many people don't realize that on native lands state law does not apply. Reservations function as independent nations except that only Federal laws are enforced, and even such Federal enforcement is very rare.

    13. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, it will fire with blanks. gas operated systems won't cycle. i only bring this up because the military has electrically opperated weapons that will cycle without a muzzle device

    14. Re:This is why by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Around here, they are all behind the table, dealing blackjack or raking the table.

      Just another jail.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re:This is why by jbo5112 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too late, Obama has already taken aim at US citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan), holding them guilty and assassinating w/o trial. It just hasn't happened to a US citizen on US soil. Keep taking your blue pills if you want, but it doesn't change the truth.

    16. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On top of that, I couldn't find any NOTAMs (notice to airmen) for pilots about the operation. You would think that notification would be required in Class B airspace, especially if gunfire was involved. Lack of communication makes this operation suspect as a "training op".

    17. Re:This is why by slashmydots · · Score: 2

      I'd at least shoot blanks back at them. You know, up the realism a bit, lol.

    18. Re:This is why by morcego · · Score: 2

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      please note there is no comma in that part its a single statement

      Actually, that is an interesting case. It did have a comma when it was approved/passed by the congress.

      See: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

      --
      morcego
    19. Re:This is why by dcollins · · Score: 3, Informative

      So by pointing to the Militia Acts of 1792, you must agree that the scope of the militia is subject to definition by the Congress. Also you must agree that: (a) some people can be exempted from the militia, e.g., congressmen, stagecoach drivers, ferryboatmen; (b) mandatory twice-a-year-training by state officers can be a requirement; (c) the militia is directed by the state legislatures and subject federal control in times of war; and (d) those disobeying orders are subject to Court Martial.

      Finally and mostly importantly, the revised Militia Act of 1903 specifically does establish the National Guard as the recognized militia in the United States, and it has the exact same legal standing that the earlier Militia Acts had in prior years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    20. Re:This is why by TheSync · · Score: 2

      LAPD chopper shot down, "The apparent shooter eventually was subdued by his family members, Villanueva said. A semi-automatic rifle was recovered, he said."

    21. Re:This is why by grantspassalan · · Score: 2

      All of the alphabet soup of modern weapons is totally irrelevant. When the Constitution was written, there was absolutely no difference between weapons carried by Army infantryman and the weapons owned by the common civilians. The colonial army had a shortage of weapons. Therefore many civilians who joined the military, brought their own weapons, which had generally been used for hunting before the Revolutionary war. The British even accused the Americans of unfair fighting, because they used the more accurate rifles, rather than the old muskets the British had.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
    22. Re:This is why by RogL · · Score: 2

      The argument I usually see is that when they wrote the amendment they never envisioned something as deadly as a machine gun, tank, or nuclear missile. However, the perspective I feel is relevant, which I never see discussed, is that the people had the same weapons as the state. We may view a musket as a museum piece, but when the Constitution and Bill or Rights were ratified, it was cutting-edge killing technology, and that is what the Federal Government could not touch.

      It gets more interesting than that: way bigger weapons than muskets.
      At the time, there were privately-held cannon & warships.
      Look up what "privateers" were.

      If you can afford it, you should be able to get a permit for your own fully-armed PT boat (or whatever the current equivalent is). Guard the dock with some artillery pieces and you're all set.

  3. Don't Worry by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't worry, we're the government, we're here to help.

    Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
    Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who the hell thought this was a good idea?

    1. Re:Really? by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      They were going to hold the exercises at a military base, but when they heard they could be TV stars on the season finale of Burn Notice, well they just couldn't turn down such an opportunity.

  5. waste of money by C0R1D4N · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, lets waste money prepping for Red Dawn. The US has not been at risk of invasion for two centuries.

    1. Re:waste of money by SJHillman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We haven't been at risk even though we were invaded in the 1940's?
      Granted, it was a remote part of Alaska, but it's still enemy troops on our soil.

      A Soviet invasion was also not that far out of the questions in the decades following WWII either.

    2. Re:waste of money by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

      Ever hear of the Zimmerman Letter?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    3. Re:waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      October 30, 1938. Never forget.

    4. Re:waste of money by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      A Soviet invasion was also not that far out of the questions in the decades following WWII either.

      Only if you consider an alien invasion not too far out of the question. The Soviets never really had any significant long range sealift or logistics capability*, or the aircraft carrier capability to provide the cover and support such an invasion would require.

      * They pretty much had just enough to support a proxy war so long as they had access to an unopposed port (I.E. Haiphong), and that's about it.

    5. Re:waste of money by downhole · · Score: 2

      I'd say completely out of the question. They would have to completely conquer all of continental Europe first, because it would be insane to devote most of your military capability somewhere halfway across the world while powerful enemies are sitting right next door. The US would go all-in on that fight too, because we know perfectly well that the Soviet conquest of Europe would tilt the odds way in their favor for a more direct conflict with the US. Then, they would need complete control over both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the skies above them, and the skies above the US coasts, since ground forces on ships are highly vulnerable to sea and air attack. Meaning essentially the complete destruction of the US and all allied navies, and the bulk of the Air Force as well, which they have zero credible capability of doing. I don't think the Soviet Navy ever had any ambition for doing anything beyond closing the Atlantic to bulk shipping from the US to Europe in the event of a major war in Western Europe, and even doing that is far from certain.

      Only after doing all of those nearly impossible things without triggering a nuclear war (also probably impossible) would they have a chance at trying to land troops in the continental US and dealing with the millions of small arms in civilian hands... after the Army throws everything they've got at them, of course.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
  6. Did someone think this was a good idea? by bhartman34 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, so you have helicopters buzzing around and strafing highways with blanks in Die Hard-esque fashion, in highly populated areas.

    Oh, yeah. Nothing could possibly go wrong there, right?

    1. Re:Did someone think this was a good idea? by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      Chuck Norris used to do this to Dallas all the time back in the 90s.

  7. take that trailblazers fans by alen · · Score: 4, Funny

    if you watch the video, RTFA, the trailblazers were in town. the cops were just shooting their fans

  8. Re:What the fuck... by oobayly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somebody's obviously fucked up. You don't advertise that your training for a coup d'état

  9. At least it wasnt REAL. by lemur3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of the 2004 incident where the bullets were live.

    somehow the pilot was miles off course when he started shooting...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/nyregion/05strafe.html

    The Air National Guard warplane, flying a night training mission out of Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, fired a burst of 27 rounds from its 20-millimeter cannon shortly before 10:15 p.m. as it streaked over Little Egg Harbor Township, 20 miles north of Atlantic City, New Jersey military officials said last night

    1. Re:At least it wasnt REAL. by cusco · · Score: 2

      The F-111s at Clovis AFB had some sort of navigational issue back in the '70s where they would get off course for their practice target zone and end up 20 or 30 miles away. Pilots would assume that the building they saw was the target and drop their cement bomb. One house in Colorado got bombed three times before the Air Farce finally just bought the owners out. My friend who worked on the avionics systems blamed the navigational computer manufacturer, but I don't know what the basis of his complaint was.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  10. Re:desensitising? by vlm · · Score: 2

    I donno if that really works. In addition to Miami and Houston, there's also machine gun fire in Detroit and Baltimore today, although thats BAU people still duck anyway.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  11. Re:What the fuck... by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally the "don't spend my money"ers are actually "don't spend my money except on things that cause violent death"ers.
    They're all for a huge bloated military.

    That being said. W.T.F. I have to agree with the GP... What the hell kind of reason do they have firing, even blanks in public areas like this. If it wasn't very well marked all over the place "military training exercise", I sure as hell hope someone gets fired/jailed for this idiocy.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  12. Re:Food for thought... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who controls those choppers? It's Obama going to war, conservatives are purely defensive. Incidents like this are "sending a message", we WILL fire on you.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  13. More food for thought for the mentally starved by PseudoCoder · · Score: 2

    It IS, in fact, possible to wage an effective and persistent guerrilla war against the U.S. Armed Forces. You have multiple theaters of operations as clear evidence.

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    1. Re:More food for thought for the mentally starved by radiumsoup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      wait, who said that members of the military would actually be *willing* to fight a war against other Americans? I'd wager you'd see the shortest war in history as the front line troops would simply refuse to fire. Key leaders would resign before giving the orders to fight, and the infrastructure would then either A. fall into unmanageable chaos or B. constrict and lock down into a state of paralysis. Either way, it's not going to be an effective force, even if it gets far enough to (unconsitutionally) deploy troops.

    2. Re:More food for thought for the mentally starved by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Kent State experience shows that to the contrary - front line troops will be willing and eager to fire, if necessary on unarmed civilians.

    3. Re:More food for thought for the mentally starved by alphatel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I actually thought of that when I posted, but it's really quite a different thing to take policing action at a violent, arson-fueled riot than it would be to invade Denver with tanks, as had been suggested in a post above. Would there be a few hotheads in fear of their lives claiming self defense, like at Kent? Sure, probably... but a planned "invasion" against Americans? Not gonna happen. Cooler heads would prevail.

      The cooler heads didn't prevail for Aaron Swartz did they? Nor at the invasion of Iraq, nor at the congressional level to spy on Americans. What makes you think these people won't authorize the full use of force against the population of Detroit because of a few bad apples protesting? What did the US Government collect on the Occupy protesters and why won't they tell us? Why let police in riot gear pepper spray protesters who are sitting still? Did you forget all these things already? You did because we (all of us), have collectively moved onto the latest new thing. Why would you trample on the rights of Americans?

      Because you can. Only later do you actually have some court "review" it if it ever gets there. Dead Americans is a guarantee. When, where and how much is the only unknown.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    4. Re:More food for thought for the mentally starved by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      of course it could be done and i'd wager $1000 that there already plans similar to what i say sitting in a file cabinet somewhere.

      do it the same way every totalitarian government does, by using soldiers with existing general hostilities to the population they will be suppressing

      send the bible belt soldiers to police the godless liberal traitors in california
      send the black soldiers to police the cracka racists in the south
      send the northeastern soldiers to police the whackjob traitors in the midwest
      send the deep southern soldiers to police the coward yankee bastards up north.

      if the soldiers you send to each area, blame the people from that area for starting "all of this" they will for the most part follow their orders as long as said orders are not profoundly outrageous "go machinegun some peaceful civillians" but an order to "keep that riot under control, and by the way rules of engagement allow automatic weapons and hand grenades if your life is in danger" will work just fine.

      Also at the beginning you keep the rules of engagement too strict and the patrols too small and too sparse until something happens to one of them.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  14. Re:What the fuck... by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is exactly what I was thinking. Just what is it they're training for?

    Iran most likely. I recently finished "A year amongst the Persians" by edward granville brown (a (free) librivox recording) and if I were trying to pick a piece of american geography like Iran they could do worse than Houston. The miami connection is probably more to do with size/road architecture than climate. Although Miami is a 3rd world city, at least in parts, which might help with training.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  15. What happened to our usual training grounds? by VinylRecords · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our military has enormous lands throughout the U.S. including large areas of forest and desert and even uninhabited towns and cities built specifically for training exercises. The government was building lots of little makeshift towns just to blow them up with nuclear weapons during the cold war. You can find lots of videos of the government testing bombs in massive stretches of the desert. I've taken weapons training on SWAT courses that are like little ghost towns where the instructors have makeshift bridged built all over the course where they can walk above you and take notes on where you messed up something.

    It's one thing to have military planes fly over civilian airspace. You have to test these planes traveling for hundreds of miles so of course they'll eventually have to fly over some commercial airspace. Or to have security training exercises be done and rehearsed at an event before it happens. Like the security teams that are not rehearsing the Super Bowl security at the actual stadium. But low flying helicopters? Shooting blanks at civilians and civilian vehicles? What possible reason could there be for that?

    What's next? Armed soldiers patrolling the streets shooting blanks at people on the sidewalk? Why not? It's a perfectly safe exercise that won't cause panic at all.

    "Hey it's just a training exercise...now put that cellphone camera down or we'll have to detain you. Now go home and watch American Gladiators and go back to bed".

    Imagine the fun it's going to be when armed soldiers start firing blanks and some civilian has no idea what is going on and fires back. Or when people start panicking and cause a riot. I'm all for keeping a well trained military....but using our own people as the targets? What kind of self respecting soldier went on this mission without protesting it?

    1. Re:What happened to our usual training grounds? by tippe · · Score: 2

      > What kind of self respecting soldier went on this mission without protesting it?
      Are you serious? I'm not in the military but even I know that the first thing soldiers are trained is to not question orders. Self respect has nothing to do with it.

    2. Re:What happened to our usual training grounds? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Well, the TSA tries the 'FREEZE' tactic in ariports. It sure feels like obedience training.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:What happened to our usual training grounds? by thepike · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it brings back American Gladiators I might have to allow it

    4. Re:What happened to our usual training grounds? by sgtrock · · Score: 2

      Soldiers are trained from day one to obey orders without questioning them. If your officer commands you to shoot, you shoot.

      Actually, that's not quite accurate. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are all trained to obey LEGAL orders. And yes, a fair amount of time is spent in boot camp going over the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) to make sure that every recruit has a basic understanding of it.

      In the case of personal doubt as to the illegality of an order, the recommendation we heard was to obey the orders of a superior and report the incident to higher authority at the earliest possible opportunity. There's also the right to demand that an order be given in a written fashsion so that a written protest can be documented at the same time. (Rarely used, though, as it is pretty much a career ending move.)

      However, taking those actions does not necessarily absolve the individual if it can be shown that the junior should have known that orders in question were illegal. e.g., the only people who received any significant punishment when Abu Ghraib came to light were the junior personnel.

      Yes, there are miscarriages of justice within the system. Given the amount of sheer, brazen corruption we're seeing lately within the DoJ, I'd say that the odds of a fair hearing nowadays may actually be better in a military court!

    5. Re:What happened to our usual training grounds? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      What kind of self respecting soldier went on this mission without protesting it?

      What kind of self respecting pilot would have shot down a passenger airliner on 9/11 (or dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima)?

      One obeying orders.

      People on slashdot seem to have the idea that ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen in the military are moral philosophers and super-heroes. They're not. They're trained to do a job, and a lot of that training is to obey orders and kill when you're told. It's not a natural thing to do for most people, so you need a lot of reinforcing of the idea.

      If you chucked a squad of marines into a US town and said "the President/Colonel X has authorised you to use any means necessary to clear this place of some gun-toting anti-government terrorists who have already killed a dozen of your fellow soldiers" what exactly do you think they'd do? Stop when they saw that the "terrorists" firing at them were good old boys with hunting rifles?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Honestly by fafaforza · · Score: 2

    what is the point of this? Does the guy with the gun not know what will happen when he pulls the trigger, or not know how to aim? I'm sure they have target practice So why do this in public, without notifying everyone ahead of time? To scare some old timers into cardiac arrest? To force some return fire?

    This is just so bizarre.

  17. Wow! Christmas came late for some folks ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    For the folks who have always believed in Trilateral Commission, who had seen UN insignia wearing officers in Oklahoma city bombing scene and among the wreckage inspectors of WTC, who had seen Chinese character instructions at the back of highway signs, the government + UN conspiracy to subdue the local population after disarming them, especially for the people who believed in black helicopters, Christmas came a little late. Enjoy the gifts folks.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  18. I really find an invasion doubtful by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Not so much because of the military, but because of the 2nd amendment. There are a ton, like 300 million, firearms in civilian hands in the US. What's more, many of these aren't little .25 purse guns, or break action hunting shotguns, they are weapons with military value. As many people have cried about in the press recently, AR-15 variants are quite popular, but they are hardly the only ones.

    Well, that makes for a rather bitch of a civilian resistance to overcome. An external invader is going to be pretty universally loathed, their uniforms make for nice "shoot me" targets and it would be pretty literally a situation of getting shot at from every house, every building.

    Is is a pretty impossible occupation scenario, and thus makes any sort of real invasion of the US pretty much a non-starter. I mean you aren't going to get all that many troops to the US alive on account of the massive US military, and its suberb intelligence support, but once you do, there are an awful lot of armed citizens.

  19. Re:What the fuck... by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Generally the "don't spend my money"ers are actually "don't spend my money except on things that cause violent death"ers.

    Generally the people that try to downplay how much money we are spending, by attacking other people, don't actually know the enormity of the spending and thusly don't give a shit that their partisan antics are a dangerous public menace.

    Total government spending in the United States has grown to $6.2 trillion (2012), and with ~115 million households thats ~$54000 per household.

    The median income for those 115 million households was $53000.

    I used the word 'enormity', but really it does not encompass the problem here. The government spends more per household than the median income of households.

    While you sit there being a partisan dickhead, the most important problem that we face today goes completely unnoticed by you. If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  20. OPSEC awareness month by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    October 30, 1938. Never forget.

    You be shuttin' your fool mouth John Smallberries!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  21. Ridiculous article title by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2

    What is this, the Weekly World News? There are no military helicopters flying over downtown Miami firing machine guns.

  22. Man, those Samoans are a surly bunch by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great once we got the locals on our side.

    This is Miami and Houston we're talking about, right?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Shooting... a Movie? by funkboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did any of the news organizations offering this reactionary reporting actually check with the local authorities to see if the helicopters were being used in for a movie shoot?

  24. Shock and awe by SourceFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think what we are seeing now may be something like standard game-theoretical escalation (between 'government' and 'citizenry').

    Since the (corruption-driven) economic crisis, an increase in resistance-like protests have put those in power on edge. Perceiving increased resistance from a portion of the population, those in power are purposely scaling up their defenses against potential resistance (increased surveillance and attempts at gun control, bills like HR 347 and executive orders that grant extraordinary powers, usurpation of due process and indefinite detention etc.).

    The game-theoretical result of this is that at the grassroots level, a small but steadily increasing proportion of the citizenry starts to (basically rightfully) sense that the government is escalating against the citizenry. This fuels further calls for resistance, calls for revolution from some quarters, the massively increased gun sales and stockpiling we've seen, and so on.

    The game-theoretical result of that in turn is a government saying "oh shit, the people look increasingly likely to revolt", and the result of that is this kind of escalation - a raw display of brute power intended to demonstrate that we'd better all keep in line, "or else" - it's a kind of veiled threat, a kind of shock and awe tactic. "Behave citizens, or next time there'll be real bullets".

    We're currently on a game-theory escalation path to increasing fascism and oppression and possibly a prolonged low-grade guerilla-style 'civil war' (though it will never be called a civil war, it will be called 'terrorism').

    The proper solution is that both people and government need to try work with each other as partners toward a common goal, both 'sides' need to calm down and negotiate with mutual interest in the concerns (and rights) of the 'other side'.

    In reality the government is now so corrupt and overtaken by corporatist interests (e.g. banks who are now supposedly too powerful even to prosecute for serious crimes, and a 'fox guarding the henhouse' situation at the treasury and Fed) that it might not be possible for true cooperation.

    --
    My other UID is three digits.
  25. Right by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Even Jar Jar Binks, the galaxy's clumsiest Gungan, took out about 3 separatist tanks without even trying.

  26. Re:What the fuck... by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.

    Problem is there are any number of official dictionaries. In mine, your picture is next to the 'ignorant douche' entry. In yours, my picture is there. And in everyone's copy, their own picture is next to the 'sane patriotic American' entry.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  27. Spot on by bdwoolman · · Score: 2

    In modern use our mines are deployed to temporarily interdict a particular area in order to promote the objectives of a ground operation. Modern mines -- the ones the US uses - can be deactivated via timer or, I guess by now, an encrypted coded radio burst. Seventy two hours is a long time during a kinetic battle. That is a typical delay.

    When I was at the big annual weapons show in Singapore many years ago I checked out various makes of mines. You had to ask. It was like porn. The vendors brought the catalogs out from under the counter. Nothing mine-like was on display. The Yugoslavians (Yes, THAT long ago.) made some of the sleaziest permanent types -- WMD in slow motion. These are used to pollute borders and terrorize and coral local populations. Lots of them in Afghanistan. Not ours. Next door in Tajikistan there is a big mine problem left over from their civil war.

    As to helicopter gunships spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Tired." Now as to drones spraying mock ordinance over downtown Miami I say, "Wired."

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy