I was just thinking about the threat of ‘spectacular’ attacks by al-qaida that we’ve been hearing about. How many soldiers in a battalion? About a hundred? Lets say they are equipped with mortars, a sniper or 2 and everyone else has AK-47’s and all the ammo they can carry plus decent communication equip. Would the police dept have a chance? How long would it take regular army soldiers to get equipped and ready to fight if this was in washington and the terrorists plan was just as much destruction as possible until they are killed?
I doubt you would even need that many soldiers. It’s really a question of tactics and training.
Here are the pro’s and con’s as I see them.
PROS FOR MILITARY
1.) Training - Soldiers are trained killers. They’ve gone through months of intensive training specifically for that purpose. This includes weapons, tactics, and intelligence gathering training.
2.) Experience - Soldiers are more accustomed to dealing with the trauma of a firefight, if by no other virtue than their training. Most cops don’t discharge thier weapon in the course of thier career.
3.) Organization - Soldiers are trained to work as a large scale group. Support of one another is important, especially in a urban campaign.
PROS FOR POLICE
1.) Communications - Police departments already have an in place communications network, and all personel are connected via it. This allows for a more rapid deployment of troops and better allocation of resources.
2.) Home Field Advantage - The cops know the terrain. They know all the shortcuts, hiding spots, and choke points better than any military intel will provide, simply from experience. This is a tremendous tactical advantage.
3.) Resources - The police already have facilites in place where they can resupply and repair vehicles that may be damaged.
To be honest, I can’t say. I believe the military would win. I attribute that to the fact that a soldier is trained to kill where a police officer is trained to imobilize. Let’s hope we never have to find out who would win.
Two heavily armed ex-soldiers gave the LA Police a run for their money back in 1997. There’s no doubt that an entire battalion of soldiers could cut through any major police force like a hot knife through butter.
So, what would be the response? How long to get a comparable military force into position to fight them?
That’s kinda what I was thinking too…I hope I’m wrong if ever tested…
Well, a couple of guys with body armor held off a couple of hundred LA cops for quite a while (http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/). Assuming you could mount such an assault in secrecy (and that’s a fairly big assumption), they could do quite a bit of damage attacking non-hardened targets until SWAT teams and the National Guard could be mobilized.
It would not surprise me if Washington D.C. were an exception – I bet they are ready to mobilize a surprising amount of force quite quickly.
Probably most big city police departments have a few armored riot control vehicles.
Summary: In a short term, surprise attack, your hypothetical battalion would romp virtually uncontested. After a short time (1-2 hours), the tide would start turning, depending on how careful they were to block strategic routes into the city.
In the absence of armor and artillery, there’s probably a limit to how much damage the troops could actually do. As a suicide attack, it would be pretty pointless (it’s be like shooting a polar bear – it just pisses them off). It might be more successful if trying to achieve a particular strategic mission, e.g. stealing or destroying a specific target or object.
Note that one downside of such an attack is that unless every member is committed to fight to the death, you will have a number of prisoners/survivors to interrogate. The result is likely that any organization that could mount such an attack would be able to do so just once.
Maybe, but how much damage could 50 pairs of these kevlar wearing, armor piercing, guys do if they were disbersed across the city and simultaneously started taking out folks headed to a preselected destination, like the city courthouse or ???
Actually this link says that for a US light infantry battalion (and terrorists would qualify as “light” infantry, at least with their armament), is closer to 570.
Isn’t that including command and support personel who aren’t actually fighting?
180 personel for the HQ. And although it’s true they shouldn’t attack, they would be available for defense.
However, a lot of police department re-armed as a result of that. The vests were able to handle the Handgun and Shotgun bullets, it is less likely that the vests could handle rifle rounds. It wasn’t until cops borrowed rifles from a nearby gunstore that they could do anything.
So, my money is still on the Infantry Battallion, since that is what they are trained to do But they’d take a lot more casualties that some have guessed.
Recruits think of tactics. Veterans think of logistics.
How would this hypothetical battallion get into position? Would it be composed of 600-some-odd `sleeper agents’ lying in wait and living off the land until the signal was given? A border raid on a city such as LA or Detroit? How could they possibly import and conceal mortars and sniper rifles?
If they are living off the land, they don’t really have to worry about supply lines, but how about C&C? How does a commander control a force of secret agents while preserving deniablility and anonymity? The traditional cell structure would be strained to the limit during combat, as casualties and captives knock levels off the heierarchy. If they are mounting a border raid, where would they come from and how would they conceal themselves while there? Canada isn’t a good place, because Canada has a very effective law enforcement apparatus which cooperates closely with the American law enforcement apparatus. Mexico may be marginally better, with its minimally-populated deserts, but that raises larger questions of resupply issues and maintaining cross-border supply lines during the attack.
I think this question is interesting theoretically, but practically it is a null issue.
New York city has ~35,000 police officers. I think that in a pitched battle for control of the city they would be able to take on ~400 soldiers and win, and certainly they would be able to hold out until the National Guard showed up, and I wouldn’t doubt that the NG could have some air support on site in a few hours, I am thinking attack helicopters etc.
Now, if the OP is asking, how much damage could 400 soldiers do in a city before the police could stop them? Then the answer is clearly alot.
A couple of points to raise:
[ul]
[li]Said Inf Bn has indirect fire capability of some sort - in this case, mortars.[/li][li]Inf Bn has mobile Command and Control assets. They can move and shoot. One mortar shell on the (usually fixed) police force’s dispatch section, and 75% of their communications are wiped out.[/li][li]Inf Bn has recon units, and a ‘main strike’ body. They can sense, and direct their massed force where cops are the only operators. They are the main strike. [/li][/ul]
Just a few observations. Hands down, I think the infantry would win. The police are just not trained for it, nor equipped.
Tripler
More observations once I think about it.
What if their goal was to take over congress and the president during the state of the union address? How heavily guarded is the capital on that night?
In response to Derleth as to how they would get the equip here, I imagine that assuming you are willing to slowly stockpile the stuff, the only difficult thing to get would be the mortars. I’m sure the mujahadin (sp?) had plenty of those to go around prior to our invasion. According to today’s Salon story, intelligence officials are taking the threat of Stinger missiles against domestic flights pretty seriously. I would think if you can smuggle in stingers, it shouldn’t be a problem to get some mortars in the country. I believe the most difficult part would be keeping command in tact until you were ready to start the operations, as you mentioned.
I’m thinking this is more of an IMHO thing.
:: shudders ::
That’s a freaky thought. :eek:
I’m sure if one infantry battalion attempted such a thing, more active, reserve, and national guard units would be called in quicker than you can think. I’m sure the NCA has the capacity to activate units, and stand them up quick enough to get in said rogue battalions way, way far out enough from Washington DC to prevent this from happening.
But then again, I say the chances of this are slim to none: A commander would have to get everyone down to the newest private to mutiny against lawful authority. I can see the commander being relieved of command before plans even get off the ground. . .
But good God, that thought scares me. It’d be a sad day in America if discipline broke down like that.
Tripler
I’m not sleeping tonight, thanks to you. :eek:
Tripler I think people here are talking more about a ‘battalion’ sized group of terrorists, not US regulars going off the reservation.
Never having been on a military base myself. What do you think are the chances of said batallion should they assualt and possibly comandeer U.s military equipment?
That brings up a question. Do you need keys to start a f-16 or a tank?