Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum California killings confirm SDF feasibility

the recent killings in California confirm the feasibility
of having a rapid response State Defense Force team in place.

the rapid response to this particular event in san bernardino California clearly shows that a well equipped well trained
and fully geared up team is a asset that can be rapidly deployed in this type of situation with immediate results.

the swat team that arrived on the scene fully geared up was
there in only 4 minutes.

4 minutes because the swat team was conducting training
in the nearby vicinity.

fully gearing up a swat team can easily take hours depending
on where they are when called and where they need to go to and how long it takes them to gear up and deploy to the scene.

this event is like reality slapping law enforcement in the
face and saying WAKE UP and stop dreaming.

there were only 3 people involved in the shootings yet
what seemed to be several hundred responders responding to
the scene which made me wonder ... uhhh what if there were
other groups of terrorist carrying out other attacks ... but
all the law enforcement in the area is there in that one area.

so if it takes several hundred law enforcement responders for a single group of 3 possible terrorist then how many does it take to respond to 10 - 20 groups of 3 terrorist attacking in areas that are spread out either in the same or different cities.

well trained well equipped small teams with rapid response capabilities that can be deployed even if by air insertion
if needed may be required in the future if isis or similar terrorist groups become active in the united states.

adding more gun control to prevent citizens from having the
ability to protect themselves has got to be the dumbest thing
than can result from this or any event.

and can only be seen as a desire to lower the capabilities
of citizens to defend themselves because terrorist will get
weapons if they want weapons.

another way to look at this is that those desiring to remove
our weapons may desire to make it easier for isis or similar
terrorist groups to gain a foothold in the united states.

this just in : according to cnn investigators have established that this event was an attack by isis.

I rest my case.

Are you suggesting that each state should have a standing army in addition to the state and local police departments? If so you would still take time to get the appropriate detachments mobilized, and travel from wherever they were stationed to the place they were needed. In the meantime local patrol officers would provide the first response, followed by more patrol officers and then the SWAT team. Since these people would already be on duty they could probably respond much more quickly than any SDF detachment, unless you kept the SDF in a state of high preparation with their transport set to roll on a 5 minute notice. Then of course you would have transit time on top of that, since you probably wouldn't have an SDF team stationed in every city. I don't see that an SDF unit would provide any more security than that provided by the local police.

Bill Gill

yes.



yes , their equipment remains in the transport vehicles.
preferably helicopters while they are on standby for
immediate deployment not 5 minutes.

placing the SDF teams within close range to all large
and medium sized cities in a location where a single
team could rapidly deploy to any of the cities or
locations within a apx 25-35 mile radius of the teams
base complete with air insertion capabilities for
air insertion or ground insertion.

the cost would be a matter of states requesting
military surplus because this would save the
federal government the cost of demolishing the
equipment we currently have waiting to be demolished.

for instance the 16 billion dollars of ammo alone
that the DOD is to have demolished at a cost of
1 billion dollars.

not only would this save the federal government
dollars due to a non need to demilitarize equipment
it would save the states dollars in the acquisition
of the equipment and it would provide state jobs to
those who are employed in the
State Defense Forces or SDF's.

also : the SDF should be considered as a supplemental
military that could assist the u.s. military but not
considered a part of the us military and can not be
activated to serve with the us military or outside of
the us as its purpose is the defense of its state
but can be sent by its state to assist other states
if needed.

And where are the troops? Even if they are in a nearby ready room I doubt if they can get the people on board and the rotors spinning in less than 15 minutes. Then there is transit time. That will vary from 15 minutes to a half an hour.


Don't forget the costs of maintaining the troops. I figure a conservative estimate of say $100,000 per year for training and equipping each person. And I think that is probably extremely conservative. With a cadre of say 30 troops per station (a minimum of 6 per shift 3 shifts + backups) that right there is at least $300,000 per station.

Then there is the cost of maintaining the equipment. Even if they get it free as surplus equipment the maintenance costs are very high, particularly for the helicopters. And on top of that the equipment is surplus. There is usually a reason that it is surplus. That is frequently because it is obsolete, and therefore even harder to maintain. I figure that a conservative estimate is at least $1,000,000 per station. Good luck getting a state legislature to spend that much in addition to their already strained law enforcement budget.

And as regards the military ammunition, that is generally destroyed because it is over age. So you want these troops to go into a possible battle using overage and possibly hazardous ammunition.

Bill Gill

they don't have to be in a ready room , they could be
in a lounge type area when not performing training or
preventative maintenance.

they could be briefed en route and GPS insertion points
can be transmitted to the pilots after dust off , a H 53
transport could easily be fully loaded with 30 transports
in less than a minute and it is a turbine so the rotors can
spin up and the helicopter can dust off in less than 3 minutes , 1 minute if necessary.

the transit time would probably be the most time consuming
element involved but the transport helicopters can build
up great speeds (apx 250 mph) in a matter of seconds.

if the transit distance is 25 miles then the transit time
is only 6 minutes at 250 mph.

adding in a minute for acceleration makes the transit time
7 minutes , if the airframe will be landing then another
minute can be added for deceleration and finding an insertion
point.

so far its only 9 minutes from call to disembark.

as far as maintenance cost are concerned
this is why I believe that the federal government should
fund or assist in the funding of the SDF forces but
not directly in any way that could cause cut backs in
wellness of equipment , training and prepairedness , supplies or man power.

and because each man that is active in the SDF forces
causes the overall strength of the military to increase.

your point about the condition and maintenance of the
equipment raises yet another valid good point because
these bases will need mechanics and a need for mechanics
means even more new jobs that many returning service
men can easily fill as this is the equipment that they
are already trained to repair.

as for training the teams , well I think that over ten
years of war has given the states plenty of pre trained
ex service men who could easily transition into these
similar jobs.

not to mention the new construction jobs to build these outpost or bases that house the teams.

I think it is something that would catch on great within
the states governments and within the federal government especially in todays world and with the recent terrorist activity we have experienced.

as for the parts , we have DRMO , a place where companies
that sell the government parts for several thousand dollars
buy back the same parts for a few cents when the government decides they have too many of the parts , then later the government buys back the same parts again for thousands more dollars.

at least this way the parts that the teams may need that the military already has but has too many will get
used and billions will be saved from the lack of waste spending.

What do you think a ready room is? It is a room where they wait until they are needed. So it will have some amenities.

At a cost of around 50 million dollars for each chopper. I wouldn't expect the military to surplus them very fast.



And this gains us what? Here in Tulsa first responder times run around 10 minutes. And after that the decision has to be made as to whether they need the SWAT team. The same would apply to your fancy dancy military unit that would probably be overkill.


One thing of course is that I don't see the Federal Government paying the states to maintain very expensive military units. The Feds are already spending a lot of money on the National Guard and I can't see that the states really need any more.

I'm not sure about whether state defense forces would be allowed to perform police duties. The Federal military is forbidden by law to perform police duties except in exceptional cases which have to be approved at a high level. It is quite possible that any military unit would also be forbidden to act as police.

Then there is the question of how often these forces would be called out. Looking at California, just because it has a heavy population spread over a large area I don't see that they could get by with less than 6 to 10 installations. Therefore we would have to spend several billion dollars just to set it up. The chance is that they would not be called out more than once or twice a year, for the whole state. That is an awfully high cost for the limited utility you would get.

As it is the local police are doing a pretty good job just the way they are. Granted they don't prevent the shootings, but their response is normally good enough to stop the events from spreading. The fact is that mostly by the time anybody gets there the shooting is already pretty much over, and the rest is just checking to make sure the place is clear. The latest is a case in point. The SWAT team arrived in time to take the shooters down when they were found, but they did it by ground transport. A helicopter approach would not have added much to the way they took them out. The local police handled it nicely all by themselves.

Bill Gill

This is what I think a ready room is , in fact this is
a ready room ... and why I suggested that a lounge be
used instead.



this is a lounge.






helicopters don't get surplused out , they get demilitarized
which is the same as being destroyed.

but first they have a important role to play defending the
ground above them from rain while they wait patiently for the
demil crews to come and cut them up for scrap metal , not
sure what the cost of storing all of the ground guardians is
but most likely every square foot of this ground has previously been guarded by billions of wasted dollars.



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=military+boneyard&iax=1&ia=images

https://www.flickr.com/photos/collingwoodbarry/8172400318/in/photostream/

on the above page you will find a tiny percentage of mothballed
aircraft that can be brought back into service if needed
but look at these aircraft and ask yourself what chance that
a pilot would have flying these in a modern warfare situation
-------------- nill -----------------------------------

but they sit there waiting ... time passes ..., more time passes ... they will never be brought back into service
in the us military and are mostly sold to the film industry
or foreign nations.

some of these helicopters could easily be used as transport
helicopters for the SDF forces were the us government ever to attempt to cut waste spending and apply its current assets
in a sensible and meaningful manner.

Well, you may want to spend a huge lot of money on something like that, but I would rather waste it on something completely frivolous like education.

Bill Gill

if you were in a sinking boat 100 miles off any shore
with a engine that just wont run anymore until its fixed
would you rather fix the leak that is causing
the boat to sink or would you rather fix the engine and
then head towards the shore and hope you make it?

in either case there is time involved.

but with the leak fixed you will have plenty of time to fix
the engine.

I thought we were discussing your idea that states should have expensive and not very useful armies. What does that have to do with leaky lifeboats?

Bill Gill

well you said you would rather spend money on education
than on the SDF forces , that's why I used the leaking
boat and broken engine analogy.

fixing the boat leak is like fixing the defense of
the people of each state thereby strengthening the
defense of each state and as a result strengthening
the nation as a whole and the us constitution all the while
fixing the unemployment problem and the economy.

fixing the engine is like accelerating the sinking boat
faster as its sinking because education requires jobs to
be filled in the field that you studied and whats the
point of fixing education when there will be no jobs
to fill after you graduate.

so I suppose that my meaning was that your education idea
vs the SDF idea is really not a good choice of spending.

ie ... the defense of a nation should be the number one
concern because without defense soon there will be no
nation.

the leaky lifeboat is the united states.

the broken engine is the united states failing security
and failing economy.

creating jobs is more important than education
when there aren't jobs to fill after graduation
and the SDF's will create millions of jobs in
the united states , through the hiring of its
members through construction jobs and through
maintenance jobs required by the outpost through
supportive companies springing up to supply these
outpost and will remove billions of waste spending
in the united states military.

Ok, let's do a count. So far in the US in 2015 there have been 25 people killed and 30 wounded in terror attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists. There have been 12 killed and 10 wounded in terrorist attacks not attributed to Islamic terrorists. That is a total of 37 dead and 40 wounded from all forms of terrorist attacks. That data is from Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston. If our boat is leaking it sure isn't leaking very badly.

Also as far as I can recall these deaths all occurred in the initial attack. Calling in an elite strike force seems to me to be a massive overkill. All of them seem to have been readily handled by local police. The manhunt for the terrorists may have taken longer than the initial attack, but your specialist strike force doesn't seem to be very well adapted to that. In fact the police have long record of successfully conducting manhunts.

So now you want to apply a treatment to a leak that seems to be readily handled by a simple and already in place sump pump. At the same time you don't want to spend money on education. By the way, you say that your glorious strike forces will create jobs. Great, who is going to pay the salaries for all those people? That would be the tax payers. So you want to increase taxes to pay for people who aren't really necessary. It might be better to educate those people and help them get jobs in civilian areas. That way they will be contributing to the tax base instead of taking from it.

And I don't know what it is like in Florida, but her in Oklahoma there is a call for people in construction. They are looking for welders, pipe fitters, etc. I have even seen somebody advertising for electricians, will train.

Bill Gill

lets do a count of the people that isis has killed where isis
is present , and have a look at the conditions there and the
conditions before they arrived.

and lets not forget that the us military doesn't really seem
very interested in fighting isis which is highly evident by
the attacks on isis by Russia , so it might not be a clever
idea to depend on the us military to prevent the same type
of destruction that has occurred overseas where isis is
from happening in the us.

of course you will point out that they are not here in
force and that we shouldn't try to prevent our cities and
our way of life from becoming the way it is where isis is in force because our police force can handle 3 terrorist after
they have already killed and injured the public.

its not like we are closing our borders completely to
prevent the possibilities of any indoctrinated incoming isis militants , isis is growing in number mostly because a lack
of jobs ... so I cant see any easing of the job problem
overseas where isis recruits its members nor can I see any
easing of the job problem here in the us.

as far as your argument on the response times goes that has been covered and I have shown that the SDF would have a
reasonable response time , isis has
grown to apx 50,000 overseas , they want a ground war and we
just wont let them have it , maybe they will bring the war along with all of the destruction to the us , and if they bring enough do you even begin to dream that the law enforcement agencies here in the us can prevent that from happening something that the us military cant even accomplish in several years of trying...

should we just lay back and when the time comes request
assistance from Russia the way that Iraq has or should we
consider building a self defense?

of course it will cost tax money , but it will also rebuild
the economy , and like I have always been told by all the
well educated "you cant get your lunch for free" and this
one may be more fitting "you cant pull yourself up by your bootstraps" .

Let's look at what you think we should do.

Each state in the United States should develop a quick response military unit to handle terrorist attacks against places in that state. They could have other uses to back up the US military in some cases.

You thinking is that they could respond more quickly and effectively than local police forces.

They would be ready if ISIS made a military strike in the US. I assume this would involve infiltrating a fully trained military force, with personal and heavy weapons, into the US in order to make this strike.

Some of my points:

The response time would be no faster than is currently provided by local police forces.

The units would be very expensive. If they used whatever kind of helicopters we are talking about $50 million just for transport, plus training and salaries for the members of the team. You mentioned 30 at one point up above. Therefore we are talking about at least $1 million per year for each station. In Florida for example I see a need for at least 4 stations (Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville) so that comes to $250 million for copters (1 extra for when one is down). Plus ground crews and maintenance. So we are talking at least $5 million a year after we buy the copters. I think that is highly conservative. It would be more like 10 times that.

Of course these special teams would not be able to get there until after the active shooting is over, since the shooting is usually what triggers the alarm. The shooters finish the shooting before the first responders get there, and either get killed, kill themselves, or run away. After that the job is to sort out the scene, and catch the terrorists if they aren't already dead. As I pointed out most police forces are already well trained in all these situations. Layering another bunch of people who won't get there until it is too late any way is really stretching it. And the cost, when most states are already having budget troubles is just totally out of the question.

Of course if ISIS does manage to infiltrate their army into the US it might be a slightly different situation. When they come across the border with their guns blazing I'm sure it would be handy to have an organized military force handy.

Any way I think by this time our readers have probably had plenty of time to analyze our positions and make up their minds in a reasonable fashion.

Bill Gill

Why would anyone bring them back when the big money is to be made replacing them?

mothballing aircraft and armored vehicles is like standard
procedure in the military , like today after most of the aircraft used in the many wars overseas end up either in the us or in one of the hundreds of us military bases abroad they might get mothballed ( restored and stored ) in case a need arises to bring them back into active service again or they
might end up in a boneyard.

they do pull them out of mothball at times but its
not something that happens often probably mostly
because of the reason you suggested.

the states , counties , cities can get the helicopters , vehicles and uniforms , weapons and pretty much anything that the military has and is not planning to use.

things that they just have to many of and need to get rid of.

like today.

there is no cost to the states for this property it is
simply a transfer of property from the federal government to the states , counties , cities ... etc.

that pretty much shoots down any financial argument as for
the cost to equip the SDF's because if there is one thing
that is a constant in the us military it is military
surplus and loads and loads and loads of it on a constant basis.

and an enormous amount of this surplus must be de milled
before it can leave a military base or holding facility
which includes all aircraft all armored vehicles , all weapons platforms in general and all hand held weapons like hand grenades and any weapon that fires any type of ammunition
including any type of ordinance or ammunition.

so your not really left with much of a argument if your
argument is mostly centered around initial cost.

btw .. there would also be no replacement cost to the SDF
after the initial equipment has been damaged but would require the same transfer of property.

I highly doubt that the SDF's could break the equipment faster
than the military DRMO could supply the equipment that the
SDF's would need...

also I was thinking about having a lot more than 3 or 4
outpost in each state.

that would be a good starting point but not very effective
if a group of terrorist like isis gets a grip in the us.