Who would win between city and rural war

who would win between city and rural war

Other urls found in this thread:

internationalman.com/articles/nine-meals-from-anarchy
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Probably a city. They're so centralized as is and have way more people. It would probably just end up being a redneck version of Vietnam tho. Regardless, odds are way in favor a city.

This totally. Rural white trash think they are all though but the centralization of the major cities would make it easy to defeat the rural obsoletes.

>food is made in the grocery store

I’m more or less amazed at how people from the city lack the ability to do simple things like change a tire or their oil

too bad food isnt made in the city? lol you think they just have cows chicken, and vegetables growing in the city? you're fucking retarded. plus if you surround a city from each way you could cut off all supplies into the city. I thought Sup Forumstards were supposed to know this,.

>city runs out of food
>city people must go out further to find sustenance
>they become country person
>country people win every time

If we're talking about one city versus the surrounding rural areas, centralization and population density is like the opposite of what you'd want.

You'd end up with guerilla tactics being used, you're right about that, but consider the implications of being in a centralized location like a city:

- Supply lines quickly cut off.
- Cell towers and power quickly cut off (most power plants are not going to be inside of a large city)
- Rural areas responsible for majority of food production, will not need city goods.
- Arms and ammo, people who can handle a gun more common in rural areas.
- Rural terrain, forests, mountains, what have you is highly defensible particularly against city dwellers who may have limited or no experience navigating it.

Basically, all the rural forces have to do is starve them out and pick them off as they get desperate and flee. Expect less epic battles and more blockade.

this.

> live clustered together with limited resources
> only exits funnel you into practically single file lines

good luck

it would basically be siege warfare, with the city being under siege, no food in. can go into the country or be shot by ghilles in the dark

the country lads would just grow food and shoot people where as the city folks wouldnt have any guns and even if they did, wouldnt be able to shoot past 5 yards accurately. 5 yards might even be a bit too much.

t. outback guy

I sorta thought the same thing too, however, I think the cities would just be too organized and would have way too much manpower for rural communities to even compete. Like think of all the tech and gear even the city police have. Some cities, like NYC and St. Louis, have APCs in their budget. They could just roll out and take the farms and food by force. It's kind if hard to defeat armored vehicles with just your hunting rifles and your buddies from the dairy farm

I doub't at the end of it either side will feel like winners desu.Most city folks would starve and most rural people would be without toilet paper and walmart shit. Plus nigs running around everywhere in the aftermath. Both sides would lose imo

cant*

Soyboy cityfags trying to comfort themselves in case SHITF.

Between my friends there are at least six 50 cals and I'm extremely antisocial.

We'd destroy roads leading to cities a mile or two out.

We'd sit.

We'd wait.

Crops can't grow on concrete dipshit, and you aren't going to be able to do shit if you can't grow enough food to sustain the population of a large metropolis like NY or LA. And good luck moving supplies when there are IEDs on every highway out of the city. Taliban didn't survive years in city centers you delusional faggot.

Friends with kids that live in a city - zero own guns. Zero kids know how to shoot.

Friends outside of a city with kids - all own more than one gun. All kids are taught to shoot at a young age.

It really isn't just a meme.

Rural.

cut power, fiber and phone lines and watch the city eat itself.
Better yet surround that shit and watch them starve.

Cut water
Cut gas
Cut electricity
Cut access from trucks and trains
Laugh when hipsters turn to cannibalistic savages.

lol this level of delusion

>the cities would become self-governing city-states, unreliant on food or labor!

Makes sense in theory, but I think you're underestimating the strength an entire city at war would have. Let's think about it like this. Say your country is split up into competing city states, like the way ancient Greece and Italy were divided. The city will control all the rural land around it because when the rural communities decide they've had enough the city just rolls out their soldiers. Modern city police forces are basically a paramilitary fighting force. Yeah the ghillie guys would snipe at a distance and try to deny the city food, but the city slickers would just take the farms and production facilities by force and then guard them with a ton of armed men an armored vehicles. Sure, those rural boys would put a hurt on them city folk, but in the end they're fighting a losing battle and wouldn't be able to compete.

Op is a Slovakia fag

>I thought Sup Forumstards were supposed to know this
Maybe they're not from here.

>implying that yuge police departments won't simply strike a deal with the farms on behalf of themselves and their families and leave deadweight city baws to rot
If SHTF bad enough that the police are contemplating raiding runs on innocent rural communities as the means of producing food, the police are sure as shit not going to feel any loyalty to the absolute warzones that the cities will turn into.

i mean if its just some role playing scenario, the city could probably just zerg the country and maybe win.

but thinking of it in a logical situation, post apocalyptic, nigger ratios in city. the city would turn to shit real quick, id say a population loss of anywhere between 60-80% in the first week

I'm sorry you're retarded and are disregarding 1000's of years military history.

Notice how many people a "single" guy in vegas killed.

> Thinking you'd steamroll people waiting for your arrival on their home turf

How many citifags have killed and gutted a deer or bigger?

You might want to give that a go before you think you're up for hunting humans.

Everyone forgetting most American cities would be razed from within by rampaging nignogs.

It's true cities are very dependent on food production from agricultural areas, but saying that they don't need city goods is a little too simplistic. Those guns and ammo they have came from a factory, likely located near a city where capital and labor is concentrated. Similarly, their ability to harvest large amounts of crops thanks to modern technology is enabled by fuel from refineries powering tractors, more products originating from cities.

> Constantly hearing about issues between blacks and police for years
> Realizing the majority of blacks live in cities
> The police will be fighting for the cities side!

...

Relax you fucking Neanderthal. Ofc crops don't grow on concrete. Think of it like a like it's a city state fighting a civil war with its rural population. The city just rolls out their troops and takes the food sources by force. You can't really siege a city if they way out number and out gun you.

The city would win, establish a new hegemony in the country. That hegemony would eventually be maltreated and trodden on enough to revolt, war happens.

Repeat.

This too, competing street gangs and drug cartels would turn cities into a warzone.

>Comparing cities post Rome to modern cities

Wow, you must shoot a lot

> Goes to the range often
> Doesn't reuse old casings to make new rounds

good point!

There would be no city vs country. The country would be mostly the same while the city burns itself to the ground. They are too densely packed and the unhinged niggers would loot, rob, and murder themselves straight into starvation.

There is no us vs them. City life is non sustainable without external support.

Assuming it's a real big SHITF situation and all order breaks down. The population left in most cities after a week or two will be very minimal. Can't imagine the bloodbath it would be.

Cool, you addressed half of my point.

Only a tiny fraction of gun owners reload their spent brass.

most city people are trash though

most aren't educated but work as an underclass, that is they run the metro, they are cashiers and baristas, they are trashmen and shit

it would be unregulated anarchy in a major city a single day into a collapse.

This part too.
I honestly have no clue how people arguing for modern American cities can even be thinking through the scenario properly and coming to this conclusion.
>highly concentrated populations whose economies are totally dependent upon basic survival necessities that would be cut off in a postapocalyptic scenario, full of people with no common ethnic, religious, or meaningful cultural ties and a much lower per-capita knowledge of how to use guns
VS
>more ethnically and culturally homogeneous communities which produce surpluses of food and are, by comparison, filled to the brim with experienced gun users
Add in that the city's only advantage is the creation of two "warrior class" organizations (police and military) who themselves would benefit from negotiating protection-for-food arrangements with the rural communities and it's a slam dunk.
Agriculture + warrior class was the foundation of Western civilization. It's amazing how few people, even on a board as relatively attentive as this one, fail to recognize and appreciate this.

I never travel to the city when I need to get new 55 gallon drums of e85. I actually drive to the country.

This guy's argument is absurd. In the event of a major disaster like those discussed cities would bear the brunt of the damage. After that they would be full of dead bodies, backed up sewers, stray animals and leaking chemicals. They would, in short, be virtually uninhabitable death traps. This isn't a left vs right issue it's just common sense.

Small towns make the most sense to me for establishing post apocalyptic communities. They're tight knit and many are easily defensible, the surrounding countryside would also provide food and other resources.

This redditor forgets that the "cities" that people fled to after the collapse of Roman authority here in Britain were no bigger than a large town is today. Early dark ages London had 10000 people absolute maximum.

You wouldn't have to siege the city. You wouldn't want to be anywhere near the post apocalyptic blender a city would become when the first rationing takes place. Your man power is too busy keeping the hordes of niggers from looting to think about taking any tract of land.

The real danger to city folk is thousands of starving refugees fleeing the city as fast as possible wanting crops.

Really good point. Care to explain why you think the rural boys would win, without being a total ass?

if something happens in my city I am not even leaving my house for a week. Fuck dealing with that noise, I'll eat up all my perishables and grab a backpack.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA
>cant grow your own food
>dont hunt
>dont own weapons
>dont know any survival skills
>cant find your way anywhere without fucking gps
>infested with violent gibs
Wow it's almost like cities are the most ill equipped to do anything at all by themselves.

Most anyone belonging to a gun club from what I've encountered.

I don't know many gun owners who don't go to a club. Not many indoor ranges that allow rifles out here.

I watched this documentary ages ago and some economist who talks about how cities can be unstable. He says "Kill off a city's food and water supply, the city dies"
3 days without water can kill a person, when there is no supermarket to buy the shit that we need to live then money becomes essentially worthless in the view of the public. They will tear each other apart for a can of soup. Then other businesses will close down because of the chaos meaning everything will shut down.

In rural areas however, especially small towns, the people know each other, it's more communal and they will probably work as a team. Also they got the advantage of the farmlands

the jews

>Thinking medieval siege warfare works in the age of firearms
>Thinking anyone would attempt large-scale agriculture under the threat of Cletus taking their head off with a .50
>Thinking police can maintain checkpoints and patrols while having to keep Tyrone and Jose from shooting up the neighborhood

With all the centralized power in the world, the US military has been getting its ass raped by rural goatfuckers in the middle east for decades. I'm pretty sure rural Americans can into asymmetric warfare, and thanks to years of Democrat policymaking, you soyboys are massively outgunned.

Most people who live in cities don't own weapons. The end.

Yea they have more resources more people more intelligence more food haha it would be so easy lol dont even get me started on the disciplined urbanite the rural shitters will fight among themselves like uneducated fools LOL

With all that manpower on food production some rednecks just went out with hammers, chainsaws and pry bars, took up a section of rail in the middle of nowhere, destroyed a power substation and set up ambushes for the repair crews.

Too many soft targets in this war, police will be overwhelmed by starving zombies.

Any rural vs city conflict is on two fronts for the city because nogs will loot and riot when supply disruption occurs.

OP thinks that once SHTF the city boys are going to magically turn themselves into a well oiled communist fantasy army and everyone will do their part.

>The city just rolls out their troops and takes the food sources by force.

Little Jimmy who no more than a month ago worked for Target out scouting for plunder.

Look at the madness that ensues when there's a normal natural disaster in cities. Now amplify that knowing there's no relief coming. RIP

>I assume that's why the "deep state" is such a popular conspiracy theory
Wow. That's seriously fucking retarded.
Is that legitimately how lemmings think? They actually believe that the government works exactly how it says it works. I can't even imagine having that position. It goes completely against all history, evidence, and common sense. Are they just stupid or something?

Well it's just logic you know. You can work together with a small amount of people, but no matter how hard the city works together, they won't feed everyone. may as well go free for all.

Starvation would cut in way too fast and that would annihilate any cohesion among the citizens. You would have gang warfare in the cities before you would have a city-rural war, but by then the rural folks would have been able to plan ahead and probably infiltrate/seek allies within the city who would be happy to be well fed rather then team up with Tyrone.

Yea but even so, I don't reckon big rural towns will be so friendly with each other either on a food/water shortage.

On a worldwide collapse, the most advantaged people are the ones in those really small communities on those farmlands that are far away from any other destination. If there is no gas for your car then people won't be able to reach you.

>Little Jimmy who no more than a month ago worked for Target out scouting for plunder.
Top zozzle
>Little Jimmy hasn't had anything to eat in a week and the bottled water supplies are almost gone, starts to wither away in his dark, unheated commie bloc, as he thinks to himself, "those fucking rural retards"

People don't look to history for their answers.
After the fall of Berlin in WW2, there were hundreds of thousands who died from starvation, disease, etc. The problem was the people who fled Berlin not only starved, but they also literally cut swaths out of the land eating and destroying everything trying not to starve, causing the suburbs to suffer as well.

I wouldn't call living in the mountains as a foreign power half a world a way occupies your country "ass raping"

You don't think it is kind of embarrassing for us?

Yea in an "RTS-game" scenario implying a single commander implying absolute cohesion the city would win with this tactic.

When I see the average person in the city be able to drive a well by hand to gain access to water then we can pretend they'd have the upper hand.

You're not really thinking in terms of humanity though.

Sure, if all the city folk attacked the country as a united cohesive well-trained army, they'd obliterate them.

That's not likely though.

In reality, the city folk will go out in a group, then one of them will be shot by the country guy and they'll all fucking panic and run away, leaving the shot guy for dead.

The country will have a much higher ratio of military-trained people. The country will have a much higher ratio of firearm-trained people. The country will have a much higher ratio of survival-trained people. The country will have a much higher ratio of food-producing people.

See, the thing is; country folk can just walk into the city and blend in perfectly fine. A city person can't do the same with a country town.

Besides, the country people will have no NEED to go into the city. The city people will be needing to go out into the country in an attempt for food - but the country people likely will have extremely limited their production so even if they do lose a few farms, they haven't lost jack squat in the long term. Not to mention there's usually only a few roads leading out to the country anyway; easy pickings.

This entire idea is retarded anyway

This as well

There are massive riots by blacks in the cities when a criminal assaults a cop and gets shot for it. How the fuck are they going to react when they find out there's no food and no welfare coming in at all?

Lets take a look at this :

City :
>Easier to defend (well it depends, it's easier to defend a city, than defend a plain)
>More population
>Most factories are in periphery of the cities, or clearly out of it
>But no production of primary goods, like food

Countryside :
>More area to defend
>But all the food production
>As 99% of the cities are built near a river, you can easily poison all the water of the city, if you have the control of the upstream
>As most of electricity comes from plant out of towns, you can cut it too

So lets see :
>City : more manpower, but requires food, water, electricity, thing that are not guaranteed for the town
>Countryside : less manpower, but have all the food, the control of water, and maybe the control of electricity

To me, it's more than evident that in a guerilla scenario (like every civil war), you want to control most of the territory, and most of the ressources.

So it is clearly in favor of the rural.

Nb : Military bases are always out of the cities, many km out of it.

city people would leave the cities in droves as the place burned to the ground. Rural folks that were too isolated would be attacked by gangs looking for easy loot. It would be hell for just about everyone. the guy talking about the fall of rome and how cities changed was on track for the right idea but missed the amrk by thinking major cities would work out well. His idea mostly applies to smaller towns of like 10k or so that are more isolated and able to be self sufficient while maintaining a solid defense to deter outsiders from attacking.

...

>too bad food isnt made in the city?
So?

>city drafts 1/10th its population, moves out, kills the farmers, takes their land, starts farming it
>farmers are helpless to stop them because tiny population and shitty economy
>half the farmers actually HELP them because the city is the ones buying all their crops anyway

>cityfags would have to overcome their divisions, which means having to cooperate with ghetto niggers
>cityfags would have to get oit of the city once the food runs out, good luck with that once every checkpoint may or may not be hiding an ambush
>cityfags would need training they mostly don't have and would be forced to navigate through terrain they're not familiar with, country bois have the home turf advantage
>muh police will totally stand up for the same people who screech about them shooting niggers for committing crimes
>muh police would totally never have to deal with angry mobs of people INSIDE the city
>muh drones wil totally work after all infrastructure has shat itself
>cities totally have enough supplies to be self-sufficient for more than a couple of days
am I forgetting something?

can you muster a capable army in three days before it's too late mister cityperson?

Most cities have capable armies on standby.

How are you getting out of the city?

Do you all have a different idea of what country is than here? I routinely see exotic cars out in farmland. Do you all think they're poor, lol?

> Farm subsidies
> Those country farmers sure are poor says the city dwelling faggot with a negative net worth

LOL

More people died in Belfast during The Troubles but South Armagh was considered "Bandit Country" and the British Army were forbidden from entering it on the ground because it was so dangerous. I reckon it's a toss up.

>How are you getting out of the city?
In an armoured convoy that is virtually untouchable unless opposed by a (nonexistent) similarly armed and armoured conventional force.

>Do you all think they're poor, lol?
I think that all the farmers put together are poorer than all the city folk put together, which means that cities have more money to spend on military equipment.

That cities would prevail is a ridiculous claim. How much time would it take for city forces to organize the conquest of neighboring farmlands? Would those resources even be enough, and how would they be distributed? In the meantime, how would city forces control the utter anarchy of the city center?

Not to mention that most of the wealthy and powerful members of society would retreat to gated communities in the far periphery of the city where some kind of cooperation with the rural surroundings is thinkable, if not to a secondary home far away.

Comparing Briton society to ours is ridiculous. What was the urban population, exactly? 1, 2%? With 10, 20,000,000 inhabitants in each city or rather several thousand? Were those urban inhabitants working in the tertiary sector or were they basically keeping a village economy on a larger scale? Were they a diverse multicultural community or did they have a tribal affiliation that linked all members? That is truly a ridiculous and extravagant claim.

Many people of the city would spontaneously leave to any family they have in suburban or rural areas. Suburbia is so extensive that police forces would be so stretched out they could not control either the city center or distribution of resources. Not to mention the fact that police forces would probably not cooperate or even be coordinated with no water electricity or food... Everyone would be fucked, but cities would be utterly annihilated, plain and simple.

internationalman.com/articles/nine-meals-from-anarchy

Id want to be at least 200km (130mi?)ish from a city if shit went down. Lucky we have plenty of space to live here if you arent city-tier retarded.

Also i am a rare aussie hasguns who is exmil and also a plumber post military.

Id try to coast it out and carve a niche for my wife and 2 daughters in the post apoc.

Have animals and a sweet garden.

Im only 29 so i reckon id be just about young enough to compete proper.

You city cunts just dont know whats what i swear

I'm very antisocial and don't even really like hanging out with friends much.

I know of at least six 50 cals that would be pointed at your exits.

You're dreaming.

Even considering my own coworkers.

City-living coworker - I'm gonna play video games after I take my car to the shop because I can't change a wheel by myself.

Country-living Coworker - Look at this video of me blowing appliances up with this 50 cal. And here is the moose I gutted. And here is this engine I'm rebuilding on the weekends.

The floor would be wiped with you.

>reddit

>city drafts 1/10th its population, moves out, kills the farmers, takes their land, starts farming it

They "just" start farming it? There's a little more to cultivating crops than just sprinkling seeds over some tilled dirt and hitting them with a watering can.

Maybe different by you. Just as much if not more money out in our country by us (see Hartland Arrowhead high school locker room)

>>City : more manpower,
More peopls doesn't = better if there is no cohesion.

like suggesting all the farms would take over google and start programming shit.

soyboi is dreaming

Actually that's the most valid argument yet

>I know of at least six 50 cals that would be pointed at your exits.
This is a microcosm of the delusion that you utter retards experience.

Tell me about these six .50 calibre rifles. How are you going to employ them? Where will you set them up, specifically? You have six .50 calibre rifles and you have to block all the major exits northbound out of Brisbane from use. Where do you set up your guns?

You can't answer this question because you don't know.

>They "just" start farming it?
Yes.

>There's a little more to cultivating crops than just sprinkling seeds over some tilled dirt and hitting them with a watering can.
We will have to accept reduced yields in the short term, but I think you fail to realise that most of the industry peak bodies for agriculture are headquartered in, you guessed it, cities. The UQ School of Agricultural Studies isn't located in fucking Broome. It's here, in Brisbane.

Farming's not a secret lost art kept alive only by shadowy disciples.

>Just as much if not more money out in our country by us
I don't believe this at all.

See american civil war. Country people=better fighter/more committed. City people=production will overpower you in the end

Armored convoys on dirt tracks when cunts who did all that afghan bullshit (ex combat engineer) are gonna just mass produce big fat ieds for you to step on/drive over. Yeah sure.

Also money means nothing in crisis situations. You go back to gold standard first then barter. Look up that journal of the paramedic who survived sarajevo or the balkans war or whatever then get back to us.

You LARPers are fucking juvenile. Id love to face you in combat.

For that one i speak theorically. On paper it's always better to have more man.

But you're right, 500 organized, armed and courageous countrymen worth more than 5000 soyboys of the city

>how will we feed NYC?
>Oh, i know, we will hire more store clerks.

I don't know Brisbane. I know Milwaukee.

I'm just saying...I don't like people much, and I know of that many off hand. I'm sure if you'd ask one of them (much more social), the number wouldn't be 6, it would be 60.

They could drive a big fucking combine of theirs onto I-94 exiting the city. They could disable it, wire explosives to it, maybe even just destroy the concrete with it. Go a mile or so back from where that is. Shoot anything you see.

>gold standard first
No, it would go straight to barter. Most people don't have a stitch of gold to their name.

Well...are you retarded? Does your faggot country not allow you to look up wealth by county?

I love how cityfags assume rural areas are dirt poor and void of any resources and populated only by literal inbred retards.

Probably the city. Upon societal collapse, wage slaving would end, and suddenly they would all be sane again.

How would they win? By making friends with the rural folk and trading for food.

>hurr where would you set up your .50 cals if not in open plains
>durr IEDs don't exist and even if they did they're impossible to make
>I know jack shit about terrain and infrastructure therefore your argument is invalid

>Armored convoys on dirt tracks when cunts who did all that afghan bullshit (ex combat engineer) are gonna just mass produce big fat ieds for you to step on/drive over. Yeah sure.
Ah yes, the infamous gorilla warfare "argument."

At no point in the entire occupation of Iraq were the guerrillas actually capable of stopping US forces from going to any part of the country and doing anything they pleased. Guerrilla warfare might make occupation costly, but it does not prevent occupation.

>money means nothing in crisis situations
Retarded. Money means that you can buy foreign weapons and mercenaries from places not in crisis. It also means you can pay people to make guns and be soldiers.

>Look up that journal of the paramedic who survived sarajevo or the balkans war or whatever
That's not the situation we're discussing you fucking tard.

>They could drive a big fucking combine of theirs onto I-94 exiting the city. They could disable it, wire explosives to it, maybe even just destroy the concrete with it. Go a mile or so back from where that is. Shoot anything you see.
Stupid plan.

Your shooting position would be spotted and then mortars or artillery would be used to make you move, as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan to snipers. Then the wreckage could be cleared with a bulldozer (and if it explodes then all the better, it makes clearing it that much faster even if the bulldozer driver dies - we've got more of them) and the convoy would proceed.

>what is guerrilla warfare

listen man i understand our government goes a little easy on "terrorists" because of geopolitical reasons but guerrilla warfare from rural & suburban retards from vietnam to iraq have absolutely wrecked our military industrial complex. we have all the fancy and cool tools like drones and apaches we use to kill them with million dollar missiles but imagine for at least one minute if this shit started popping off domestically. the Fucked factor is amplified 100x for the government