Could a terrorist organisation capture a western city?

[purplepoppy]

We all know a large group of armed men marching down the road towards a city are going to be met by the army and stopped long before they get anywhere near.
But what if those same men are already living in the city? Their weapons smuggled in over a long period of months even years as quietly their manpower grew undetected?

You can't just bomb your own cities to get rid of them and sending the military in risks huge civilian casualties.

So just how many men do you need to capture and hold a western city?

[Soteris]

Short term? Sure. Countries dont really have any defenses ready unless there is an identified threat to prepare against. They are more reactive, which is also partially why the whole argument of "who has the biggest military?" is silly since these are things built up specifically for a conflict and not maintained during peacetime. AKA why USA currently has around 500k active service members while the Nazi Germany during WW2 had 10 million active members at one point.

Military manuals estimates that you need between 5 and 50 soldiers to occupy 1000 civilians and you can scale that up. A an average city of 100 000 people would as such require 500 to 5000 at the minimum to fully control it. If you want to garrison it to resist an attack you would want much more. Probably in the range of 25 000. That said, rule of thumb says that the defending forces will always lose so you can't hold forever even if you would stuff 10 million angry Talibans into it and give them all the food and equipment they could ever ask for.

[ChrisMaster69]

Yes you can.

this has been practiced in the UK.

A number of cities such as York are built as defensive points. Historically most old cities are built to keep people out.

Or in the case of Essex to keep people in.

A lot is based on Cold War threats such as Russia capturing a major port city or town.

the other thing is capturing a city does not give you much, as you would never get out of it.

instant stand off.

built up urban conflict is bread and butter for UK forces, it’s pretty much normal exercises

[tartaarsaus]

not really, no. Not a single Western country would allow such an organized form of a terrorist entity with its own governance over a city exist within its borders. Moreover, Western countries tend to monitor citizens, possess a lot of surveillance tools, have very strong insight into financial flows of anyone associated with a suspected group and have shown to be capable of countering criminal groups trying to form an army at smaller scale.


So no, Western countries tend to be too wealthy, too well equipped and too powerful to let it come to a stage where a city is captured and would be more than capable of removing said force from the city itself.

[tartaarsaus]

And for the record, you certainly can bomb cities within your sovereign territory. Not that it would even get to that point anyway

[tartaarsaus]

And likely most importantly, terrorism thrives on poverty and poor institutions. These do not exist even remotely to the same scale in Western countries as e. g. in Mali.

That does mean support generally speaking would be limited. The exception there would be secession movements, but those are also usually hit harder and with plenty willingness for military operations

[NathanDavis]

*ponders from a city somewhere in Mexico that's currently contested by three cartel factions while the USA just watches and pretends they did not brought all this up*

I guess it really depends if such Western country allows for all that to happen, if they see a benefit to it, they will let it happen I am sure...

[Bjornasey]

Guerilla warfare is very effective, to win against them you need to plant a spy or make any such formation defragmented so it cannot spur up in the first place. In case there is civil unrest or whatever and it has gone too far, then most likely it might be too hard to quell it unless they go very far, countless people would have to die.

[andreasderjuengere]

Where is the difference between a ''foreign power'' that's bombing up your backyard, and a ''terrorist organization''? Or a ''military coup''?
In general, a terrorist will not try to ''capture'' anything - they are happy to just blow up things.
What we see presently in Apeghanistan isn't so much about terrorism.

[rjroy3]

If we look at the criteria for political terrorism, the Taliban a widely official terrorist organization is in fact committing terrorist acts in Afghanistan right now

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 The same can be said about the U. S. in Vietnam the other day.
If Afghanistan (as a country) does not like it, then Afghanistan can do something about it.
The UK handled the IRA on their own; so did Germany with the RAF.
A country (or government) that can't keep up its own sovereignty - on their OWN GROUND, mind you - has failed.

[rjroy3]

I don't disagree with your ancillary points. But your main point that the Talibans actions were not terrorist acts is just on its face wrong.

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 I was MORE thinking about ''official'' forces not being much different from terrorists. Both groups want to get their point through with violence. And they involve unrelated persons in this.
As a defensive act I could find some tolerance for it, though.

[rjroy3]

Geneva Convention has clear criteria for an armed force, mercenaries, spies, terrorist and so on. Taliban no matter how you slice it are terrorists by every criteria set. Like you just can't reason that away by associating this particular act with the acts of armed forces who did something that looked similar.

Again I don't disagree. Even willing to say we've committed terrorist acts even tho we're not terrorists. But you can't say that the Taliban aren't terrorists or that the act wasn't terrorist acts.

And relating their actions to others doesn't change that

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 Taliban ARE terrorists. I did not deny that. We just got entangled in some other things around it.

[rjroy3]

They are terrorists AND what they did in Afghanistan was a terrorist act. But aside from that is taking this time to say others have done bad really the move?

Like good point. Let's ignore it. We all done bad

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 Trouble in Afghanistan - and other places - is nothing new. If a fire can't be controlled... just make sure that the houses around don't catch fire, too.

[rjroy3]

It's more like committing to a lane change or shifting around in a lane scared. Commit to the move or stay in your lane. We started with commitment and achieved our goal.

Then half assed some nation building effort. We either need to commit and run the country ourselves or leave. But we leave, let taliban take over then send troops back...

Like wut

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 That's what I mean as well: the U. S. mainly were seeking revenge for The WTC - and they got it.
If the ''protection'' of human rights were the real thing - then the U. S. would be busy bombing somewhere each single day; all over the globe. So... it's just one other political ''lie''. What I see as paramount: don't let any terrorist touch my own stuff. If they fuck up their own home: not my business.

[rjroy3]

90% agree if not for the fact it's the terrorist organization that facilitated us going to war in the first place and letting them reclaim a stronghold to again house terrorists, launching assaults is actually an issue.

Big picture we just have to choose what problems we want to deal with. In the covid Era I say worth considering full abandonment. Meaning don't send out the troops we sent.

On the other hand, it's fair to say doing nothing now is kicking the can down the road for younger generations to fight because of another 9/11.

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 Now - LAST time 'they' took you by surprise. On a humorous side (if that's allowed): why not make buildings a little less tall?
And making MORE friends instead of provoking others also may help :)
Not trying to excuse Bin Laden in any way - but from HIS perspective he had good reasons to feel pissed off.

[rjroy3]

Name 3 valid reasons Bin Laden had to do what he did

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 From what I hear... and again: just to try and see it through his own eyes - not to excuse or justify him: He had been supported by the U. S. earlier (the Russian invasion thing). Later, from his view, he was let down badly; not only personally, but also for his ''cause''. So he seeked revenge. Maybe a vision of personal honour and credibility also was some of his motivation. I personally believe that basically violent people can express themselves in 'conflicting situations' only through violence; no matter how much ''education'' is (or was) added.

[rjroy3]

Cool.

So not one valid reason lol.

He perceived a sleight at best by us failing him. Not even screwing him directly. And that's the US fault in some way... lol

[andreasderjuengere]

@rjroy3 Of course, there's no 'valid' reason.

[rjroy3]

Could have skipped to that answer rather than giving the paragraphs on his thought process lol

[Bean2k]

Your plan will never work. Once the social justice warriors see that you are a foreigner, they will buy an old moving van and start a non-profit organization in order to bring you clothes and furniture. Once they've convinced you that they are there to help, and also to liberate any women you may have with you, they will see your contraband as they are filling your garage full of charitable items. I've actually seen this happen.

[monkeynutts]

Depending on the population size, and infrastructure. You probably need about 500,000 men. Unfortunately if they were residing near you, you would probably try and get as far away from them as possible, because our own military would destroy them, and everyone they know. Yeah our own military would bomb them out of our own countries.

[EssenceOfLight]

I don't know about what scenario do you think. There are many factors like support of population, army strength of defenders, external support, etc
As example: 1000 islamists who decide to take Manchester over have no chance to succeed. Their support from locals were limited and support from outside could be easily cut off with city blockade.

[Tunasub]

Well the way I would do it is wait until the next Amazon Prime Day because everyone is trying to score a deal instead of keeping an eye out for suspicious nukes head our way.

Hey let's just keep that between you and me.

Don't need that shit leaked.

[Lliam]

It already happened in cities like Portland. BLM/antifa terrorists took them over without even having sophisticated weapons.

[Anonymous]

This is why we need border control and background checks so we dont just let people pour in to our country. Trump was right and now we have some things to think about with the taliban. They even have the airport now, whats stoping them from flying over with hostages and bombing our buildings? If we are week on them we are screwed

[normalice]

They couldn't even hold the capitol building for more than four hours.

[Nick473]

Facts

[RasberrySlushPuppy]

The west would react instantaneously with ammunition and our own military. What USA and the UK did was police Afghanistan and immediately withdraw which is cruel.

[Anonymous]

The cells are already here. More arriving by boat from France every day. The best part is? Not only can they stay, but they get given free hotel accommodation too!

[Avicenna]

If so, it would be somewhere in Sweden or Germany. Or maybe the UK.

[FunkyMonkee]

With Chairman Joe in charge, ANYTHING'S possible!!!

[ItsMeItsMe1989]

probably not. nor would i think they'd want to. i do think they just want to show that they will do anything to get what they want.. thats the point of terrorism. TO SCARE PEOPLE

[Recurrence]

I wouldn’t be shocked if they did bomb their own cities.

[DaveToo]

It depends on the city and the purpose of the men that want to take it over.

[groupsexlove]

Maybe, but I've never come across anything like this. @purplepoppy

[DoneThat2]

Read up about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you'll have your answer.

[BennyClark]

wasn't that in America Jan 6 2021 with the Republican facist?

[Anonymous]

Not in the US.. The sheer number of us that are armed would prevent that.

[Anonymous]

Tjhey should start with london. oh wait. they already control it

[FoghornLeghorn99]

Well a bunch of unarmed white rednecks took over the Capitol on January 6th so imagine if they really wanted to cause some serious damage.

[Opinion Owner]

@FoghornLeghorn99 nobody including the dc police and capitol police viewed them as an actual threat. that was all political granstanding

[joeldalton]

US city will be a lot harder than a European one.

[TallAnon]

That would take thousands and be extremely hard.

[karaspara]

Birmingham

[anylolone]

They have.