>>86273948>Thank God they'll just let the guerillas coordinate and walk in.>>86274069>any attempt to build the supplies and/or leadership necessary to try to siege any significant target would be detected and failWhat makes you two think that? The government is terrible at detecting that sort of thing. Besides, leadership isn't necessarily an essential, because of the following:
>the entire strategic advantage of an insurgency is decentralizationThis is your strongest point, but there's one key detail that gives civilian guerrillas a chance to pull it off. If there's anything the past several years have shown us, it's that decentralization is evolving, and decentralized groups now have unparalleled tools to effect carefully planned, coordinated action. Take the example of some well-known, relatively recent decentralized groups: Anonymous, Gamergate, and Black Lives Matter.
The first two used "operations." This is the key to it all; the only thing an operation needs in order to succeed is for enough people to think it's a good idea and to take part. They can be conceived by any member of the group and revised & improved over time by other members until they're ready to launch.
On the other hand, while Black Lives Matter has had success in garnering support and media attention, they have very few actual accomplishments under their belt, because while they are a decentralized movement, they've taken a centralized approach (local branches, de facto leaders e.g. Deray Mckesson & Shaun King).
That's the difference between success & failure for guerrilla forces in the modern age.
