re: If you had to fight a guerrilla war on US turf, where would you choose?

Washington, DC. I would challenge them to come at me MFs and not be there when the city is turned to ash.

I would stay in Texas and focus on destroying bridges and doing what I could to disrupt supply lines. I wouldn't want any part of going directly up against a militaries main force.

I would dig in on a ranch outside of town and plan covert missions to destroy infrastructure. Most of the time I wouldn't appear to be a threat and would focus on blending in, but I would cause all kinds of problems.

SE Alaska. Bears, wolves, wolverines, mountains, sea, glaciers.....

Its unforgiving if you're not accustomed to it.

Staring motel...nobody would come up in there.

quote:

---

Appalachians (including sub-ranges like the Smokies)?

---

quote:

---

You're assuming a level playing field and this ain't the 1980's Rambo world. You'd stand out like a nuclear core in the mountains or low population areas to infrared and similar tech. Any moderately organized military would just pop you at a distance and move on. Assuming an occupation force, it'd be best to blend into large populations. Hit and run.

---

It is a fair point you make but I would still contend that is not advisable to corral their targets in a concentrated location.

When communications have cut, the grid inevitably goes down, Food supply is disrupted, I think it is better to "go to ground."

Either way, people will die but spread them out and make them work for it.

The city I live in has a couple of large abandoned buildings. Put me up there with a 338 Lapua. 2000 rounds of ammo, flash and sound suppressor if that is a thing and I'll do some damage. I'll need a bunch of water and food supplies too.