The Hamptons is a coastline along Long Island where some of the richest people in the world live. Since the coastline consists of very low lying beaches it's quite easy to actually invade, hence making it hard to defend from intruders.
I keep hearing that thrase the Hamptons is not a defensive position. I would like to include Monaco in that evaluation. The rich being very clever but yet greedy for power are ignorant they stay within their circle and have no understanding of what they do. They are ignorant of history too. Remember the fall of the Roman republic. French revolution, the dissolution of the monasteries, the Russian revolution, Spartacus revolt. The peasants revolt. The English civil war with the execution of a king. We need to understand that these people we are revolting against now want to bring in new kind of feudalism with soro and bill Gates being the feudal lord's
Ive just google earthed the Hamptons, and depending on your enemy they could be successfully defended against any number of threats. Assuming your enemy are angry semi-organised militia of 80%ers with access to civilian scales of weapons and captured National guard stocks, you could die an old man living behind a Brigade of Guards or Marines on that ground. The narrow isthmus just west of Hampton Bays affords solid flank protection thanks to the Atlantic ocean, its a narrow front so the requirements for manpower and resources (mines, wire, trenches, hard points etc) favour the defender. Flat low lying ground is easily covered by direct and indirect fire and is excellent for observation to co-ordinate said fire. You've a good MSR leading down route 27 to allow an axis for defence in depth, internal reinforcement and counter attack. I would put in solid patrol bases just forward of the Shinnecock Canal, forming a collapsable defence line in the first mile or so east of the canal. A wire warren amongst the buildings from Mariners Cove to Bayview Avenue, which would be torn down or turned into strong points as required by the ground, would create channels and arcs towards your main killing grounds along the eastern line of the canal. Handled well this could form a network of favourable blocking points and indirect ambush zones, co-ordinated from the only (slight) high ground of the Shinnecock Hills. SF MGs, mortars and AP mines would be your main force, four tubes of 105mm light guns an no-one south of the 24th MEU is gonna hang around that line for long. Patrol bases east of the canal could be collapsable or strongpoints depending on the level of assault, but you would concentrate your fire just forward of the two main bridges in two max defence positions. Behind the canal (with both bridges ready for demolition) I would have a second but inflexible defensive line with a third along the line of Peconic Road. A mobile reserve with high firepower could then support, strike or resist along the axis of Route 27, or respond to amphibious units trying to infiltrate along the coast in stolen yachts and dinghies. You would only have to resist the first few attempts with massive retaliation to convince the enemy to try easier targets. If all went badly a blue water escape fleet could be assembled at Montauk. You would need to cut off the Coopers Beach spit, but with sufficient wire, mines and SF it becomes a long road nowhere quick for the attackers. You would have to give up ground east of this line, I don't know the value of property in the Hampton Bays area, but that should be a secondary consideration to getting lynched, and owners could retire behind the Canal defensive line. Northaven and Shelter Island would need locally adapted defences, but with the good roads you could reinforce internally while your enemy would be forced to split his efforts. The greatest threat to the Hamptons is rising water levels for which no military defence exists. The question is: once you've survived the first assault, who is coming to your rescue and what defines a win? By the way I've just described the defences of Switzerland, but with no blue water escape.
@@MrBoreray I was. He who holds the coin holds the Army. Truthfully tho nothing Ive described is beyond the capabilities of a mid level PMC organisation, and they work for anyones coin. If the Army had stopped paying me long enough, I wouldn't have turned up for work. In fact, with society collapsing around me I would've gone looking for work at a PMC! Ive basically described the end of the Roman Legions. Blyth isn't wrong but he's discussing the transfer of power in a collapsing market not battlefield tactics. His conflation of the two itched me up. We can argue over who will support what in the event of open urban warfare among the complete breakdown of US society bought on by inequality - and that could be fun - but the point the otherwise excellent Blyth was trying to make was: what the Hamptons lifestyle stands for and rely on are indefensible. The house prices, privilege, power and exultation, the increasing divide between rich and poor are indefensible, but that's a political / economic / sociological argument. It's a nice soundbite, engages his argument for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the dangers of opposing it, but it remains a nonsense argument militarily. Nothing is impregnable, nothing is hopeless, to defend everything is to defend nothing, your enemy gets a vote in your plans and everyone has to strike a balance of intent between Force, Will and Means. Once you've decided what a Win looks like for you, you can move onto Intentions, Targets, Forces, Intelligence, Ground and Options - WITFIGO - my personal battle calculator. I liked it because it also stands for What In The F** Is Going On!
You're assuming something resembling a conventional attack and ignoring the working economy of such a place, not to mention how said economy would be changed by the security developments you would introduce. Dance floors must be waxed, pools cleaned, pets groomed; not to mention that fortifications and checkpoints soil the the view and impede quality of life, and guards must be fed and uniforms cleaned. When your enemy is a majority of the entire populace that builds everything you interact with and brings it to you - cooks your food, tests your water, and guards you at night - then the Hamptons is not a defensible position. It's symbolic of a state of mind, a way of life and a set of values that cannot survive the measures needed to "safeguard" it.
His point is that the Hamptons (i.e. a wealthy resort) is on a beach so is literally not very defensible in the event that the people rise up against its inhabitants. He's just making the point that there is a limit to how much people will take before things start to get nasty.
What makes you think he's speaking for the 80%? The 20% are the ones who suffer most if they don't listen. What he's doing is trying to prevent a violent revolution, because in a violent revolution, everyone loses.
Is he part of the richer quarter of society? Of course he is: He teaches at an Ivy. It would be damn sad if he wasn't. The problem comes in when the rich - a percentage of them in all fairness obviously having worked a lot and hard in a very smart way to get there - refuse to understand that they can't have it all for themselves. When the inequality goes up to a certain point in such that a large part of society has nothing left to lose and everything to gain from a violent, radical change a revolution - i.e. pitchforks ;) - becomes more likely. This professor concludes in his lectures that therefore: "Taxes are an asset insurance for the rich." and he also warns "That we have been skimping on the payments." The podcasts he does with a colleague of his are hilarious. You can find them on SoundCloud. Also this: www.di.se/ditv/ekonomistudion/ekonomistudion-21-juni--expertens-betyg-pa-trumps-finanspolitik/
"As long as you are not a communist trying to make EVERYONE own the SAME things." What communist country are you basing that on? 'Cos when I was in Yugoslavia and East Germany, no one was required to own the same things. Honestly, some of the ideas people have regarding communism are just weird.
Occasionally i disagree with marks assessment and this is one of those times. Brexit is a result 45 yrs in the making. When we joined the E.U. it was sold to the public as a trade deal not as a political union. In the same way many lies where told in this last referendum it was a mirror image of how we joined. E.U. scepticism, in the 70's, also divided parties except the 70's vote saw the labour party have a more anti view whilst the conservatives had a more pro view. Given that consistent voters tend to be the old is it any wonder they largely voted for brexit given it was their first opportunity to do so since 1975. Their are debates on youtubes involving tony benn, filmed in the 70's most of what he said was prescient and he foresaw how it would affect the working class. Strangely as the labour party changed over the next few decades they became pro E.U., oversaw continued neo liberal economics and deserted their core vote to become a centrist party. No wonder they now suffer in the polls and are in danger of losing seats in the north and midlands, historically labour heartlands.
The Hamptons is a coastline along Long Island where some of the richest people in the world live. Since the coastline consists of very low lying beaches it's quite easy to actually invade, hence making it hard to defend from intruders.
Ha ha.."the Hamptons is not a defensible position" damn right it isn't .
Nick Hanauer has stated the same thing, "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming."
Good bloke, talks sense, are they listening?
Professor, I have learned a lot watching your videos, but I would humbly point out that against 80% of the population, no position is defensible.
SPOT ON!
Listen up, because the people coming towards the big house will have more than pitchforks.
Marker value your input and understanding.
"The hamptons is not a defensible position" is overwhelming scary.
I like the cut of your jib, sir.
I keep hearing that thrase the Hamptons is not a defensive position. I would like to include Monaco in that evaluation. The rich being very clever but yet greedy for power are ignorant they stay within their circle and have no understanding of what they do. They are ignorant of history too. Remember the fall of the Roman republic. French revolution, the dissolution of the monasteries, the Russian revolution, Spartacus revolt. The peasants revolt. The English civil war with the execution of a king. We need to understand that these people we are revolting against now want to bring in new kind of feudalism with soro and bill Gates being the feudal lord's
we talked about it months ago: e.u.: blank space,..
why boys run away from taylor swift❔ by the same reason,..
exist authentic 'man repeler',..
Bot stroke
I think the entire world is missing a learning moment...
If we all stopped working it all comes to a grinding halt..
Is New Zealamd defensable? Thats where the elite seem to be moving to.
I love the way they have to subtitle him lol, thats english. Bit north.
Mark Blyth explains the U.K.'s decision to leave the E.U.
WATSON'S MARK BLITH OVER (EUROPEAN UNION)
AUG 2, 2016
Ive just google earthed the Hamptons, and depending on your enemy they could be successfully defended against any number of threats. Assuming your enemy are angry semi-organised militia of 80%ers with access to civilian scales of weapons and captured National guard stocks, you could die an old man living behind a Brigade of Guards or Marines on that ground.
The narrow isthmus just west of Hampton Bays affords solid flank protection thanks to the Atlantic ocean, its a narrow front so the requirements for manpower and resources (mines, wire, trenches, hard points etc) favour the defender. Flat low lying ground is easily covered by direct and indirect fire and is excellent for observation to co-ordinate said fire. You've a good MSR leading down route 27 to allow an axis for defence in depth, internal reinforcement and counter attack.
I would put in solid patrol bases just forward of the Shinnecock Canal, forming a collapsable defence line in the first mile or so east of the canal. A wire warren amongst the buildings from Mariners Cove to Bayview Avenue, which would be torn down or turned into strong points as required by the ground, would create channels and arcs towards your main killing grounds along the eastern line of the canal. Handled well this could form a network of favourable blocking points and indirect ambush zones, co-ordinated from the only (slight) high ground of the Shinnecock Hills. SF MGs, mortars and AP mines would be your main force, four tubes of 105mm light guns an no-one south of the 24th MEU is gonna hang around that line for long.
Patrol bases east of the canal could be collapsable or strongpoints depending on the level of assault, but you would concentrate your fire just forward of the two main bridges in two max defence positions. Behind the canal (with both bridges ready for demolition) I would have a second but inflexible defensive line with a third along the line of Peconic Road. A mobile reserve with high firepower could then support, strike or resist along the axis of Route 27, or respond to amphibious units trying to infiltrate along the coast in stolen yachts and dinghies.
You would only have to resist the first few attempts with massive retaliation to convince the enemy to try easier targets. If all went badly a blue water escape fleet could be assembled at Montauk. You would need to cut off the Coopers Beach spit, but with sufficient wire, mines and SF it becomes a long road nowhere quick for the attackers.
You would have to give up ground east of this line, I don't know the value of property in the Hampton Bays area, but that should be a secondary consideration to getting lynched, and owners could retire behind the Canal defensive line. Northaven and Shelter Island would need locally adapted defences, but with the good roads you could reinforce internally while your enemy would be forced to split his efforts.
The greatest threat to the Hamptons is rising water levels for which no military defence exists. The question is: once you've survived the first assault, who is coming to your rescue and what defines a win?
By the way I've just described the defences of Switzerland, but with no blue water escape.
You're assuming the regular military will be on the side of the 'elites'!
@@MrBoreray I was. He who holds the coin holds the Army. Truthfully tho nothing Ive described is beyond the capabilities of a mid level PMC organisation, and they work for anyones coin.
If the Army had stopped paying me long enough, I wouldn't have turned up for work. In fact, with society collapsing around me I would've gone looking for work at a PMC!
Ive basically described the end of the Roman Legions. Blyth isn't wrong but he's discussing the transfer of power in a collapsing market not battlefield tactics. His conflation of the two itched me up.
We can argue over who will support what in the event of open urban warfare among the complete breakdown of US society bought on by inequality - and that could be fun - but the point the otherwise excellent Blyth was trying to make was: what the Hamptons lifestyle stands for and rely on are indefensible.
The house prices, privilege, power and exultation, the increasing divide between rich and poor are indefensible, but that's a political / economic / sociological argument. It's a nice soundbite, engages his argument for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the dangers of opposing it, but it remains a nonsense argument militarily.
Nothing is impregnable, nothing is hopeless, to defend everything is to defend nothing, your enemy gets a vote in your plans and everyone has to strike a balance of intent between Force, Will and Means.
Once you've decided what a Win looks like for you, you can move onto Intentions, Targets, Forces, Intelligence, Ground and Options - WITFIGO - my personal battle calculator. I liked it because it also stands for What In The F** Is Going On!
You're assuming something resembling a conventional attack and ignoring the working economy of such a place, not to mention how said economy would be changed by the security developments you would introduce. Dance floors must be waxed, pools cleaned, pets groomed; not to mention that fortifications and checkpoints soil the the view and impede quality of life, and guards must be fed and uniforms cleaned. When your enemy is a majority of the entire populace that builds everything you interact with and brings it to you - cooks your food, tests your water, and guards you at night - then the Hamptons is not a defensible position. It's symbolic of a state of mind, a way of life and a set of values that cannot survive the measures needed to "safeguard" it.
What happened the U.K. told the EU to shove off !
Thank God!
Go Ita-x-it
Go France-exit
Reclaim your sovereignty!
What's the Hamptons joke?
His point is that the Hamptons (i.e. a wealthy resort) is on a beach so is literally not very defensible in the event that the people rise up against its inhabitants. He's just making the point that there is a limit to how much people will take before things start to get nasty.
Raja ignore the absolute moron above.
Wouldn't you think Mark Blyth is part of the top 20%? Good lectures though...
He is and says so himself in his lectures.
He was an orphan brought up on British welfare so he wasn't born into a sense of entitlement.
What makes you think he's speaking for the 80%? The 20% are the ones who suffer most if they don't listen. What he's doing is trying to prevent a violent revolution, because in a violent revolution, everyone loses.
Is he part of the richer quarter of society?
Of course he is: He teaches at an Ivy. It would be damn sad if he wasn't.
The problem comes in when the rich - a percentage of them in all fairness obviously having worked a lot and hard in a very smart way to get there - refuse to understand that they can't have it all for themselves. When the inequality goes up to a certain point in such that a large part of society has nothing left to lose and everything to gain from a violent, radical change a revolution - i.e. pitchforks ;) - becomes more likely.
This professor concludes in his lectures that therefore: "Taxes are an asset insurance for the rich." and he also warns "That we have been skimping on the payments."
The podcasts he does with a colleague of his are hilarious. You can find them on SoundCloud.
Also this: www.di.se/ditv/ekonomistudion/ekonomistudion-21-juni--expertens-betyg-pa-trumps-finanspolitik/
"As long as you are not a communist trying to make EVERYONE own the SAME things."
What communist country are you basing that on? 'Cos when I was in Yugoslavia and East Germany, no one was required to own the same things. Honestly, some of the ideas people have regarding communism are just weird.
How's your Brexit going professor?
Thats a change from his answer before why people voted for brexit. Marks answer was "stupidity"
🤫🤫🤫🧐🧐🧐
Occasionally i disagree with marks assessment and this is one of those times. Brexit is a result 45 yrs in the making. When we joined the E.U. it was sold to the public as a trade deal not as a political union. In the same way many lies where told in this last referendum it was a mirror image of how we joined. E.U. scepticism, in the 70's, also divided parties except the 70's vote saw the labour party have a more anti view whilst the conservatives had a more pro view. Given that consistent voters tend to be the old is it any wonder they largely voted for brexit given it was their first opportunity to do so since 1975. Their are debates on youtubes involving tony benn, filmed in the 70's most of what he said was prescient and he foresaw how it would affect the working class. Strangely as the labour party changed over the next few decades they became pro E.U., oversaw continued neo liberal economics and deserted their core vote to become a centrist party. No wonder they now suffer in the polls and are in danger of losing seats in the north and midlands, historically labour heartlands.