help and supplies on the way, etc... would be enough to keep people calm and relatively passive. You know, normal propaganda techniques.
Imagine the following scenario. Look at it from threat-analysis perspective:
Simple spark gap transmitters is what shit-tier terrorists would use and thats the precise reason that would fail.
Any rogue actors worth their salt would have to recruit 20-somethings, probably antifa-sympathizer, working in telecom (for the ones that do work), to turn radio towers into broadband radio jammers. The towers have power backup so even as the electricity went down, the radio jamming signals would continue. Better yet, they might merge the environmentalist movement with the anti-5G movement, backed up with dissatisfied bernie supporters. A lot of the left are avid climbers too. Followed with "airdropping supplies" by "third parties" at the base or streets leading to cell towers. Anyone coming to fix them would have to go through a horde of "urban youth". If they were told "white supremacists are attempting to weaponize cell towers against inner city blacks" they'd believe it.
Mass communications denial, lights out, and turning the white-supremacist-narrative of the state against the very state officials attempting to solve the dilemma. It goes on long enough, it keeps spreading and growing in scope and damage and collective public action/outrage, kinda like the social equivalent of a forest fire, until its too big for the state to contain without inflicting damage on its own captive citizenry.
After that whoever was behind the campaign have a broader grievance narrative.
This is I think how threat actors of any significance would do it.
The infrastructure in the united states is trash and really needs some big investments against this sort of thing.
The infrastructure in the united states is trash and really needs some big investments against this sort of thing.
I can't argue with that.
(post is archived)