That's why states have and call up their national Guard units during natural disasters.

The law regards using troops against the population.
We with our taxes made it possible for them to have the equipment. It would be ideal to pick up people and carry them to safety.

Last edited Tue Aug 29, 2017, 02:23 AM - Edit history (1)

You can't go barreling through some neighborhoods with large equipment and such. Small boats are best for some areas. And aircraft to pick up people from roofs, if any. Transporting them to the shelters. Maybe dropping food and water to areas not picked up from yet.

This is bad, and maybe going to get worse, no matter what they do. It's catastrophic flooding. FEMA said it'd take years to recover.

But remember that there are areas that are not flooding at all. The people there in Houston are also helping each other.

I'm in SW La., where groups have mobilized to help each other. We are having flooding, as well, but not bad at all. Pockets of flooding. People have started making sandbags for others to pick up. Picking up or corralling lost dogs. Neighbors offering to help neighbors, checking on the elderly.

equipment to assist in a disaster. I'm talking about deploying equipment that would be useful to the max.

to use in rescuing many people at one time.

and some construction trucks. Anything with a few feet between the pavement and engine works.

Lots of boats and in some areas civilian-organized brigades. In other areas, just official aid workers.

and eventually something was worked out whereby the federal gov't could send in forces, remember the long caravan of military vehicles moving through the flood.

Many of the long-standing rules of our system are outdated and rooted in libertarian thinking, as they were designed to erect walls between the state and federal gov't to protect the states - rules that now prevent states from getting the help they need.

Americans pay huge amounts in taxes to fund the federal gov't, and citizens should have access to all of that, especially in times of crisis.

If we can send in the armed forces/tanks/planes all over the world to help people, we should certainly do so to help Americans right here at home.

You are thinking about amphibious landing craft

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility

It's unlikely these craft would be well suited to what is needed in Harvey rescue
missions. They are very slow and are meant to operate in deep water until the last moment. These boats would be frequently beached in a flood situation.

They also know water. Why not just send them in?

The Coast Guard has always had a different mission then the Army, Navy/Marines and Air Force.

This snip from the WIKI article on Posse Comitatus clears things up a bit. It is interesting to me that the P.C. act is only for the Army and Air Force while the Navy is prohibited from civilian law enforcement only by a directive of SecDef. So the Navy could be used without an act of Congress.

In the United States, a federal statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the United States Army, and through it, its offspring, the United States Air Force, as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes without the approval of Congress. A directive from the Secretary of Defense prohibits the use of the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps for law enforcement.

No such limitation exists on the United States Coast Guard, which can be used for all law enforcement purposes (for example, Coast Guardsmen were used as temporary Air Marshals for many months after the 9/11 attacks) except when, as during World War II, a part of the Coast Guard is placed under the command of the Navy. This part would then fall under the regulations governing the Navy in this matter, rather than those concerning the Coast Guard.

The limitation also does not apply to the National Guard when activated by a state's governor and operating in accordance with Title 32 of the U.S. Code (for example, National Guardsmen were used extensively by state governors during Hurricane Katrina response actions). Conversely, the limitation would apply to the National Guard when activated by the President and operating in accordance with Title 10 of the U.S. Code.[9]

First, the Ducks (DUKW) don't exist in the Army and haven't since the 1950's.

Most of what amphibious capability rests with the USMC, and most of their is armored vehicles. They are made for straight in assaults on a beach and are KT well suited all all for areas with all sorts of cross currents.

What the Army does have is a few LARC amphibious trucks, however those things are HUGE and also not suited for city streets even when dry.

The only other vehicle in the Army inventory right now with amphibious swim capability is the M113 APC, and they are definitely not suited for that. Slow in the water driven only by the action of the tracks in the water the current would toss them all around in the flood waters.