Board Thread:Warrior's Pub/@comment-11361577-20150314151253/@comment-5559147-20150319150737

Yes the above response ( second wikia contributor responding to the one who quoted me ) was from me. Moving on..

BattleGames,

I think we need be careful throwing around words like spec-ops and law enforcment. Because while your use of them is not incorrect. It kind of over simplifies. If not skews the competitors abilities a bit.

We are not dealing with some podunk Sherifs department vs the SAS here. We are dealing with two highly trained and speialized groups. Who perform special operations for their respective orginazations. Yes one may be military and the law enforcment, but for certain things the training in question is going to be very similar. Once again for years the military special forces community went to SWAT to train on building clearing/urban engagment. While they have a lot more experience with it now then a decade ago. The two groups still cross train.

As for what they deal with SWAT deals with everything from nut job petty criminals, to well funded drug syndicates and militias. They also often have to plan and exacute their missions with in a matter of hours, where as SEAL ops often take days if not longer to plan. In other words a meeting engagment with little to no intel or plan may actually favor the SWAT for whom it is not such an out of context situation.

Again let me ask how different are the gangs and orginized crime outfits, SWAT faces, from the militias and terrorists the SEALs face? That question of course ignores the fact that SWAT has its own brand of home grown terrorists and militia to face. It still a question worth contemplating though.

Let me be clear though to everyone. I am not saying that SWAT would win, or even that it may not be one sided to some degree. Just that it is not unfair in the way "unfair" seems to be used around here.

This is after all two teams of highly trained and experienced operators, both of which are presumably well armed, armored and protected. So it not going to be a walk in the park for either side.