I was thinking simpler...seal our end of the tunnel, pump in a large quantity of unscented natural gas and O2, and ignite. We'll be able to find the Mexican end of the tunnel rather easily at that point.
Printable View
I was thinking simpler...seal our end of the tunnel, pump in a large quantity of unscented natural gas and O2, and ignite. We'll be able to find the Mexican end of the tunnel rather easily at that point.
Border? What's a border? I looked up the definition of "border" and that cleared it up a bit. It's the ornamental decoration at the edge of the 'Welcome' mat. Now I get it.
Doubt it. They would more than likely respond by securing Americans Constitutional rights from them first with a bigger stronger ndaa #2 or a patriot act #2 for the safety of NS. Securing the border and doing what is right isn't in their interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
Well, the Springs was a major target for our Soviet friends back in the 70's and 80's... that whole area is still a significant military target (Peterson, Carson, Shreiver, and not to mention NORAD). But I doubt that they'd really have the gall or capability to do any sort of conventional attack... watch for VBIEDs, SVBIEDs, and the ever famous ABIED (that's Aircraft Borne IED- see: 9/11) though. Even without the cartel tunnels, the border is so porous that they can't even tell who and how many are sneaking across daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
It could be an even simpler attack. After reading Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger it raised some interesting possibilities.
Indeed. Everyone in the world knows that a ground assault on American soil would fail because we would suddenly have a well-armed and angry army of at least 50 million (20 million of those are combat vets). Even ISIS isn't that stupid. They will force a police state with well-placed terrorist attacks, and then control us from within the Gov which they have already successfully infiltrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
Untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
you control the infrastructure = poison water supply, destroy a few food distribution warehouses, take out the refinery in communist city. An opposing team could control the front range before 1/2 doz board members could get their shit together. Especially if it was done between 2 & 5 in the a.m OR for maximum effect, do it 20-30 minutes in to rush hour.
Don't kid yourself, because America is well armed, doesn't mean shit if there's no one watching the gate, when needed.
The water supply and the potential for friendly fire are the biggest issues IMO. You have enough preppers on this board alone that food won't be an issue for some of the defenders. Others of us aren't preppers but are well-prepared and ISIS isn't a Spetsnaz brigade. The most ISIS could so is cause panic, more so in Denver than C Springs. Open assault in the US would be sheer stupidity even with the sheeple and gun control idiots around. Maybe not so much in 20-40 years if Feinstein and Obama have their way but right now we still have the elements Yamamoto feared 75 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Did that make anyone else think of this? http://www.rodenator.com/ [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgztUzqaL3E
I suspect THIS is the plan ... and I still contend that the Obama Administration are already allies of ISIS which is why we haven't seen any serious move to stop them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadger
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
--Barack H Obama, page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope”.
That also doesn't go in line with their goals. They don't want to defeat us militarily because they know they can't even scratch the surface. They don't tend to think strategically/tactically anyway, this is a political campaign not a military one. They want to cause fear, panic and economic damage (and use those results to move US policy in their favor). That's why they knocked down the twin towers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I'm going to look like an asshole for saying this, but in general a terrorist strike by ISIS on US soil is most likely going to help "our side" more than anything else. For several reasons:
- Its most likely going to be an attack in a coastal, leftist controlled city (NYC, Boston, DC, LA, maybe Chicago) and that will cause even more leftists to leave the left just like 9/11 did (I can think of a dozen prominent leftist celebs that are now on our side because of 9/11).
- Any attack on US soil is going to damage Obama politically, especially with all the Democrats that are having second thoughts about him now.
- Any clamping down on civil/constitutional rights after such an attack will only double the effect of #2.
- If the attacks kill people in government, if I'm right about point #1 the lion's share of them will be Democrats (maybe they'll get Big O in DC?).
- If there's even the slightest chance that the ISIS thugs came across the southern border then the debate over immigration and securing the border will be over ... nothing may get done (like usual) but the consensus will be with the right on this one.
- An attack on US Soil (I refuse to use the fascist term "homeland") will wake up more fence sitters and liberals that think Islam is not a threat and it will cause more of these people to buy guns thus strengthening the pro-gun ranks and hastening the reversal of recent gun laws here and in other states.
All that said I want to be clear, I DO NOT want an attack on US soil or on US assets abroad EVER AGAIN. But if (when) they happen I want to be realistic about their effects.