Author Topic: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...  (Read 33864 times)

meinbruder

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2008, 07:25:50 PM »
Hawkmoon makes several good points.  I remember a world leader who, like Rumsfeld, thought so highly of the high-tech toys of his military that he suspended all R&D for future programs to make current production more efficient.  Two scant years later in the midst of a losing war, the generals he hadnt fired were able to secure funding for new weapons systems.  I may have studied German but I like speaking English, I hope I dont have to learn Chinese or Arabic.   

Da Bianhua
}:)>
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.....

Da bianhua
}:)>

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2008, 08:51:16 PM »
There's no serious or realistic risk of an actual invasion of CONUS, no one has that kind of expeditionary capability but us.  rolleyes


Quote
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

What they are talking about is a major NBC attack.  Other than the existing Marine NBC response unit (a Rein. Company?) stood up a couple years back there's no single large response force trained and equipped to respond.  An NG infantry unit with MP's and NBC specialists with organic transpo would be perfect for that kind of response and could also cover any potential large-scale coordinated 5th column action (the only invasion that pencils out at all).

As much as I liked Red Dawn, barring something catastrophic (and statistically impossible), we will never see a large-scale military invasion of the homeland in our or our children's or probably their children's lifetimes.  We simply control the seas and aerospace too thoroughly.

Once again it's a BS headline designed to sell papers and reel in the credulous.
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2008, 09:33:01 PM »
Who is talking of an invasion?

Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.

Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.



HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,665
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2008, 03:22:55 AM »
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this?  shocked

If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.  grin )
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2008, 06:00:29 AM »
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this?  shocked

If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.  grin )

The brass is more worried about NDs than their men's ability to protect themselves and perform their duties.

SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2008, 06:02:19 AM »
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this?  shocked

If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.  grin )

The brass is more worried about NDs than their men's ability to protect themselves and perform their duties.

SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.

Regarding that, would it be THAT difficult to sent NG people out in vehicles with loaded magazines in a locked box with a changeable code lock, and only provide the code in an emergency situation?


meinbruder

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2008, 07:04:06 AM »
True, on every point.  Sleeper cells are the biggest threat and the ease of building a simple IED to attack civilians for the sake of terror is significant.  It wouldnt take much to tie down every LEO in the country.  Setting aside the NBC debate, a disruption of the economy and utilities would halt the country in its tracks.  Folks with a full pantry and arms would be all right, for a while.  Sympathizers are scattered across the country and are the wild card, so to speak.  Shortly after the Iraq invasion, seven people were arrested here in Portland.  Four of them were NG and had access to Port of Portland; the entire Oregon Air Guard could have been grounded with nothing more than a bag of grenades.

I cant help but wonder how the .gov would react to the presence of armed people in society rising to defend the homeland.  Without any way to tell the good from the bad, a lot of good people are at risk of attack by our own military as a threat.  Consider the official view of the various militia groups across the country; theyre painted as domestic terrorists in the media and the .gov shares that view.

Da Bianhua
}:)> 


Who is talking of an invasion?

Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.

Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.



Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.....

Da bianhua
}:)>

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,010
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2008, 07:08:45 AM »
As I recall, a few years ago, the National Guard and Army Reserve created a few Chemical Corps companies specifically to respond to a large-scale chemical attack or provide technical assistance to civilian authorities for large chemical accidents.  One such company is here in Washington.
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Tallpine

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 23,172
  • Grumpy Old Grandpa
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2008, 07:28:26 AM »
Why is this a problem?

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, right Huh?
Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one. The road goes upward toward the light; but the laden traveller may never reach the end of it.  - Ursula Le Guin

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2008, 08:36:25 AM »
Quote from: carebear
... An NG infantry unit with MP's and NBC specialists with organic transpo would be perfect for that kind of response and could also cover any potential large-scale coordinated 5th column action (the only invasion that pencils out at all).


Who is talking of an invasion?

Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.

Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.



"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2008, 08:57:09 AM »
4000 people, Carebear. And most of those likely noncombat.

4000 people.
For the whole country.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2008, 09:31:18 AM »
Think of it as a political opportunity to expand RKBA and regain lost ground. If the gov would not defend home territory, all the more reason for citizens to be allowed to own effective deterrents. It is good on the budget as well.

Also, the 4000 is hard to believe. At any given time, there are units training all over the country in military bases. Besides, the garrison at Fort Knox alone is larger than 4000.

Tecumseh

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2008, 01:12:51 PM »
A few 100,000 CCWers is what will really make a difference. 

Strings

  • Guest
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2008, 01:50:39 PM »
Quick look at the crystal ball shows me something VERY disturbing...

 Any attack here in CONUS is going to involve sleepers: they're not going to be visually obvious as BGs (except when they shoot at others). The military and police are going to be severely hampered by the fact that they can't tell the good from the bad. Which is going to result in militias trying to do the job (and respond to basically random occurances).

 Want to know what the end result will look like? Watch Reservoir Dogs. The "Mexican Standoff" at the end, only on a MUCH larger scale. America will get to see first-hand just how hot "low-intensity conflict" actually is.

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2008, 02:00:21 PM »
It would be very easy to train 1,000 True Believers.

Infiltrate them into the US.

None of them really knows what is going on. They just know their particular job. For instance, Ahmed is supposed to shoot at trucks along a stretch of highway on the first day he is deployed. On the second day, he's supposed to target a wal-mart. On the third day, an attack on a church.
 
Even figuring a 50% defection rate, that's more than our folks could deal with.
 
And it's gonna happen after we bug out of the middle east.
 
Blog under construction

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2008, 02:13:10 PM »
But only after we leave Iraq, right?

Because every single terrorist in the world is tied up there, and 1000 terrorists leaving would completely deflate the ranks of the True Believers. They wouldn't re-assign anyone or anything like that, if it were in the cards.

Your argument has about as much merit as saying that the Martians are going invade us just as soon as we "bug out of the Middle East."
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2008, 02:22:46 PM »
They'll see it as a weakness, and in their culture, weaknesses are to be exploited. Period.

Blog under construction

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2008, 02:25:53 PM »
Yeah, that's just impossible logic to counter.

They've got this super-specific plan in mind, that could be accomplished at any time regardless of our presence in the Middle East, but they're only going to initiate it if we leave the Middle East, out of some kind of machismo. Not because they hate us, or because it makes tactical sense as a 'terrorist' act - but because we've shown weakness.

rolleyes
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,234
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2008, 02:35:58 PM »
Hey, they're big on symbolism... Why the repeated acts on the world trade centers? Why not easier targets? Frankly, there were a LOT easier things to do than steal a few cruise missiles and pilot 'em to the targets...

Blog under construction

Gewehr98

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 11,010
  • Yee-haa!
    • Neural Misfires (Blog)
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2008, 03:19:23 PM »
The WTC attacks are small potatoes now.

Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.   

Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.   shocked
"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

http://neuralmisfires.blogspot.com

"Never squat with your spurs on!"

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2008, 03:33:04 PM »
The WTC attacks are small potatoes now.

Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.   

Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.   shocked

Hijacking just won't work anymore. It worked because people were still following the old idea to comply with the hijackers.

Now, the new version is that if someone tries to hijack the plane, everyone on board kicks the living crap out of them and ties them up. Or they're "subdued" with repeated blunt object trauma till they stop moving.

Because everyone now knows that if you comply, everyone will die anyway.


wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2008, 03:36:00 PM »
Quote
Frankly, there were a LOT easier things to do than steal a few cruise missiles and pilot 'em to the targets...

Several years and a large percentage of the organization's resources devoted to 19 terrorists...

But you just assured us all that when we leave Iraq, they'd have 1000 terrorists involved in a much larger plot in no time at all.

"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2008, 03:47:27 PM »
Quote
The role of the National Guard is supposed to be ... to guard the nation

News to me.  When I was on active duty in Germany in the late '80's a big part of the Op-Plan and annual REFORGER exercises was what we called "Ten Divisions in Ten Days".  That meant getting ten Divisions of Active Duty and and NATIONAL GUARD troops across the pond should the Warsaw Pact decide they wanted to visit Frankfurt or Paris.   The National Guard was always considered to be ready to deploy overseas.  In fact in WWI and WWII the Guard were some of the first units sent overseas.  And let's not forget about the militia units that fought in the Mexican-American  and Spanish-American Wars  

Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna could be lucky in war, notably at the Alamo, but he had a problem with food.  He lost his leg in the so-called French Pastry War, fought between France and Mexico in 1838. Then in 1847, facing the United States at the Battle of Cerro Gordo in Mexico, he stopped paying attention to the war long enough to linger over a roast chicken.
His lunch was interrupted by an uninvited regiment of Illinoisans, who ate the general's chicken and carried off his cork leg. Santa Anna hobbled away to fight another day.
It was a huge victory for the 4th Regiment Illinois Volunteers, who also discovered a hoard of gold used to pay Mexican soldiers

..snip....

Mark Whitlock of Camp Lincoln's Illinois State Military Museum says the leg is going nowhere, ever. "It's an important part of Illinois history," he said.  Cerro Gordo's place in history is marked by an inscription on the shin of the leg: "General Santa Anna's cork leg, captured at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, Mexico, by Private A. Waldron, First Sergeant Sam Rhoades, Second Sergeant John M. Gill April 18, 1847, all of the Fourth Regiment, Illinois Volunteers of the Mexican War."

Quote
With the threat of both a European and a Pacific War, President Franklin Roosevelt called the 33rd Division of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service on March 5, 1941. After mustering in Chicago, the 33rd Division spent three months training at Camp Forrest in Tennessee. This included bayonet practice, marksmanship and war exercises. The Division was sent to Camp Lewis, Washington where it received training in mountain combat, followed by desert training in California. The 33rd was then sent to defend the Hawaiian Islands and continue training.

On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed the American Naval Fleet at Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to declare war on Japan. Within a week Germany declared war on the United States.

Elements of the 33rd Division took part in various campaigns in the Pacific Theater of War. The 132d Infantry, of the Illinois National Guard, arrived on Guadalcanal on 8 Dec to support the United States Marines in expanding the campaign.  They played a large role in the first Japanese land battle defeat in history.


And yep, a Red Dawn or a seaborne invasion ain't gonna happen.  No other nation or terrorist group could make it happen (heck, even the best Germany could do in WWII was land small groups of agents on Long Island, and Japan could only launch a couple of rounds from the deck guns of submarines on the west coast.)  

Sleeper cells and/or terrorist groups a what's gonna hit us.  There's no need to reivive the old Coast Artillery Corps.

And yep, it's easier to fight them over there then fight them over here.   Plus it easer from them to "strike" at us over there, then to try to "strike" at us over here.   I'd much rather fight them over there then fight them over here.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

freakazoid

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,243
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2008, 06:08:48 PM »
If there was an actual invasion force from some country, wouldn't the US just pull all of it's troops from across the world home?

Quote
No, if the troops were here, the Democrat party would just downsize the military again like Clinton did. Don't try to pretend that wouldn't happen.

That would be a bad thing?

Quote
Quote
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives; Amendments to the Constitution - Amendment 2 - August 17th - 20th, 1789.


Quote
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep andbear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction
-St. George Tucker (1803).

Quote
I still think they ought to revive State Militias, myself.

Yeah, you go and train, you report once a month, but there's no possibility you'll be sent elsewhere. You would be defending your home. It's just that you'd receive military training and have access to military equipment.

I think a lot of people would sign up for that.

Now that wouldn't be a bad thing.
"so I ended up getting the above because I didn't want to make a whole production of sticking something between my knees and cranking. To me, the cranking on mine is pretty effortless, at least on the coarse setting. Maybe if someone has arthritis or something, it would be more difficult for them." - Ben

"I see a rager at least once a week." - brimic

Strings

  • Guest
Re: US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2008, 06:44:19 PM »
There are a few things being missed...

 First off, a seaborne invasion IS possible, via international shipping container. Sustaining such an operation would be somewhat problematic, but not impossible.

 Second: "sleeper cells". These don't have to be made up of folks of Middle-Eastern decent. Think of some of the groups that operate on college campuses today: NOT hard to retask them without "spilling the beans" as to the new actual goals. Think some of the loonies at DU wouldn't jump at the chance to act out, if they thought they were just hurting Bush?

 Third (and this has been mentioned): NBC. Especially biological or chemical. Massive impact from low numbers. I seem to recall hearing about a computer model done, using E.Bola as the agent. 20 man cell involved in dispersal, utilizing airliners. The computer model showed roughly 75% of the planet down, depending on when such an attack is used.

 Know what happens to society when you remove 75% of the population?

 Personally, I'm guessing a "combined arms" type scenario: Achmed over there does a biological or chemical attack (or two). Sam and his anarchist buddies devote their time to bombs. Julio and his homies start doing some random shootings...

 Ain't I a bright lil' ray of sunshine?