COLORADO SPRINGS -- The U.S. military has devised its first-ever war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans.
The classified plans, developed here at Northern Command headquarters, outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000 ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian response teams.
Now go ahead and absorb this, so when someone announces a military strike against a crowd of unruly protestors, everyone can say "Oh come on that's old news, they've been talking about that for months. Give me something breaking, like that cheerleader whose parents tried to leave her in Tijuana."
So should we have no plans drafted for military operations within our country if we were to be attacked? Civilian response teams are not hidden drafts, either.
And I'll wait to see the 'military strike against a crowd of unruly protestors.' Don't think that is where this is going...there already are 'strikes' against unruly protestors (pepper spray, rubber bullts, etc.)
But if it will make us more upset, lets envision Apache helicopters swooping in and vaporizing them. They deserve it anyhow, for being unruly.
tnf wrote:So should we have no plans drafted for military operations within our country if we were to be attacked? Civilian response teams are not hidden drafts, either.
And I'll wait to see the 'military strike against a crowd of unruly protestors.' Don't think that is where this is going...there already are 'strikes' against unruly protestors (pepper spray, rubber bullts, etc.)
But if it will make us more upset, lets envision Apache helicopters swooping in and vaporizing them. They deserve it anyhow, for being unruly.
I didn't say anything about black helicopters mowing people down in the streets.
In California, the National Guard is already in trouble for running an operation to gather intelligence on domestic protestors.
tnf wrote:So should we have no plans drafted for military operations within our country if we were to be attacked?
Since I didn't answer this question before, my answer is no.
We have police, FBI, state-run investigative bureaus, as well as the national guard (if there was a military-style ground attack somehow). I can't see why on earth we would need our military moving in to the streets because of a terrorist attack.
I mean, would you send them in for a round-up, looking for suspicious people like they did in Afghanistan?
tnf wrote:So should we have no plans drafted for military operations within our country if we were to be attacked?
That's what you have the National Guard for isn't it?
Exactly. These new plans take Posse Comitatus and throw it out the fucking window.
I see tnf's point, but given the fact that we're already living in what amounts to a police state (THANKS PATRIOT ACT!), I don't want to see ANY more domestic powers given to the military. Take some of that bloated Homeland Security budget and allocate funds to equip and train the CORRECT first responders. The cops and emergency response teams.
Yep, and also focus a little bit on keeping 'terrorists' OUT of the country to begin with, instead of trying to justify some kind of lockdown on the people who already live here. They aren't willing to spend anything on cops, firemen, port and shipping security, making nuclear and chemical plants safe -- no, they are more worried about what to do to the rest of us AFTER the next attack happens.