Allow me to restart the discussion, but from a different angle. Is the US government forseeing the need for martial law? If true, this would put the recent push to outlaw firearms into greater perspective. Let's play detective: 1.) Anybody who watches international media knows that China and North Korea are allies. Recently, NK threatened to attack the US mainland (a first). China has not rebuked them (also a first). http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-korea-north-combat-idUSBRE92P06520130326 2.) Footage of DHS military equipment being moved to Arizona: http://youtu.be/OTHb1M5S3K0 3.) Obama proposing a "prevention detention" law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_msTII61hWY
Sorry, already busted in another thread. That is not DHS equipment, that is just a unit of what is probably the US Army (or NG or Reserves) being moved to or from someplace. If I have to guess, it is going to or from Fort Irwin, 29 Palms or Fort Bliss. Look at the equipment. Yea, lots of MRAPs. But also standard US military 5 ton cargo trucks, and even 5 ton 5th wheel cargo haulers. If you ask me, that appears to be more like a Cavalry Scout unit on the move. All you have is a YT clip of Army equipment on a train, and suddenly this becomes DHS equipment. And your third piece of information is from... Rachel Maddow? Are you serious? She is not even any kind of journalist, she is a political pundit. And no, North Korea is not going to attack or invade the US. This is not Red Dawn (or the bad remake). This is just as much a figment of the imagination as the DHS ammo is. Although that at least was real, the United States Coast Guard (part of the DHS) goes through a lot of ammo every year. So do all of the uniformed members of the various armed agents of such agencies as INS, Customs and Border Patrol, TSA, National Protection and Programs Directorate (essentially the security guards at Federal Installations), and last but not least the Coast Guard and Secret Service. It always amazes me that people tend to absolutely forget how many people that is.
The whole topic is a mess. Part of it reflects the gleeful anticipation that survivalists have for the 'end of the world', where they will be able to hunker down in their bunkers and take pot shots at looters. The other part seems to thinking that the DHS would be ordering ammo because of North Korea? I can't even begin to figure out what type of conspiracy that would look like.
This whole 1.6 billion ammo BS can be traced back to an examiner blog http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs...-ammo-to-its-nearly-2-billion-round-stockpile Of course the Fed bis Ops order does not come to anywhere near that That comes to 240,000 rounds of ammo. So they are making estimations based on misreading Fed Bis Ops orders. As the 9th Doctor used to say; FANTASITC
And here's another one http://www.thirdreport.com/third-report.asp?storyid=1469 Of course, you can note that the bid request he is talking about is only for 70 million rounds over five years. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...8adb7fe40b7489fbbf5b86eaa0e&tab=core&_cview=1 Read the last amendment to the bid request. It clearly states that the contract is limited to 70 million over five years. And BTW, it's still a bid request, and it has not been awarded. OMG, it seems that the lunatics pushing this crap can't read a bid. Who knew.
China will secretly support North Korea -- not because they want NK to win, but because they want them to lose. The absense of NK would destabilize South Korea's economy, wiping out one of China's main competitors in the region. And of course, if NK does decide to use a nuclear weapon anywhere, the US will be forced to retaliate with a muclear strike of its own. In this scenario, China can even come out looking like the good guy by publicly condemning the US.
North Korea could not deliver a pizza to the US mainland, let alone a missile. With the problems they have had with missiles detonating on launch during their tests, the correct response is to laugh in that fat kids face. And the ammo myth is still a load of bollox no matter how much you want to deflect the discussion away from it.
Do you have any idea where Qingdao is? Take a look at a map sometime. ANY war that North Korea is in will devastate the Chinese export economy. If there is a real war- no cargo ship will travel anywhere near the conflict-- which would shut down China's exports and imports. Think this through again- if North Korea uses nuclear weapons its most likely target would be South Korea, and after that Japan- and in both cases it would be extremely likely that winds would blow radioactive dust towards China. And once again- all vessels would avoid the area to avoid being contaminated. Unless you think that the Chinese government wants to throw away all of its economic gains in the last 50 years, your opinions don't make any sense at all.
Means nothing, this type of threat has happened before. And I doubt that North Korea is ready to commit suicide. And trust me, if they were to launch an unprovoked attack on the US, China and Russia and pretty much every other country in the world would turn away and shun them. At that point they would stand alone. Actually, if North Korea was to launch the attack they claim to be preparing for, I think China would publically tell them they are on their own, and they would mean it. The last thing that China wants is to end up getting involved in a war with the United States yet again. They had a pseudo-war once before with us, and came off the very worse for wear because of it. Plus today they have far to much to loose. No, I expect China would sit this out. And I have no idea how the destruction of North Korea would destabilize South Korea. Yea, there would be some "growing pains" as they reabsorbed North Korea, kind of like when West Germany absorbed East Germany. But that would be mostly internal, and have little to no impact on their economy or exports. And trust me, if North Korea was foolish enough to launch a nuke, pretty much every country would say nothing. Because they themselves have a "Retaliatory Use" clause in their own operations plans for nukes. It would be extremely hypocritical for a nuclear nation to say anything about a second strike retaliation when that was their own policy. I agree. However, they have directly threatened places that they can reach, like Okinawa, Guam, and our bases in Japan and South Korea. Do not make the mistake that thinking that the "United States" are only the 50 states. There is a lot of US territory they can easily strike. And this includes Guam, Samoa, and the Mariana Islands. All US Territory, all inhabited by US citizens.
Yeah you make a good point there. I hadn't considered that at all. Anyway A press release from NK http://live.reuters.com/Event/North_Korea/70001409 The fat kid is out of his ****** mind.
Well, for me a lot of this is history. Far to many people when they think of the start of WWII, they concentrate on Pearl Harbor, and totally forget the millions of US Citizens attacked and then absorbed in the "Japanese Empire" that lived in the Philippines. And that was one of the largest mistakes Japan ever made, not realizing that we would care for our citizens there as much as we did for our citizens here in the "50 States". And a lot of people tend to forget about those territories (other then Puerto Rico), but I do not. And actually, I see Kim III as putting himself into a dangerous position. He keeps cranking up the provocation, and soon he is going to put himself into a corner. Either back down and loose a tremendous amount of face (which could even cause his Government to collapse), or to actually start a war if he actually wants to or not. That is the biggest danger of brinkmanship, and one I think he totally fail to understand. That is what started WWI after all, finally so many threats and ultimatums were passed by both sides that there was no choice but war.
An attack on South Korea is the same as attacking the United States. The same, if it still applies, exists in the opposite, that if North Korea is attacked, it is the same as attacking China. While I hope cooler heads prevail, and all of this recent talk is just that, talk, but I always leave open, in my estimation, the possibility of there being physical hostilities. South Korea has recently been attacked with a pretty severe cyber attack, which was thought to have come from China but was later recanted. And we have the North declaring that they're in a State of War with the South. So, I think we may not see something right away given the show of force we've been maintaining, but I do anticipate something to come out of all of this. Kim Jong-un has upped the ante considerably and apparently has national support in doing so. That suggests that they are not worried about the International Community's reaction, given that nuclear threats and the sort that the North have been throwing out are Declarations of War. Whether or not the North is physically capable of firing a rocket and it successfully hitting a US interest, is irrelevant. The sheer fact that Nuclear War is being threatened is enough to set the stage. Obviously, a defensive posture will be assumed by us and the South. If there is to be a first shot fired, it will be from the people that threatened Nuclear War first, which doesn't seem irrational to them in the least apparently.
That sounds like an awful world, a State of Nature, precisely. As much as I may complain about the various world governments, local, state and federal, I complain about people too. I don't hurt anyone or mess around with people's stuff or anything like that, and I prefer Peace over War, and I wish that the combined governments and peoples around the world would do the same thing. Just mind your own business, be a good person, leave other people alone when they haven't done anything wrong, etc. But that's not happening. Not at all. And if you've been paying attention to the world around you for the last several years, the world economy has gotten really bad. Do some searches on the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and other credible sources like that in the business world. Here: http://www.newsclusters.com/Business_News.php Those are apparently the top financial sources we have, and the ones I read. They don't paint a pretty picture about the world economy, they say that it is bad, and that it is going to be a while before we recover. The IMF cuts world growth. Well, what happens in capitalism when growth goes backwards? But it just doesn't stop there, there are a multitude of debilitating issues plaguing humanity at the moment. I mean, do you not see and hear what is going on around you. Its like you pick a topic, and there it is, huge (*)(*)(*)(*)ing problems that we're simply not figuring out. The money issue is really bad. The War Front and possible War Front issue is really bad. The Cyprus issue and precedent is really bad. The European and American austerity is really bad. Worldwide cyber security issue is really bad. The Greece issue is really bad. There are a lot of really bad things going on right now that could cause a collapse in our society as we very well know it. It could come like a thief in the night. A massive cyberattack would set us back how far. That could happen two Tuesday's from now while you're in bed sleeping at night. When you wake up though, there is no power. Your cell phone has no reception. The AM/FM radio in your vehicle will not pick up a signal. And when you get on your computer, the Internet is down. WTF do you do then? Something like that could very well happen at any time. Pandora's box has been opened with cyberattacks. Something similar could happen with money. Or with Wars. The environment. A disease. Take your pick, I guess. There are plenty of logical scenarios, many of which are transpiring now, that could cause the type of event that you were speaking of. But I will add, I find it deplorable anyone that wants to go into the State of Nature with "gleeful anticipation". A government for the people, by the people, is a good thing. So is moderation. The absolvement of government, though, in the US today, would be a grave error. People and government need each other. I don't. But I guess it is better to think that the DHS is buying in large bulk quantities to safeguard from a foreign threat then a domestic "threat". Speaking of which, do you do any prognosticating or hypothesizing?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ag-mile-disturbances-20130330,0,2297490.story http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Hundreds-of-Teens-Mob-Pedestrians-in-the-Loop-200755191.html http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03...PH&utm_source=topvph_news&utm_campaign=440648 Perhaps DHS is gearing up for Chicagoland. Or because of this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/0...tching-agents-deep-inside-us/?test=latestnews http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/0...-trusted-agents-to-live-and-work-deep-inside/ http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...threats-Mexican-cartels-and-gangs-4383294.php http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/03/drugs_being_smuggled_into_texa.php http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-texas-districtattorneybre92u00s-20130330,0,67827.story ("The Mexican cartels are the most significant organized crime threat to Texas, with six of the eight cartels having command and control networks operating in the state," the department said in a February report.) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-08-mex-cartels_N.htm http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/03/15/mexican-cartels-branching-out-europe http://www.npr.org/2011/11/18/142518965/mexican-cartels-open-new-front-in-war-online http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-06-01-mexico-cartels_N.htm http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2013484575_mexweapons21.html http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2656516&page=1#.UVmeFJPBiSo http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7506581.stm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-10-17-1714053823_x.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...erating-in-the-UK-France-and-Netherlands.html http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-07-22-cartel22_ST_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-25-guns_N.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534267,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/20/n...exico-make-inroads.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.boston.com/news/world/la..._cartels_move_into_central_america/?page=full Since Obama is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323361804578387090985146034.html Probably because of the above and also because of this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-un-drugs-idUSBRE92E01W20130315 http://www.salon.com/2013/03/15/un_development_chief_slams_war_on_drugs_partner/
My words were addressed to those who appear to think that some apocalypse will not only happen, but that once it does their lives will improve and they will no longer have to abide by the silly laws and that pesky Constitution. Prudent precautions make sense, just like here in earthquake country we should be taking prudent precautions.
Nevertheless, as I alluded to in my previous post, there are plenty of things going on right now that could trigger an "apocalypse". What, do you disagree? Yeah, that's not good. I voiced my objection to that train of thought. In all environments, really. Plus, given the dire world scene today, being prepared for something 'bad' would be a good thing. While we count on government most of the time, it cannot always be there when we need it. Evidence of that is bountiful through history. Personal responsibility in times of crisis is a must.
Each person should decide what their reasonable risk and precautions would be- one person might decide it means 3 days worth of food in the pantry, another might think it means being completely self sufficient on a farm in Idaho.
