It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gravelbone
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck
I love that how many people seem have this unfounded assumption that city dwellers by and large lack survival knowledge and/or skills due to a close proximity to an urban environment.
originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Bluntone22
What good does marginally better armed do you when the urban areas have 10xs the population and basically all the economic potential?!?
(I lied.. the actual number is 5xs the population not 10)
This simple approach identified 19 states that are leading the U.S. in manufacturing prosperity: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Shared traits include a diversified manufacturing base, positive business climate, flexible incentive packages, outstanding work force development programs, and highly proactive local and state governments that support manufacturing. Below are manufacturing snapshots of each state that show how they are strengthening their industries and contributing to our national economic recovery.
they then go on to say it would be more like syrian civil war then the original civil war for usa
Last March, Foreign Policy magazine asked about a half-dozen national security experts to reckon the risks of a second civil war. Their estimates ranged from 5 percent to 95 percent, with the consensus landing at slightly more than 1 in 3. (And that was six months before the president of the United States declared war on kneeling football players and the fans who support them.) But the suggestion that unnamed separatists are cooking up a 21st century sequel to Fort Sumter raises a question — or, to be precise, several questions: If Americans resolved to go to war with one another, how would we choose teams?
so probably not the best legal strategy from an international stand point and controlling international opinion on the conflict
Humanitarian law is also designed to protect civilian objects, including those indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 29 of the Convention on the law relating to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses [available on www.un.org...], adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1997, stipulates: “International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by the principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules”. General protection under the law applicable to armed conflicts extends to more than international watercourses, and the four main prohibitions laid down in that law are worth noting: the ban on employing poison or poisonous weapons; the ban on destroying, confiscating or expropriating enemy property; the ban on destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the ban on attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces. The four prohibitions, to which should be added the provisions on environmental protection, are expressly mentioned in the instruments relating to international armed conflicts, and the last two are also laid down in the law applicable to non-international armed conflicts. Starvation as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict, and the concept of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population includes drinking-water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Immunity for indispensable objects is waived only when these are used solely for the armed forces or in direct support of military action. Even then, the adversaries must refrain from any action which could reduce the population to starvation or deprive it of essential water. On the subject of works or installations containing dangerous forces, humanitarian law explicitly mentions dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating sections. Even where these are military objectives, it is forbidden to attack them when such action could release dangerous forces and consequently cause heavy losses among the civilian population. The ban also extends on the same terms to other military objectives at or in the vicinity of such facilities. Immunity from attack is waived only when one or other of the works, installations or facilities is used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if attacks are the only feasible way to terminate such support.
The Ogallala Aquifer (oh-guh-LAH-luh) is a shallow water table aquifer surrounded by sand, silt, clay, and gravel located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it underlies an area of approximately 174,000 sq mi (450,000 km2) in portions of eight states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas). It was named in 1898 by geologist N. H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska. The aquifer is part of the High Plains Aquifer System, and rests on the Ogallala Formation, which is the principal geologic unit underlying 80% of the High Plains.