It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the United States Plan for a National Emergency

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Thank you for your explanation Dave Ravin




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Who was it that quoted " Stockup on plenty of ducktape and plastic" from Bush's last term?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
What is the United States Plan for a National Emergency?

.... personally I dont have any specific answers, but from what I do know, "Northcom" does. Known as "Northern Command" which is all ready to deploy military police and national gaurds men for practically any response to whatever threat they feel no matter how little or how large it might be. Martial law will then be declared on cities, towns, states, etc....



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Who was it that quoted " Stockup on plenty of ducktape and plastic" from Bush's last term?


That would be Tom "yellow alert" Ridge.

If there is a national emergency; stock up on guns and ammo because there will be roving bands of duct tape thieves everywhere.

What is so sad is that "duct tape and plastic" was the response from the director of homeland security when posed with the question what will we do in a worst case senairio.

Where are all the billions approiated for homeland security going. My local community hasen't seen one dime.

If there is an emergency it might be prudent to scrape the "W" stickers off your bumper.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
From reading the forums on this website this has begun not to surprise me a large amount, but is there a similar plan for Britain, Canada, anywhere else in the world?



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Marshall law? You mean the Marshall Plan?

Ooooh, you mean martial law!

With you now.

You are under martial law now. Actually, it is martial rule. That's when the troops are no longer in the streets, but the courts are martial in nature. Don't believe me? Travel without your papers and let a trooper pull you over! Carry that second amendment revolver of yours. Go ahead! Make their day!



Yeah, that just ticks me off when someone is charged with possession of a firearm or whatever. I'm like--hey, you're accusing someone of breaking the law when carrying a weapon is their Constitutional right!

It's like we're being conditioned to believe that guns are bad and we shouldn't have them.

Funny thing is, in Switzerland you're required to have a gun in your home, and the crime rate is very low.

Remember--when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSense
What is the United States Plan for a National Emergency?

.... personally I dont have any specific answers, but from what I do know, "Northcom" does. Known as "Northern Command" which is all ready to deploy military police and national gaurds men for practically any response to whatever threat they feel no matter how little or how large it might be. Martial law will then be declared on cities, towns, states, etc....







Is it possible to declare martial law on every two-horse town in America at the same time? America covers a lot of ground.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
As we can plainly see, THERE IS NO PLAN!

The government goonies will head for the underground black budget shelters
and we will be left to fend for ourselves.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkmonkey14
So ok, I'm a little new on the whole subject. Someone a few posts up said that In the event of a Terrorist attack FEMA would take over and turn us into a Police state? Well, sorry for sounding stupid, but, why would they want to do that?


Look at the Hurricane.

FEMA could not organize an orgy in a whore house, there's no need to worry about them being a part of the N.W.O. for a few years yet.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Odium, do you really think so?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Fed Plan is as follows:

Send lawyers, guns and money....

Signed,
Dubya

P.S. Halliburton gets all the contracts....


Survivalists Plan is as follows:

Get guns, drugs and food...

Signed,
The real pioneers

P.S. all contracts go to farmers

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   


Look at the Hurricane.

FEMA could not organize an orgy in a whore house, there's no need to worry about them being a part of the N.W.O. for a few years yet.



Although I wouldn't put it in those exact words, odium is right. FEMA as a 4,000 personnel 4 billion-ish dollar a year agency could never ever have the resources for a coup, and Bush has been cutting funding from what I hear. You are going to control a population adequately with roughly 1 person per million Americans? You are going to control a population with 12 dollars per American per year?

Now, this is not taking into account that FEMA would undoubtedly get extra resources in a huge disaster, but they just don't have the infrastructure in place to do it and it would be costly to build.

On the other hand, you have the Department of Homeland Security as a whole that does have the personnel resources, technological resources, capital etc. They also seem pretty well tailored for the job yet not quite as so as they would have been if the FBI and CIA were incorporated into it and lets not forget it was crafted because of 9-11. They have counter narcotics, secret service, coast guard, FEMA, transportation security, immigration/border security. the DHS In tandem with the DOD, state national guards, FBI and DNI (director of national intelligence overseeing intelligence agencies..also created because 911) is the resources you would need. So, you got to get 3 cabinet officials in place and the president and you have the resources, but you also need the lower downs responsible for individual offices, and states have to be panicked enough to request military help across the nation. In a natural disaster resulting in a police-state, there would undoubtedly be lots of firing of lower-downs because of "incompetence". Some would be taken out by "terrorist assassination", etc.

These government power consolidation plans to increase efficiency with dealing with threats to the governments interests apply to all threats to the governments interest. In an attempted coup (happens all the time in other countries), the consolidation of agency and "simplifying" of structure will help out its likelihood of success and efficiency.

People get caught up with disaster initiating martial law and tying FEMA through disaster response to that martial law. I think that is really simpleton logic.

This being said, I still don't believe in the New World Order. It is definitely a minority possibility though. What evidence is there? Sure, events can be interpreted that way, but it also can be interpreted the traditional historical recognized way without any gaps in reasoning (please point those gaps out in the textbooks if you want to question it). Sure there is corruption everywhere and that is what leads people to see the NWO, but organization of crime goes from small time thugs to mafia families. It applies to government too. If "they" were so self interested, they could just as easily be efficient in that endeavor alone as they would be in a group. Why would a power hungry individual want to share power with others? That being said, you are stronger individually in a collective in some cases as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidationOfDiscrepancy
Odium, do you really think so?


Well think of it like this:

People claim FEMA has camps set up for a National Emergency.
They have 5 day advanced warning, tens of thousands of busses and do not move the people into these camps.

Noe if I meant to believe they have enough camps for the whole of the American population why not use them?

Would it not suti the N.W.O. better to take advantage of this hurricane and show that these camps are for your "safety"? So eventually they can begin to move more and more people into them as other problems happen - earthquakes, tornados, terrorist attacks, etc?

We are meant to believe they put tanks and soldiers on the streets to get us used to a Police state but not move us into "camps" to help benefit their agenda?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I agree. If the Katrina fiasco is any indication and to me it has to be:

1. The Fed Gov't is worse than useless in a disaster

2. There is NO way they could implement any large scale relief/evacuation plan. I'm sure it looks great on paper and I'll bet they have warehouses full of supplies and equipment that will never see the light of day.

3. We have to learn to rely on ourselves and hopefully each other. Everyone should have some soprt of emergency stockpile. One portable (bug-out bag) and one to weather-in-place.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I made a few mistakes above. FEMA has a little over 10 people per million Americans. I also am finding things implying that the budget of FEMA is growing with Homeland Security as a whole. I also am hearing its budget doubled in the late 1900s. I can’t find anything hard and concrete though. I have the budget summaries of FEMA, but they are long and it doesn’t say a total that is discernable to me.

If people think FEMA is the NWO, they should go on their website, look at the database they have of EVERY single one of their employees, and see who they are. Go to it at this website. You should find at least some loose suspicious connections if they are the NOW or a leading portion of it. For some reason, I have a hard time finding an organization that is so open is doing every secret thing required for a global coup for a country the size of the U.S. I think the NWO would be a little more spread out.

As for the plan of an Emergecny being putting Americans into camps. These camps aren’t secret, they are called prisons. Anyway, it would be hard to hide a prison and have it be cheap enough to build for large scale camp populations. According to this website for a 256 bed minimum security prison, you need 10.6 million. That is 40 billion for 1 million people. If my 4 billion dollar-ish idea of FEMA’s budget is correct, that is 10 years of budget just for the prisons of maybe half or a quarter of what they need for possible political dissidents.

It would be better just having the cities be camps and have a robust “homeland security” structure in place there.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
More to a good thread.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Pardon for stating the obvious, but they government would run around in circles flapping their hands, telling "oh my god, oh my god, OH MY GOD!".

That aside, martial law would be declared in places, in which riots and mass crime could break out, and places where terrorists could be getting ready to carry out orders for mass destruction of something.

As for long term....wouldn't have a clue.

How do you protect 300 million people anyway?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join