It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


National Security and The Super Highway

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:58 PM
When we all talk about national security and the importance of it why then are we allowing things like this Super Highway to go on under the table.

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

More Info

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:17 PM
As far as national security goes, I think that every highway, every major traffic corridor is of concern. In fact, if you think about it, there are literally hundreds of security risks that are of concern and there really isn't anything that anyone can do except to remain vigilant; railroads, canals, rivers, shipping lanes, ports etc. Hell, the list is endless. When you think about the extent of security risks that exist, one would quickly realize that it is impossible to protect them all.

As far as building a NAFTA super highway, I don't see this as any more or less vulnerable than the tens of thousands of miles of railways that exist in the US. If anything, the railways are actually more vulnerable to terrorist attack simply due to the vast areas of relative isolation that so many rail lines run through. How does one protect these? Considering the vast quantities of dangerous and volitile materials that are shipped by rail, one could readily identify rail as a terror target. To destroy key railways could easily disrupt trade and, thus, affect the national economy quite easily.

A NAFTA superhighway is definitely a terror security risk but it would not be any more or less vulnerable than other identified possible targets.

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:36 PM
Interesting BoD they have there... Horosoko, eh? Canuck, "Big C" conservative. Wasn't the same crew around for "Get In Or Stay Out!" published about '98 out of California, Irvine?

Aren't they the same folks who would like more rather than less access to Canadian resources (water and hydro-carbons) and free-flow of inexpensive visitor-labour everywhere... I smell a "Mike Harris" or "Calgary School Alumn" somewhere. This has my interest. Not sure what to think yet. Will it be a "toll" road or a road that takes a "toll"?

Who's doin' the media for them?

Victor K.


[edit on 30-9-2006 by V Kaminski]

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:55 PM
I am guessing that the road will be funded by investors from China and other countries. The thing that concerns me is that who will police it? Will it be under some type of international police because the wording of Inland Ports worries me.
All along this planned route their would need to be facilities to support it so will they be under national or state rules or some type of international trade aggrement.

Here is some more info

[edit on 30-9-2006 by factfinder38]

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:01 PM
The trans Texas corridor I35 debate is ramping up. A whole lot of info has been kept secret from the public. At least in south central texas.

[url=A link to an anti corridor site][url]

There are plenty of state sites - they paint rosey pictures. "google I35"

It seems that Gov Perry et al are trying to hand the construction and some revenues to a spanish construction company. I am not sure about all the operating entities.

It has been my understanding that private commerce will not be allowed on the corridor. It will be controlled by the state or feds. I don't seem to ever hear anything about security, but then there is little security on roads anyway.

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:55 PM
Good sight thanks.
This link will work.

I wonder if the people of Texas were told this would be a big National project with overseas investors and owners?

[edit on 1-10-2006 by factfinder38]

top topics

log in