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.


What if America is Attacked?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:37 PM
Ok let's say US is invaded by countries set to destroy us.

who would it be?

America is un doubtly it's weakest in history.

and resources stretched thin.

A natural Disaster nearly wiped out the US oil supply. Prices are still around 3$ a gallon in the US.

Mostly because of oil greed to rape the public this has not gone down.

A few well placed attacks on various resources coupled with a land invasion would most likley crush US.

I watched on national TV C-span, Lousiana Senitors talk about the oil rigs off shore in shambles. And there natural gas piping station was about to fail.

and needed money.

This represenative also stated that they are responsable for 45% of the USA power consumption.

Not trying to point out our weaknesses but the are rampart.

Hell Katrina coast line is vacent and is prime for invasion.

Is there a force coming to invade?

Our countries leadership is in shambles.

The people moving toward enslavement.

Borders are openly weak and drug smuggling is rampart.

Are we doomed?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by infamouskiller]

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:41 PM
Too soon to say, but I have read statistics saying that Russia is set to have a Muslim majority by 2030, however my Russian ex-girlfriend said those statistics were inaccurate, dunno. But, let's say that did happen, I can easily see a Russian amphibious/airborne assault on Alaska, the far north is this continent's soft "underbelly", IMHO.

If we are doomed, I don't think it's in the near future, but this would be an interesting question again in 2030.

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:52 PM
Iraqi Missle attacks.

Model # 747 LOL

had a 75% success rate and they were armed with crappy pilots and box knifes.

Imagine what 4 super GPS laser guided Missles will do!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 23-9-2007 by infamouskiller]

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:46 PM
America might be stretched thin, but believe me...If anybody would invade the country...There's about 200 million armed citizens....The reason we lost Vietnam, barely win Iraq etc etc...... is the sheer fact that you fight twice as hard if you are the defender.......I guarantee you that the majority of the US soldiers in Iraq, are wondering what the hell were doing over there in the first place.

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by infamouskiller

America is un doubtly it's weakest in history.

Our Air Force is designed to fight three different wars anywhere in the world at the same time. No one can move an army as fast as we can, and so no one can build up anywhere close to invade us. Bio or nukes are the only two threats we have. Our military was extremely weak in the mid to late 90s, and also in the mid 70s to early 80s, but now would not be a good time for anyone to attack us.

Honestly if we went to a full scale war on our own turf we would be looking at the draft before that takes place and we are not as spread out as so many think, and we can come back extremely fast. The pressures we feel that are because we are now a much smaller force and our ability to fight is not as important as our sustainment for years and years in a battle.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:18 PM
My question is why hasn't it already happened?

If we are in such bad shape - as you say we are, then why hasn't another nation toppled the U.S.

Why haven't our forces in Iraq and Afganistan been destroyed? Why haven't 100,000 soldiers died over there?

If we are at our weakest, why hasn't it happened? Who Is going to do this to the US.?

You obviously have no ideas of the oil reserves held by the U.S. or the amount of resources that exsist in this country.

The "natural disaster" you claim wiped out our supply is not correct. It damaged our ability to refine "crude oil" into gas and other products that we use every day.

"our leadership is in shambles". Just the reverse is happening. The leadership is still there it is just that the forces at work to destroy this administration are failing to do so - and that upsets liberals to no end.

Oh - My - God do I have to go on?

Next time try something else.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
IMO, for what little it's worth, it would be sheer folly for any one nation to stage an all out conventional attack on mainland USA.

American forces are too numerous amd well equipped in comparison.

Factor in National Guard, Private Security Forces and Police Forces.
Then factor in all the survivalists etc who are armed to the teeth.
And as stated before, nearly every private citizen has arms.
All would be prepared to fight in the face of their homeland being invaded. That is a guerilla force never witnessed before. Imagine what happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan against The Russians multiplied 100 fold. It would be devestation for any invading force.

Only a combination of Russian and Chinese forces would have a chance.
If that were to occur I am sure US Intelligence would be aware of any such plan and would be able to counteract it.
Either that or a nuclear confrontation would take place and in that case I would think that it would be beef curtains for all of us!

I honestly think that a conventional invasion of US mainland is unfeasable, but hell, I'm hardly a military expert by any stretch of the imagination.
Just my opinion.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:23 PM

Originally posted by infamouskiller
Iraqi Missle attacks.

Model # 747 LOL

had a 75% success rate and they were armed with crappy pilots and box knifes.

Imagine what 4 super GPS laser guided Missles will do!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 23-9-2007 by infamouskiller]

When did Iraq attack us with 747's?

We had a group of terrorists attack us with 757's and 767, but according to the US Gov it was people from Saudi Arabia not Iraq.

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:15 PM
I don't think the attack will come from without, but within by the current administration. And I think it will have to happen before the 2008 election.

Why do I say that?

Well, here's Mr. Cheney on the subject, speaking with Bob Schieffer:

'The greatest threat now is "a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities."'

(source: CBS's Face the Nation on April 15, 2007)

Interesting that armed nuclear warheads were moved by plane within the country just recently, somehow managing to evade multiple levels of security in the process. Yup, might need those for a staged nuclear event within the country.

Next, we have Sen. Hillary Clinton weighing in on the matter:

Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.

Sen. Hillary Clinton said the Republicans would benefit politically if a terrorist attack occurred before the '08 vote.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' "

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."


Personally, I see this as tacit approval and acknowledgment by the Democrats that another significant terrorist event will happen prior to the elections next year. And it has to happen so the neocon machine can continue its stranglehold on the American people.

And last, but not least, Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, also confirms this stance:

So, what this tells anybody who's paying attention that it's much more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will once again rally the people behind President Bush and behind the Republican Party that is fighting the 'war on terror that the Democrats want to lose'. So, that's what we're headed towards.

I mean, certainly you and your listeners don't believe that the Republican Party has decided just to self-destruct so Bush could have his ego fling, I mean, or that Cheney could, you know, act like a fool for eight years. Something's in the works. And when it happens, whether it's authentic or whether it's orchestrated and staged, all of those executive orders are implemented; they go get implemented just like that. And they go far beyond the ones that you quoted. They essentially create a dictatorial police state in which Congress and the Judiciary have no roles.

(source: Interview with Thom Hartmann on Air America Radio)

When you have die-hard Republicans like Roberts believing this administration will orchestrate a terrorist event in order to hang onto power, everyone should be paying attention.

So yes, OP, you can expect something spectacular to happen on America's soil in the very near future, but it won't be done by "terrorists" or "Iran", but by those sworn to guard your safety.

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:28 AM
More in keeping with the general conspiracy idea, this whole Republican/Democrat debate is a red herring. The two parties are merely the public face of a very private entity.

I don't think the Republicans are any more likely to launch internal attacks of their own volition than the Democrats. (But I still think attacks are imminent, just not for the "obvious" reasons of retaining power). I think both parties answer to a parallel, unelected government whose members truly hold the reins of power in the US and the other western nations. This shadow government doesn't change members during the political cycles of the country; they are the one constant thread of power over past several decades.

It's an interesting question to ask: When was the last time a president actually had true authority and did not answer to this shadow government?

(edited to add emphasis to question posed)

[edit on 25-9-2007 by lotusland]

top topics


log in