Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

21st Century Chevauchee

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kentonio View Post
    But what's the point? What are they going to achieve other than to over time make the affected population more willing to sanction revenge attacks or military action? You might have a small economic effect on the other side, but so what? If you can never militarily engage anyway, what do you really gain for that enormous risk?
    I want to see these questions answered because I really don't get the point of the OP. Why would a state or non-state aggressor want to engage in such attacks when it would only galvanize the affected population to support military action? And given how closely entwined the global economy is, any attack by a state would have deleterious effects on the aggressor's own economy.

    I think the OP thought came about by noticing a means before an end. What would the aggressor's policy objectives be first that would lead it to such a form of economic terrorism?
    "Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
    "I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben Kenobi

    Comment


    • #32
      When you're in a state of war sneaking people into a foreign country is kind of hard.

      Companies that supply materials that could be used for nefarious purposes often report to state and federal agencies about their clients. I know a physics professor who had FBI officers show up at his door after he ordered a klystron tube (a kind of high frequency signal generator used in radars).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kentonio View Post
        Yes, but the thing is if America proved that another country had carried out a mass attack on US soil, then the US would HAVE to react militarily. How long do you think the government would remain in office if say Russia blew up a few thousand American citizens in America, and the government did nothing to strike back?

        It would be insanity to set something like that in motion, because there's almost no scenario where it doesn't escalate. Once it starts escalating then there's no guarantees that it doesn't end up with a nuclear resolution.
        In other words, enjoy your blue skies today, even if you are young - you never know when it is going to end.
        Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
        GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Dr Strangelove View Post
          There was an American officer who attempted to take over one of the Central American countires twice in the early 19th century.
          Are you referring to Walker or someone else ?

          Assault on Baja California

          Inspired by the examples of Texas and López, Walker set out to conquer the Mexican states of Sonora and Baja California, which at that time were very sparsely populated. With only 45 men, Walker marched south and promptly captured La Paz, capital of Baja California. Renaming the state "The Republic of Lower California," (later to be replaced by the "Republic of Sonora"), he declared himself president and applied the laws of the State of Louisiana (which included legalized slavery) to the new republic. Back in the United States, word of his daring attack had spread, and most Americans thought that Walker's project was a great idea. Men lined up to volunteer to join the expedition. Around this time, he got the nickname "the grey-eyed man of destiny."
          Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.

          ...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915

          Comment

          Working...
          X