WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
So, to be clear, you have no idea whatsoever if there is indeed a current enemy out there with the capability and intent to launch such an attack on the United States that would take out a city without our ability to anticipate it.
By the way, since "take out a city" is a variable, we need to define our terms. Recently two felled skyscrapers "took out a city" so to speak despite the fact that most of the population survived, and so did most of the buildings. Just two really big ones went down. It was actually enough to take out a country, ours.
It did not take out a country. It took out large portions of a city, and caused us to self-revoke air travel for a few days.
Quote
We are still maintaining a military presence in several locations because of that, but what we've "won" is open to debate.
Yup. We were attacked and responded to war with war.
Quote
Given we are under Trump Law, I think it's safe to say we are even more vulnerable to an attack of some kind than we were in 2001.
Well, I can only surmise you are not terribly familiar with either the current status of either ISIS or AQ EXOPS capability, and not terribly familiar with the current defense posture of the United States. One of the reasons we are still in those countries you mention is because it gives us an excellent vantage point to identify and disrupt those attacks well before they occur.
Quote
As it is, we're under attack right now. A pandemic, one that just might be bad enough to trigger a war, maybe even a world war.
....with whom? China? China and Russia? The EU? COBRA?
Quote
Team Trump would waste no time figuring out how to leverage something like that. And that's what I'm getting at.
Then you should pay better attention to what the Trump administration actually does, and take a more realistic measure of the current status of threats from abroad.
1. The Trump administration would absolutely waste time in such a scenario - if you like, use this pandemic as your test case. The Trump administration wasted precious weeks coming to grips with the fact that there was a threat, before mealy-mouthing their way to a partial fitful solution, and has since then largely left actually handling the crises up to the governors, despite occasional idiotic declarations of Total Authority... that are then backed up by precisely zero actions.
2. There is no current enemy group with both the capability and intent to launch an invasion - temporary or otherwise - or sustained attack of the type you describe. A nation-state such as China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran knows that we will respond to a mass attack with nuclear weaponry, wiping out their people and possibly leading to an exchange that ends the human race (neither of which they want), and terror groups are generally suppressed in their ability to launch large and complex plots of that kind* due to the very overseas U.S. military presence you mention.
*one wild-card would be if Iran decided to support an organized group, using them as a proxy actor. Hopefully a combination of economic and domestic political chaos combined with the recent strike against Soleimani has shifted their calculus against a willingness to accept that kind of risk.
Quote
CUE: It Can't Happen Here"
No. You simply have no idea how it would, which hasn't stopped you from panicking yourself that it will. This is the equivalent of the 1990's Militia types terrifying themselves that "UN Troops Were Gonna Occupy The United States Because Clinton Wants To Be A Dictator".
Quote
Or maybe it might not trigger a war. Maybe, through grand mal greed and incompetence, it might trigger something else, a kind of JACKPOT.
I wonder how Team Trump might choose to leverage something like that.
This is literally discussion of a science fiction scenario. It's like insisting that President Biden will turn us into a fascist military-ruled society in response to the Bug Menace that destroyed Buenos Aires.
