Could our enemies poison the water supply?

It's a kick in the nuts when you're deployed and your Battcom says "listen up guys. You can't shoot the enemy anymore until they kill you first".

 

Obama had his chum John "Slasher" Kerry as his Sec of State..-

These are some of the things Kerry voted against over the years-
B-1B Lancer
B-2A Spirit
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

And Kerry was for-
Cutting the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reducing the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reducing tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminating the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Forcing the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

http://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/Kerry3.htm

 

But mate, we don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the simple elementary facts in your link should certainly set our alarm bells ringing, namely-
1- "Chemical engineers"
2- "Restricted area"
3- "After midnight"
4- "From muslim countries"

 

I'd argue he was probably right about the B-1 and B-2. The bang-for-the-buck on those two has been pretty low.

And the minehunting ships were all decommissioned 10 years ago, and not replaced. They were in service for less than 15 years. Not sure he was wrong on that score, either.

Also, the time frame is important. After all, when he was Defense Secretary under H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney was practically giddy about the opportunity to slash military spending after the Cold War ended:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/20/u...e-forces-by-25-in-5-years.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/30/u...d-cut-divisions-in-army-but-maintain-b-2.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/16/us/fight-is-expected-over-defense-budget-plan.html

At various times, Cheney wanted to kill many of the same weapons programs in your list. All around the same time, too, when we were trying to capture our Cold War dividend by reducing military spending.

Our military should be as big as it needs to be, and no more. Not every weapons program is worth the money. And it's not always easy to tell which is which ahead of time, as anybody who has ever watched a fighter-jet procurement process knows.

So without more context, your Kerry list doesn't tell us anything. When did he seek to end funding for those programs? What was his reason?

 

The fact that that "sets off alarm bells" without more information is exactly what's wrong.

Should these guys have been stopped and searched for trespassing after hours? Sure. Just like anybody in the same situation.

Was it worth the amount and intensity of media coverage it got? No.

 

What if mine-laying enemy subs sow minefields at the entrance to Pearl Harbor and the Golden Gate etc, bottling up American warships in port?

 

I'm not the Navy. But since we decommissioned the ships and didn't bother replacing them, and there has not been a massive hue and cry about it, I'm going to go with "they weren't needed."

Update: We still have Avenger-class minesweepers. Apparently, that's enough.

 

An off-course bunch of innocent Boy Scouts wouldn't have made the news, but as they were a bunch of muslims whose leaders say stuff like this below, I'd say there was some cause for concern..-

Osama Bin Laden responding to the question "Are you trying to acquire chemical and nuclear weapons?" in Time Magazine, Dec 1998-
"Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank Allah for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."

 

And your evidence that Osama bin Laden was the leader of these guys?

Stop with the trolling.

 

If you're happy with your government's military cuts, I'm happy too..

 

No offence mate, but what's with your constant defending of muslims? Whose side are you on?

 

Calling all out bullshit is calling out bullshit. It's not defending whatever the bullshit is in relation to.

 

Are we talking about the same thing mate?
I posted that 7 muslim chemical engineers were caught trespassing after midnight in a restricted area near a US reservoir, and I said it's "cause for concern", surely you must agree?
No offence but are you a muslim?

 

No, I am not Muslim. I attend a Christian church, but am basically agnostic.

Muslims near the water supply is no more a cause of concern than Hindus or Christians near the water supply. You are engaging in the most discreditable form of bigotry, assuming Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't work that way.

The police found them, detained them, searched their car. There was nothing. This should never have become a story. It only did so because of hysteria.

 

I'm beginning to think you're joshing with us for fun, you're a funny guy..

 

You are aware that we have not had any Naval Bases in the San Francisco Bay Area for over 2 decades, are you not?

You could mine the Golden Gate from one end to the other with a carpet of mines, it will not impact any "American warships".

 

SF is a major port and although it handles commercial shipping, in time of war it would offer an alternative safe haven to warships.
And if an enemy mined the Golden Gate entrance, all the commercial vessels in and out would be blocked, hitting the economy.
As I said, Kerry scrapping some US minesweepers was not a good idea.
PS- warships also put into SF from time to time like this cruiser-
"The USS Bunker Hill will sail under the Golden Gate Bridge at 2:30 p.m. today and will tie up at Pier 17. The ship will not be open to the public."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Japan-Russia-and-U-S-warships-to-dock-in-S-F-3184448.php

 

Yea, like once a year. That article is talking about Fleet Week, basically the only memory that the Navy was ever in SF.

The Blue Angels gives a little show, and normally a single ship pulls into port so sailors in their whites can be seen in some of the bars. That

 

Man, please don't give a "good" bad idea to the scumbags. Of course they can.

 

Yep, sure can

 

Back on topic - there's a far easier and more passive way of causing serious widespread public panic without the use of substances, water- or air-borne, but I'm too afraid to raise it here in case 'they' haven't already thought of it, and it might be to tempt providence.

 

Corporations are dumping toxins in drinking water all the time and now that Trump has emasculated the EPA the threat from corporations exceeds that of any terrorists when it comes to drinking water.

Fracking is poisoning drinking water in TX, OH and PA.

 

The latest study was a hammer to the head of the idea that fracking was harming ground water. By redirecting the EPA away from their Carbon fantasies it frees them up to pursue the real dangers of plastics, solvents, pesticides, herbicides and industrial waste polluting our rivers, oceans and ground water.

American Oil and Gas Surge to New Highs.

Shale companies are using hydraulic fracturing to harness a flood of new supplies of hydrocarbons. On the oil side of things, American production has surged from 8.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in October to nearly 9.3 million bpd today—a nearly 10 percent jump in just six months. As the EIA reports, much of that growth is being fueled by west Texas’s Permian Basin. . . .

The last U.S. Geological Survey estimate pegged the Permian Basin’s riches at potentially more than 20 billion barrels of oil and 16 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas—a veritable bounty. That shale formation is the undisputed engine of this newest shale renaissance.

This oil rebound has come about as a result of OPEC & co.’s decision to cut output to help push prices back up—a move that has helped shale producers as much (if not more) than it has assisted those petrostates.

But natural gas output is surging as well, perhaps a more remarkable feat considering that American production of that hydrocarbon hasn’t suffered as much (though it has declined slightly) as a result of falling global prices. Even in the midst of this natural gas surge, new EIA data shows that natural gas production in the continental U.S. had its biggest monthly increase in February in almost three years. . . .

U.S. shale still produces only a fraction of global oil and gas output, but that fraction is large enough—and has come on the scene quickly enough—to push supply past demand and help keep energy prices relatively low. At the same time, it’s given America more foreign policy options by bolstering our domestic energy security, and changing the tenor of the U.S. energy debate from one focused on scarcity to today’s paradigm of abundance.

Have you hugged a fracker today? They are saving Western Civilization.

 

Not Just enemies.