Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (28754)	2/14/2003 4:12:42 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

No one can fight a conventional war against the US. Hence anyone trying will be using unconventional means. First guerrilla warfare such as the Vietcong. That one most probably couldn't succeed today, given the technological level of the US today. The guys perpetrating attacks using unconventional means, don't expect to come out alive. Such as using American planes against American targets or attacking military targets when they are most vulnerable such as the attack in Yemen while the ship re-fuelled. Next? Well, the US should expect a whole lot of unconventional attacks for which its arsenal is impotent to to anything against. I don't think it will be bacteria in barrels or rogue nuke states. If I would be advising the US defense I would tell them to think about the following possibilities: Use a make shit submarine, stay quiet at the bottom while a US warship would be maneuvering for a re-fuelling stop, close in with the sub and release mines thus mining instantaneously the area. A USD1 million missile against a USD3 billion aircraft carrier would fit the too. Or use the makeshift submarine, fully loaded with high explosive, stay put and quiet under the sea. Wait for the aircraft to pass and detonate the whole load just under it. It may note sink it but surely it will cripple it real good.