Mexican Gangs.. have permanent bases in Arizona: Merged

[ksholder]

It would be much wiser to just seal the border as best we can, and start taking them out on our side. Hopefully cutting off enough of their market where they start turning on each other more than they are now. Allowing the real military to start taking action again.

Which is what my proposal does. In my proposal, the only potential casualties on the Mexican side of the border are fighter pilots. The rest of the work is done on the border and we don't have a reason to attack until the border is breached. Once it is breached, drop them. Below is my plan which I have bolded certain words to elucidate the "along the border" theme.

I am not a military planner, so my plan that follows may be overly simplistic – probably is, but here goes. We use the Airforce to gain and maintain air superiority and we put Warthogs and other air to mud assets up along the border with a constant CAP (air to air fighter assets) to protect them. Ground forces would patrol the border once we have air superiority and they would call in the air to mud guys, that are already airborne, when they have identified hostiles. Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards, with a ROE that makes crossing the border highly unpalatable, we will control the border pretty quickly with minimal loss of life to Americans or Mexicans.

Once we have secured the border, we then erect the fence we should have put up years ago. This should be 2 fences with a mine field in the middle that is clearly marked in English and Spanish. Violators will be duly prosecuted and it won’t take many to deter border crossing attempts. The word will get around.

Picture any Israeli city, but in Texas, Arizona, Alabama, or California.

Not sure how Alabama got in this without LA & MS also there. Am I missing something here? Also, why not NM?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Shadowsbane]

Just listed a few. Also Alabama has had some serious issues with cartel/ gang activity recently. (Mostly with MS13 though) Primarily using it as a waypoint to the Eastern Seaboard.

[OPFOR]

Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards

That would be 17,160 .50 cals (more than exist in the Army right now). With a squad of troops per gun emplacement (fewer than would really be needed to man it 24/7 for extended periods), you have 154,440 troops just manning these guns. With a very generous tooth-to-tail ratio of 1:3, you have a HALF MILLION troops on the border, just to do static MG emplacements. So, more than twice the total number of troops we have in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, so we can mow down a bunch of would-be lettuce pickers and hotel maids with a Ma Deuce...

Do you see how some of these plans/scenarios seem a little...under thought out?

[Shadowsbane]

What is that saying? Amatures talk equipment, professionals talk logistics?

[TangoMonkey]

That would be 17,160 .50 cals (more than exist in the Army right now). With a squad of troops per gun emplacement (fewer than would really be needed to man it 24/7 for extended periods), you have 154,440 troops just manning these guns. With a very generous tooth-to-tail ratio of 1:3, you have a HALF MILLION troops on the border, just to do static MG emplacements. So, more than twice the total number of troops we have in Afghanistan and Iraq combined, so we can mow down a bunch of would-be lettuce pickers and hotel maids with a Ma Deuce...

Do you see how some of these plans/scenarios seem a little...under thought out?

Yeah, that is a crazy idea. The effective range is way futher than 200m. We only need one every 500-1000m.

[OPFOR]

What is that saying? Amatures talk equipment, professionals talk logistics?

No, not entirely. It just gets old hearing the same old "simple" solutions to what is a complex and long standing problem.

The border is HUGE. In ideal terrain, an infantry platoon can occupy a defensive position about 400 yards long. So, again, we would need around 8,500 platoons to create a linear defense along the entire border. Assume that, with technology and area denial techniques, we could TRIPLE that frontage. We'd still need almost 3,000 platoons (around 37 Divisions of Infantry - almost 5 times the total number of Infantry Divisions that we have right now) to "man" the border. Even if we multiply a platoon's frontage to 2,000 yards - 5 times the doctrinal ideal - we are still faced with the prospect of putting more platoons on the line than we have in the Army...

It just ain't that easy, folks...

[SpringerXD]

Here's the part that really cracks me up. They can make a little old lady with an obvious American accent of whatever description have to strip down in an airport terminal because she might be a "terrorist," but yet it "infringes on the rights" of a non-English speaking illegal to be questioned about his citizenship.

[SpringerXD]

Now I realize that may cause a bunch of bleeding heart panty wearing effeminate males to get their knickers in a twist.

Signature worthy!

[ksholder]

Ok, as I said, I am not a Military planner. You guys have pointed out some legitimate issues with my idea. Making more equipment would stimulate the economy, but we still have to be able to man it.

My question is now this - assuming you want to close the border, how would you do it?

[Sticks]

I don't think anyone here wants to get involved in a "War" with another country. Not even sure how that all came about.

All this talk about proof of activities...We have 20 million IAs (I know, the Govt. estimates 10-12 mil...a little undershot IMO) from south 'o the border. We have an arse load of drugs coming up from the south as well.

I think what every one here wants is a stop to it.

The Mexican Government, Military and Police are so corrupt, and who could blame them given their economic situation and the strength of the drug cartels (kind of like our Govt and big oil). "Do what we want or we kill your family...on both sides...several generations worth"

It is a problem. A serious problem, and Govt's on both sides are taking a bit of a limp wristed approach at stopping it.

The Mexican Govt seems to admit that they have a serious problem with the cartels. We know they do. Scorched earth policy on known grow fields and compounds south of the border. 1 day warning to evac the tent cities along the border and do the same.

Make the know heavy crossing areas for both the IAs and drugs very inhospitable to crossing. Razor wire, mines, rough up the terrain and automated watching posts (this is the remote control age). Screw this 200 yard stuff. 1 mile no mans land. Zero tolerance policy on crossing at anywhere but checkpoints.

I know. We eliminate one crossing area, they will just find another. Identify and repeat.

Can we completely stop it? No, it is effectively and open and unsecurable border, with a neighboring country that is in such bad shape. We can however make it a very bad choice to attempt to cross.

Maybe in another 50 years we will have the technology to effectively seal the border to make crossing in any way, shape or form impossible. For now, use what we have and do something other than observe and report.

[Vaquero 45]

So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

War is never a good thing. It is sometimes necessary, though. If I were President, I would order the immediate destruction of any foreign forces that enter the US illegally (Mexican army escorting drug runners). Not only that, I would put Mexico on notice that any such incursion on US soil by their military would result in an immediate airstrike on multiple Mexican military bases. If that doesn't change their channel, perhaps it's time to return the favor and invade them.

I hear they have oil. And tacos.

A nation that will not take action against a foreign military invading its soil is already doomed. The idea of Mexico suing one of our states is blasphemous. The men and women who spilled their blood to build this great nation are being betrayed.

As for anyone asking if war would be a good thing, I offer this quote:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
— John Stuart Mill

[Sticks]

The military escorts (if they are actually military) are rouge or paid for (rented). Can't exactly blame a puppet government for the divisions/companies that go off the reservation.

Enough politicians and officials have pubically stated that drug operations on large scale fund terrorist organizations, ergo should be treated as such. Don't even bother notifying the foreign gov't as it is not their problem (well, yes it is but we already know they won't deal with it), just deal with the incursion with the appropriate force to eliminate the threat.

I understand that Mexico is a major trade partner. They (Mexico) don't want that to end anymore than the US govt and corp-rats do.

"Half of that body count was part of your 102nd regiment? Oops, our bad. Wanna' explain why they were escorting the other 50 odd armed drug runners with 5 trucks of weapons and drugs? Here, watch the satellite footage.

Oh, they were following them to catch them? You guys have strange tactics. Usually follow means behind, not next to, intermingled, and ahead of.

Here are some Humvees and Bradley's to replace the ones we blew up. Low miles, and only a little body damage. Funeral expenses and compensation for the families of the fallen military... What's 500k ($38K) Pesos each among friends."

Sorry for the sarcasm. Migraine this morning and tired of the limp wristed dealings with the issue.