rero360
Member
theres another thread in the legal part about an article on how dangerous the .50cal is and how they should be banned and all that BS, they go on to say how at airports and nuke plants how it would so easy for a terrorist to cause serious trouble with a .50cal from a distance.
let me just say this, I worked on an Air Force base for 2 years providing security with the Army National Guard (we were activated and put there instead of the sandbox) anyways, I'm infantry so I tend to look at everything in a tactical setting, putting myself in the bad guys shoes, how would I be able to cause the most damage, The base I was at was right next to a civilian airport, shared runways to be extact, lots of open land with reletivley heavy vegitaion around the boarders, was it concevable for so one to start taking potshots with a fifty? yes it is possible, but not probable, the amount of equipment needed to transport the weapon and ammo is such that the individual would stick out, and as soon as they started firing would be located by the muzzle blast, and thus be captured. While this possibility was know by the chain of command, it is dismissed, for good reason, the likelyhood of it happening is so remote it almost nonexestant. also theres not much you can do to guard against it, but it aint going to happen so you don't worry about it. the threats we were concerned with and took measures against were someone hopping the fence with a bomb and trying to blow up one of the aircraft, that and with wakjob protestors. they also stated in thier little article that the fifty is the preferred weapon of choice by terrorists, gee, I always though it was explosives, don't remember the last time an insurgent attacked US troops with a fifty, or terrorists attacked an embassy with a fifty, its always car bombs and suicide bombers, being a reasonable weapon of choice, explosives are light weight, easably consealable, cheap, and deliver more punch for the effort put into the attack anyways enough of this little rant, I'm preaching to the choir, you all know this to be true, and I have to go to class.
let me just say this, I worked on an Air Force base for 2 years providing security with the Army National Guard (we were activated and put there instead of the sandbox) anyways, I'm infantry so I tend to look at everything in a tactical setting, putting myself in the bad guys shoes, how would I be able to cause the most damage, The base I was at was right next to a civilian airport, shared runways to be extact, lots of open land with reletivley heavy vegitaion around the boarders, was it concevable for so one to start taking potshots with a fifty? yes it is possible, but not probable, the amount of equipment needed to transport the weapon and ammo is such that the individual would stick out, and as soon as they started firing would be located by the muzzle blast, and thus be captured. While this possibility was know by the chain of command, it is dismissed, for good reason, the likelyhood of it happening is so remote it almost nonexestant. also theres not much you can do to guard against it, but it aint going to happen so you don't worry about it. the threats we were concerned with and took measures against were someone hopping the fence with a bomb and trying to blow up one of the aircraft, that and with wakjob protestors. they also stated in thier little article that the fifty is the preferred weapon of choice by terrorists, gee, I always though it was explosives, don't remember the last time an insurgent attacked US troops with a fifty, or terrorists attacked an embassy with a fifty, its always car bombs and suicide bombers, being a reasonable weapon of choice, explosives are light weight, easably consealable, cheap, and deliver more punch for the effort put into the attack anyways enough of this little rant, I'm preaching to the choir, you all know this to be true, and I have to go to class.
