[HN Gopher] FAA halts all flights at El Paso airport for 10 days
___________________________________________________________________
FAA halts all flights at El Paso airport for 10 days
Author : edward
Score : 306 points
Date : 2026-02-11 09:04 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| bashtoni wrote:
| According to CNN the entire airspace is closed, not just the
| airport https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/11/us/faa-el-paso-texas-
| flig...
| lisper wrote:
| Yep. TFR was issued three hours ago.
|
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233
| dlcarrier wrote:
| It's closed below 18,000 ft, over a 10 nautical mile radius:
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233
| whizzter wrote:
| "Special security reason", sounds like a prelude to a special
| military operation?
| c420 wrote:
| Underground nuclear test and trying to mitigate the EMP
| grounding proximate planes?
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| Why wouldn't that be announced in advance? It'll be
| detectable internationally as soon as it happens.
| AdamN wrote:
| If true they would have told the Russians and the Chinese
| and yes everybody will know after the fact. But for various
| reasons they might not want to disclose ahead of time in
| case Trump gets talked out of it or they realize they're
| not ready or various other reasons (perhaps the Energy
| Dept. doesn't actually want to do it but they're going
| forward step by step hoping it gets halted).
| mikkupikku wrote:
| If they already know, complaining about it in advance
| will soften the public shock when it happens, which is
| probably not what Russia and China want. They'd prefer
| that the rest of the world be maximally shocked and
| outraged by such a transgression of international norms.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| An underground nuclear test is going to happen within ten
| miles of El Paso airport? Sounds unlikely
| c420 wrote:
| The second TFR which was released at the same time is in
| the NM desert directly east
|
| Map of both: https://i0.wp.com/elpasomatters.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2026/...
| FrankBooth wrote:
| EMP from an underground blast? Ok bud.
| npiano wrote:
| EMPs only occur in very high altitude tests
| euroderf wrote:
| You mean like, a three-day invasion of Mexico ?
| lazide wrote:
| Or just stirring up a bunch of ICE noise at the border.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| Further commentary/speculation on this Reddit thread:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/1r1pqnp/10_day_tfr_is...
|
| It includes a local city Councilmember who's says he is working
| to get more information.
| KnuthIsGod wrote:
| Launching the invasion of Canada and Greenland perhaps..
| r721 wrote:
| Invasion of Mexico is also possible ...
|
| >President Donald Trump said US forces will "start now hitting
| land" in Mexico targeting drug cartels
|
| https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/09/trump-says-us-to-start-n...
|
| (Jan 2026)
| sph wrote:
| Aren't those countries thousands of miles away from El Paso,
| Texas?
| donkeybeer wrote:
| Cuba could be one. While Florida is closer, it's possible due
| to El Paso being considered highly isolated.
| sph wrote:
| If it is for a military reason (very doubtful at this
| point), there is a country that is literally 0 miles away
| from El Paso.
| donkeybeer wrote:
| Mexico is also possible.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Please understand, Geography is only taught for optional
| extra credit in American schools.
|
| (I wish this were a joke.)
| soulofmischief wrote:
| What? I had to take Geography.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| They taught us that Geography is old fashioned so the
| geography classes _and_ history were all replaced with
| "Social Studies" at some time in the 80s. Most of that
| class was just about reading holocaust books, I think we
| had a week or two where they taught us what islands and
| fjords are, but the only time putting names to countries
| and capitals on a map came up was an optional extra
| credit quiz in 8th grade. Most people skipped it.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| We had to take Geography, Social Studies, World History,
| American History, Civics, etc. as separate classes.
|
| Islands/fjords etc were covered in Geology/Earth Science,
| and we also took separate courses for those as well.
|
| Geography was reserved for understanding where things are
| in the Earth, how borders are defined, a little bit of
| world history as far as borders changing, etc. And also
| Apartheid for some reason because I guess they didn't
| know where else to stick that lesson in.
|
| Rote memorization has never been my strong suit and so I
| suffered a lot in geography as it was taught to me. I got
| a D in that class. Now that I'm out of school and can
| actually properly learn, it all sticks a lot better
| because I've learned to contextualize everything and link
| together facts.
| lvspiff wrote:
| Well you take this sharpie and draw a line and bam direct
| line of attack - if it works for hurricanes it will work for
| war plans
| c420 wrote:
| "A person familiar with the notices, who asked not to be
| identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly,
| said the action to close airspace over a major U.S. for security
| reasons over extended period hasn't happened since immediately
| after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."
|
| https://elpasomatters.org/2026/02/11/unexplained-faa-order-s...
| dlcarrier wrote:
| It shows how bad the lack of available sources is, when they
| interview someone familiar with the type notice in general, but
| not this specific notice.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Here's a direct link to the notice:
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233
|
| Temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) tend to be pretty terse, but
| they do usually call out "VIP" if they're due to someone
| visiting.
|
| The type listing of "security" gets thrown around a lot, though.
| For example there's a permanent security TFR around the closest
| Air Force base to me
| (https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_5_8746) because they
| regularly fly unmanned aircraft that can't fly in insufficiently
| controlled airspace, and the standard airspace layout around an
| airport of that size isn't sufficient, so instead of making
| special rules for that airport, there's a "security" TFR to give
| air-traffic controllers extra control of what would normally be
| uncontrolled airspace.
|
| It is pretty unusually to get such a short notice, and to not
| have instructions for exemptions.
| seanf wrote:
| No exemptions for medical life flights, local law enforcement,
| or even the military. You can read a more normal NOTAM posted
| for New Orleans likely for Mardi Gras
| (https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2231)
|
| As a Minnesotan I wonder what this does to the deportation
| flights going to and from Camp East Montana.
| heythere22 wrote:
| https://archive.is/GCep9
| metalman wrote:
| There is a slim possibility that if it was airtraffic control
| equipment upgrades, but that would be put in the bullitin and
| known about long in advance, that it is just imposed with no
| warning is wrong and just shows how the FAA is becoming more 3
| letter every day.
| altairprime wrote:
| I wonder if this was issued by the VP's Secret Service to the FAA
| directly; they got caught last year fucking with DC airspace
| using a beacon spoofer, and they would (presumably, they're the
| SS) have the authority to issue these secretly without having to
| be named and answer for the impact:
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/aviation-flights-whi...
|
| (See also Die Hard 2, I suppose.)
|
| But: of the "less simple than invading Mexico" theory (which
| would be trivial to confirm or refute with binoculars and
| telescopes) I think the nuclear testing theory is more likely, as
| it would be in character for the current U.S. administration to
| decide to turn a border region radioactive to both decrease both
| the quantity of, _and_ the median fertility of, those who cross
| the border, especially following posturing about health care
| costs. Presumably the U.S. does not view itself as liable to
| Mexico for across-the-border downwinder's treatment costs. Not
| seeing a spike in KI prices in a couple spot checks, though.
|
| Hopefully it's something offensive enough to finally get the
| world to embargo Palantir.
| altairprime wrote:
| I did not have "airspace closed for ten days to shoot down a
| drone with lasers" anywhere on my bingo card. Huh. When life
| gives you lemons, file a TFR about it, I suppose.
| Shank wrote:
| Nuclear weapons test? The latest test treaty just expired.
|
| Edit: There are two TFRs, one in El Paso and one right next to it
| in the mountains: https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2234
| baubino wrote:
| This was my thought as well given the length of time of the
| closure.
| karlkloss wrote:
| 3.6 roentgen you say?
| massysett wrote:
| Wouldn't the Nevada Test Site be much better for this? Huge,
| government controlled, no major airports or cities, and
| moreover, already used for this sort of thing.
| K0balt wrote:
| Probably just closing the airspace for the space alien
| emissary.
| c420 wrote:
| Welcome. Tremendous to have you here. Really historic. Some
| people said it couldn't happen, but I said keep an open mind,
| and now look. Intergalactic diplomacy. Nobody's ever seen
| anything like it. We're ready to make a deal, a fair deal,
| maybe the best deal in the galaxy.
| lvspiff wrote:
| If there was ever a time for a Mars Attacks style invasion
| it is now
| Stevvo wrote:
| I think not; it's not somewhere you can conduct a nuclear test
| without starting a war with Mexico. However it is interesting
| to look at the TFR area in Google maps; it looks just like a
| nuclear test site, but the craters are natural volcanoes.
| lazide wrote:
| Mexico isn't going to start a war with the US. it would last
| a week at most, and they'd end up glowing even more than if
| the us 'downwinded' them all year.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| If Mexico went to war with America they would rely on
| asymmetric insurgency tactics. They have no shortage of
| sympathetic people in America, not just Mexican nationals
| but native born Americans as well. America hasn't dealt
| with a genuine domestic insurgency situation before.
| beAbU wrote:
| That's exactly what russia thought before invading the
| Ukraine.
| tw04 wrote:
| Not to be pedantic but it's just Ukraine. It is an
| independent country.
|
| Russia calls is "the Ukraine" because they think it's
| their territory and not an independent nation.
| IsTom wrote:
| Well, somebody has suggested nuking a tornado before. Why not
| a vulcano?
| einrealist wrote:
| Reminds me of this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-
| plot-plant-bombs-c...
|
| El Paso is a hub for cargo. Probably takes some days to go
| through all that parcel.
| roysting wrote:
| I wonder if the dormant volcanic field west of El Paso that is
| covered by the TFR may be similar to Iranian volcanic mountains?
|
| Remember, the Netanyahoo just arrived in the US mere hours before
| this and it is always a bad omen when the devil comes to collect.
| einarfd wrote:
| Could it be that USA government believe that Iran might be trying
| to do something similar to the Ukraine operation spiderweb, where
| they attacked the Russian long distance bomber fleet with short
| distance FPV drones? While there aren't bombers at Fort Bliss. As
| far as I know there are other high value targets.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Probably the least unhinged theory in this thread, but
| unfortunately it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they had
| intel about such a threat, they'd have to move all high value
| assets to another base pronto. A flight ban won't stop a shady
| box truck from rolling into town and releasing a swarm of small
| drones.
|
| (It would also be uncharacteristic of Iran to actually attack
| America directly, on American soil. Try to find examples of
| Iran doing that and you'll come up quiet short.)
| roysting wrote:
| You may want to recalibrate things. That's just about the
| most unhinged theory here. So "Iran" is just going to go
| "well, shucks, I guess we can't launch our drone swarm now
| that they issued a TFR."
|
| Not even to mention you're ignoring the TFR far outside and
| away from El Paso over the Potrillo volcanic mountains
| lvspiff wrote:
| I can hear russia/iran now "darn they thwarted our plans to
| take out el paso and that mountain. There are absolutely
| zero other targets in the vicinity we can fly to. Zero in a
| 100 mile radius our drone has a capability to get to within
| 10 days. I mean if we had 11 days sure but how do they know
| 10 days???"
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Your volcano theory is less unhinged, but most of the talk
| is about nuclear weapons tests, which would be enormously
| unhinged if that theory is true.
| sylware wrote:
| "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker"
| lbreakjai wrote:
| Well surely they wouldn't block flights for ten days because of
| ad blockers?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Ads are pretty risky, it could happen
| sylware wrote:
| It is alright, the site of FOX is not whatng cartel web
| engine gated like the site of the times.
| wavemode wrote:
| If there were some mundane reason for the shutdown (e.g. ATC
| staffing, or volcanic ash) it wouldn't be a secret, and if there
| were an emergency (one severe enough to ground all aircraft for
| so song) we would've heard or seen something.
|
| Occam's Razor says, this order came down from Trump. If that's
| the case, only question remaining would be what is he planning.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Well, if the only comparable antecedent is closing American
| airspace after 9/11, and that order came down from Bush, it
| seems reasonable to suppose that this order came down from
| Trump.
|
| As for why? No clue.
| sph wrote:
| Maybe there's credible threat of MANPADs from the cartels?
| Wouldn't be the first time around, apparently.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/faa_groun...
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Stopping life flights though? The supposed risk of cartels
| shooting down a helicopter vs the immediate risk of "this guy
| is going to die if we don't fly him to the nearest trauma
| center"... That risk calculus doesn't make sense.
| gsk22 wrote:
| To be fair, risk calculus does not appear to be this
| administration's strong suit.
| Errrrik wrote:
| Lets just for a second pretend that cartel g2a attacks are
| the legitimate threat. You now have a decision in regards
| to sparing lives: 1 Life, ground the medivacs, vs 3-4 Lives
| and letting them fly. Risk the life of 1 person by not
| allowing them fly, vs risking more lives by Allowing them
| to fly. (I had to explain it again so that you hopefully
| understand)
|
| Seems like they understand risk calculus more than you.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| You forgot to weigh the relative likelihood of somebody
| needing a life flight to survive vs the likelihood of
| that flight being shot down. The first is very high, or
| they'd not have called for a helicopter, while the second
| is quite low even if there is a cartel psycho running
| around with MANPADS. They're more likely to hold their
| missile in reserve than to randomly fire it off at some
| helicopter out of the blue.
| EwanG wrote:
| According to postings on a couple Reddit discussions, this
| surprised the El Paso city council among others:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1r7tu/what_does...
|
| and
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/1r1pqnp/10_day_tfr_is...
| dathinab wrote:
| speculations are it's either related to ICE or drug cartel
| investigations
|
| The former has a long history of not cooperating with local
| authorities (also in ways I personally think are sometimes
| quite malicious but that is off topic). Und normal
| circumstances ICE would never have the power to lead to a shut
| down of air space, but with the current administration who
| knows.
|
| And drug cartel investigations won't cooperate with the city
| council as an investigation big enough to shut down airspace
| wouldn't want to risk it leaking by speaking with a city
| council about it.
|
| But this is a pretty big deal and lets hope this is just about
| preventing some high ranking drug cartel members from fleeing
| and not some retaliatory horror story implicitly triggered by
| the repeated public rejections and denouncements of Trump in
| recent week. Like if we look at full (and violent)
| dictatorships(1) you would expect an internet outage to follow
| and then a lot of people to die.
|
| (1): To be clear no the US is not a full blown violent
| dictatorship. Even through things are bad, they are not "that"
| bad. Through IMHO there seem to be people in the government
| which want to make it exactly that bad.
| expedition32 wrote:
| The president has way too much executive power. In my country
| everything is decided by a cabinet meeting in America one man
| orders and everyone obeys.
| ganzsz wrote:
| Who forms the cabinet though? In a two party system - where
| one party seems to be built around a personality cult -
| cabinet can be filled with rubber stampers
| ClarityJones wrote:
| Yeah, it could be formed by one person, or from two
| parties, or possibly by an even more opaque network of
| influence backed by god knows who.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The cabinet is formed with congressional approval which
| this spineless congress did with a rubber stamp
| dathinab wrote:
| Theoretically a lot of that is true for the US.
|
| It's just that
|
| - both parties have undermined the separation of power, and
| expanded power of the president repeatedly for many years
| (e.g. with granting special privileges to the president
| after 9/11 which where way to broad and not strictly
| limited to a very short time)
|
| - especially Trump has undermined/dismantled a lot of
| "checks and balances" mechanisms, including in his previous
| presidency
|
| - people spreading "legal theories" which are very clearly
| nonsensical but at least half of the countries press
| pretending they are credible potentially true. As some are
| about the constitution you can see this as a direct
| propaganda attack against the US constitution. With close
| no consequence, too.
|
| - the current supreme court is IMHO strange. They are not
| at all impartial and have interpreted laws multiple times
| in ways which are neither backed by the laws wording nor
| it's spirit (if you based the spirit on the history due to
| which the laws where made) with this decision often having
| been reasoned by what looks a lot like "make pretend
| everything is normal excuses". But at the same time it
| hasn't gone fully "we go with whatever Trump/Mega wants" or
| anything like that. I can't really understand what they are
| thinking, tbh.
|
| so yes, the president has too much executive power at the
| moment. Both more then intended with the founding of the
| US, and in practice more then they even legally have.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You've left out that both chambers of congress is of the
| same party as POTUS and have abdicated their part in
| checks and balances.
| RIMR wrote:
| >To be clear no the US is not a full blown violent
| dictatorship.
|
| The key word you forgot here is "yet".
|
| >Even through things are bad, they are not "that" bad.
|
| They will get "that" bad if you take on the attitude that
| things aren't that bad.
|
| >IMHO there seem to be people in the government which want to
| make it exactly that bad.
|
| We should act accordingly then.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| They probably lost a nuke in the area. Wouldn't be the first
| time.
| pandemic_region wrote:
| Honest question: do you mean it was stolen or it fell out of
| the plane by accident or something like that?
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| Probably the latter.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| I mean it fell out. It has happened before.
| _boffin_ wrote:
| Check out the book Command & Control by Eric Schlosser
| jffry wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_acci
| d...
| fabian2k wrote:
| There is a circular restriction around the airport and a
| trapezoid one next to the city
| (https://elpasomatters.org/2026/02/11/unexplained-faa-
| order-s...).
|
| What are the plausible explanations here? I can't think of
| anything except military action against Mexico (or the cartels
| inside Mexico). But even that doesn't fit well.
|
| A suspected terror attack could explain the airspace around the
| airport, but not the weird trapezoid restriction next to the
| city.
|
| The duration of 10 days is also weird, that seems very long for
| any kind of emergency situation. And as far as I understand, it
| is unusual to have no exceptions at all here e.g. for medical
| transports via helicopter.
| mothballed wrote:
| Most plausible comment I found on the internet was the
| government lost something in that trapezoid and doesn't want
| anyone to fly over it and find it until it's collected.
| RupertSalt wrote:
| Ah, so an alien's contact lens
| bluGill wrote:
| Roswel is a few hours away by car. Interesting theory but
| they would lose it there.
| morkalork wrote:
| Quick, someone call Skinner and get Mulder and Scully on the
| case!
| thebruce87m wrote:
| Broken Arrow?
| viraptor wrote:
| The not-totally-crazy ideas from Reddit include:
|
| - it's related to the annouced GPS disruption test (although
| that's a really long time and doesn't seem urgent enough)
|
| - someone in Mexico is getting kidnapped by Gov
|
| - nuclear tests
|
| I wish those were crazy ideas, but here we are...
| RupertSalt wrote:
| > GPS disruption
|
| Ah, a very plausible explanation!
|
| https://avbrief.com/overnight-gps-testing-affects-huge-
| area-...
|
| The map indicates it will be centered on Lampasas and the
| region of effect seems to be east of El Paso. So, if the GPS
| exercises are the cause, the TFRs would've been more likely
| to bring in Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio.
|
| Isn't it possible that a 10-day TFR could be lifted early
| once the concern is past? They've probably made it 10 days
| just to establish an upper bound.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| If it's just routine testing, then why couldn't they have
| announced it earlier to allow companies to plan and/or fly
| their planes out of the affected area?
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > The map indicates it will be centered on Lampasas and
| the region of effect seems to be east of El Paso. So, if
| the GPS exercises are the cause, the TFRs would've been
| more likely to bring in Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio.
|
| Wait so people in South Texas won't be able to use GPS on
| the ground either?
|
| Also if the goal is to disrupt the cartels and the people
| using GPS to know where they are at in the process of
| crossing the border illegally why is the Army involved in
| this at all?
|
| The Army has no business in taking part of operations to
| disrupt cartels and illegal immigration, it's the whole
| rational behind having 3 letters agency including the evil
| one that rose to prominence lately
| derektank wrote:
| The Global Positioning System is owned and operated by
| Space Delta 8 at Schriever Space Force Base in CO[1].
| Testing in collaboration the US Army (the primary
| customer of GPS services) is hardly noteworthy.
|
| [1] https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Fact-
| Sheet-D...
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _- it 's related to the annouced GPS disruption test
| (although that's a really long time and doesn't seem urgent
| enough)_
|
| Those are done regularly without TFRs. See recent example in
| Texas:
|
| * https://avbrief.com/overnight-gps-testing-affects-huge-
| area-...
|
| A link to a list of notices at:
|
| * https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps-service-interruptions
| bdbdbdb wrote:
| I don't know which Reddit thread you're reading (there are
| many I'm sure) but the one in r/Aviation seems to have a
| favourite theory that there was a credible threat of someone
| with MANPADS, which are shoulder-launched surface-to-air
| missiles and not some sort of sanitary product.
|
| Apparently they have a ceiling of 18,000ft which is exactly
| the limit of the restriction in El Paso. Aircraft are allowed
| fly over if they go above that
| alex43578 wrote:
| That's also just the cutoff for class A airspace. I think
| people are reading too much into the specific height.
| tootie wrote:
| I honestly assume it's something petty. Like an El Paso air
| traffic controller was rude to a deportation flight pilot.
| nateburke wrote:
| My guess is nuclear test.
|
| Airport circle to secure the transport of the device to the
| ground adjacent to the test site.
|
| Trapezoid is the test site, wider on the side that is less
| controllable (border-facing).
|
| Disconnected because two separate teams executed in parallel
| without informed oversight.
| estearum wrote:
| ... I don't think they're detonating a nuclear weapon in a
| National Monument 50 miles from a large US city...
|
| There are plenty of better places for them to do this.
| peyton wrote:
| It's probably not SOP to land nuclear weapons at the
| municipal airport either.
| jjk166 wrote:
| There is a military base with its own airfield located
| within El Paso basically right next to El Paso
| International Airport.
| nateburke wrote:
| NTS was 60-80 mi away from Las Vegas.
|
| yes there might be safer locations for an underground
| nuclear test, but how many of them offer the same "F U" PR
| capacity relative to Mexico/Juarez/cartels, etc.
| estearum wrote:
| A nuclear weapon is only "F U" PR to cartels if you
| believe they're literally braindead, which given that
| they run massive international businesses, I suspect
| they're not.
|
| Nukes mean nothing to a cartel. What an insane idea.
| kakacik wrote:
| While Mexican side has no restrictions - that would be
| supremely dumb even for a primary school level of thinking.
| Tons of civilians dead with clear reason who caused it,
| completely preventable.
|
| Fantasy often likes extreme options but most probably saner
| reason like expected strike on cartels and their retaliation
| is whats happening.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >supremely dumb even for a primary school level of thinking
|
| So 100% Trump
| elictronic wrote:
| Probably laser shootdown of drug carrying drones.
| superb_dev wrote:
| Another interesting note, the trapezoidal TFR is still in place
| october8140 wrote:
| Strike on Mexico incoming.
| m4ck_ wrote:
| Anything to distract from Congress getting unredacted access to
| Trumps good friend's files/emails and naming 6 of their
| potential clients.
| codeduck wrote:
| Am I hallucinating? Wasn't there just an identical thread on the
| front page not even an hour ago?
| altairprime wrote:
| Email the mods and they'll check and merge the dupes :)
| baq wrote:
| You aren't, probably was flagged down by not being hacker
| enough (or more likely for being an open invitation to runaway
| speculation without any grounding in reality and facts)
| watwut wrote:
| Proper hackers are interested in homeschool propaganda, but
| not in closed airspace.
| graemep wrote:
| This also seems to be an open invitation to runaway
| speculation.
|
| A lot of the speculation is ridiculous given only a small
| area has been closed. That is not a prelude to war, for
| example!
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| War no, but extraction absolutely.
|
| Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire were closed off the day before
| Maduro's extraction
| uncivilized wrote:
| You've just described every comment section on HackerNews.
| debo_ wrote:
| *runway speculation
| baq wrote:
| Millions of dollars of stuck planes and cargo. If it was
| somebody's fantasy, it sure was an expensive one - but I'm not
| sure I want to know what it was if it was a real thing
| anilakar wrote:
| Don't worry. Mexico will pay for it 100 %.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Probably $Bs. Around 100 flights per day from there, so there
| would be dozens of planes on the ground.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Aliens? I want to believe...
| voxadam wrote:
| Judging by the previous actions of this administration --
| _Operation Metro Surge 2: Tex-Mex Boogaloo_
| vincnetas wrote:
| Map :
|
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_0091
| guerrilla wrote:
| It seems like you linked to a different area on the border to
| Mexicali?
| dathinab wrote:
| that link shows the wrong blocked airspace in my case
|
| (it shows that some areas above the border in the desert are
| blocked off, which makes sense to fight drug smuggling by
| drones without risking mistaking drones with aircrafts)
|
| but he article is about the new circular zone directly placed
| over El Paso with El Paso International Airport directly in
| it's center. (Interestingly because they used a circle it
| technically covers the Mexican side of the boarder including a
| part of the airport on their side, but practically FAA can't
| shut down Mexican airspace so it's misleading).
|
| Also worth noting there is:
|
| - Holloman Air Force Base
|
| - White Sands Missile Range
|
| - Fort Bliss
|
| - Fort Bliss McGregor Range
|
| direct besides the city
|
| so a Military exercise, or deployment of Military (Trump has
| said he will bomb cartel hideouts in Mexico) can be added to
| the list of possibilities
| imglorp wrote:
| This one's responding.
|
| https://skyvector.com/?ll=31.836456906566234,-106.7029640846...
| incomingpain wrote:
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233
|
| This isnt a particularly special thing. It's a catchall rule and
| given the identical one to the west, it looks like a common
| military one.
| baq wrote:
| Neither military nor medevac is exempted. This is unusual.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| The medevac is scary. This could cost lives. Hopefully
| there's a reason but, given how clumsy this admin is, who can
| say?
| u1hcw9nx wrote:
| Action to close airspace over a major city in the US for security
| reasons over extended period hasn't happened since 9/11.
|
| 10 day closure for security reasons seems really long.
|
| edit: Same restriction imposed around Santa Teresa, New Mexico.
| ~15 miles northwest of the El Paso airport.
| le-mark wrote:
| El Paso is the 6th largest city in Texas so not "major" but
| certainly large.
| SirFatty wrote:
| Ft. Bliss is there as well...
| u1hcw9nx wrote:
| 25th largest in the United States.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Crashed alien vehicle recovery?
| xyst wrote:
| Has anybody checked the pizza/chinese takeout traffic in DC?
| w0de0 wrote:
| Nothing unusual - DOUGHCON 4: https://www.pizzint.watch/
| bdbdbdb wrote:
| To me the trapezoid suggests something traveling south fell in
| the area. Narrow at the top, wide at the bottom.
|
| Maybe they dropped a nuke by accident (again)
| kijin wrote:
| That looks like a rather flat trapezoid for something that fell
| from high above.
|
| With a fast-moving object, we can usually tell its trajectory
| across the map much more accurately than we can tell where
| along that trajectory it impacted the ground. See: MH370.
| jjk166 wrote:
| The area they would expect to find it would be much narrower
| than the area they would expect a plane overhead to be able
| to observe it.
| daemonologist wrote:
| Maybe fits the "DoD is shooting something at some kind of
| incoming drone" explanation - they know they're shooting
| _from_ the top of the trapezoid but in terms of direction,
| only that they're vaguely facing south. (Doesn't really
| explain why the TFR doesn't extend into Mexico though.)
| con wrote:
| FAA closed another airspace nearby:
| https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2234
|
| - From February 11, 2026 at 0630 UTC (February 10, 2026 at 2330
| MST)
|
| - To February 21, 2026 at 0630 UTC (February 20, 2026 at 2330
| MST)
|
| My guess is nuclear tests
| dathinab wrote:
| it's too spontaneous for that
|
| it it's "just" a training exercise or test they could have
| announced the closing weeks or month before it happening
| massively reducing the cost fallout from it
|
| not that the current administration has in generally acted with
| care when it comes to causing huge financial damage to US
| cities, especially such they don't like
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| "For special security reasons". Is a "special military operation
| " following? Maybe somebody in Mexico said something mean about
| the president.
|
| But seriously, is this normal without any explanation? The cost
| must be enormous.
| dathinab wrote:
| it's in general highly abnormal
|
| which kinda makes it normal to not have a explanation
|
| because anything abnormal enough to cause something like that
| is also likely something kept secret until it's done
|
| (Like large scale operations against drug cartel, "special
| military operation", or a large scale ICE operation which
| shouldn't be able to cause this but does because the current
| administration is uh, what it is.)
| Havoc wrote:
| My money is on misplaced black budget project craft
|
| Maybe that new F-47 did a trump and fell asleep somewhere in the
| desert
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| That's kind of what I'm thinking too though my money would be
| on something like "super secret stealth cruise missile ripped
| off it's mounting pylon" or control software went crazy rather
| than an airframe loss.
|
| It's likely be something small enough and with little/no fuel
| because if it left a big smoking hole they'd find it quick. And
| it's gotta be something with fairly questionable aerodynamic
| properties (i.e. damaged) or questionable guidance (i.e not an
| inadvertently released bomb) otherwise they'd have a very good
| idea of where it landed.
| dathinab wrote:
| But they didn't block the desert, only air zone and also only
| directly above the city not beyond it.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| The entire conspiracy theory industry is praying that the closure
| runs its course for the established 10 days and then everything
| is re-opened and the reasons behind the closure are not further
| explained or even better become classified
|
| Not saying this isn't suspect though.
| jmatthiass wrote:
| As someone else mentioned, there's some speculation in aviation
| subreddits that the bounds of the altitude restriction map to the
| MANPAD capabilities that some cartels are purported to have.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/comment/o...
|
| My read is that the admin is planning forceful strikes on the
| cartels within Mexico and is worried about their ability to
| retaliate by taking down US aircraft across the border.
|
| Edit: The closure has now been kiboshed. The wording seems a
| little "don't panic-y" to me, but better that than the
| alternative! https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421
| derbOac wrote:
| Would that account for the trapezoidal shape of the one
| restricted area?
| torpfactory wrote:
| My bet is a showy armored advance though the open terrain
| near there... it'll look great on camera! /s
| mothballed wrote:
| It seems crazy not to just, tell people that if that's what it
| is. "Hey if you are flying above 18,000 please don't go lower
| because you could be blown up by a MANPAD."
|
| If the cartels have MANPADS then our intel is already blown by
| issuing the TFR, so what's the harm in just saying it out loud?
| gordonhart wrote:
| Mass panic? Think of how wildly it would be misrepresented in
| the media and how disruptive it would be to all air travel in
| the country. People aren't rational actors and the most
| sensationalized headline is what ends up spreading
| spacephysics wrote:
| For your first point, on the off chance they have other
| equipment capable of surpassing MANPADS I'd prefer as a
| passenger they just fly around.
|
| Second point, it's not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or
| it's our own operation though we can speculate.
| mothballed wrote:
| I'm not sure if the person I replied to edited their
| comment, or I looked at the wrong one, but the one I
| originally read said the TFR only had the restriction below
| 18,000 ft. I was addressing it on that basis, which wasn't
| requiring people flying above that to route around it.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Even Cartels know that shooting down civilian aircraft in US
| airspace would be an escalation that would lead to heavy
| retaliation. Doesn't seem likely to me.
| jmatthiass wrote:
| Good point. I guess it depends on the force, size, and
| especially effectiveness of any potential strikes. (i.e. How
| cornered a cartel might feel and how much flexing an outsized
| response might stand to gain them.)
| estearum wrote:
| Mistakes happen though
| mothballed wrote:
| Unless the government is planning an attack on the cartel[s]
| that is so existential that such action wouldn't be
| considered an escalation but rather a tic for tat.
|
| A trapped animal will generally use all its facilities
| regardless of its expected effectiveness.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Remember that there is no "the" cartel, just so many
| different towns and interests and bribed officials. It
| makes it a significant (and perhaps convenient) misnomer
| dont get me wrong, but maybe important to remember.
|
| Extremely good, highly researched book if you want to get
| angry at me or call me idiot!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Unless we start bombing them first. That's not hard to
| imagine these days.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Not hard to imagine these days? Wouldn't you hope for an
| intervention if it were known that a hostile, state-level
| military planned to down civilian aircraft?
| _joel wrote:
| What happened after
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
| ?
| ibejoeb wrote:
| I can't read your mind.
| KPGv2 wrote:
| I had a quick check, and there were zero Americans on
| board this Malaysian aircraft shot down by a nuclear
| power over Ukraine, so I don't know how you think it's
| relevant to an American aircraft full of Americans being
| shot down in American airspace by cartels immediately on
| the other side of the American border.
|
| EDIT: Unless you think Malaysia not bombing the Kremlin
| in retribution is somehow indicative of how America would
| respond to the situation we're actually talking about.
| reactordev wrote:
| Coming from groups that just pickup busses of people to
| murder, I wouldn't be so sure that firing back at the US
| would be out of the question.
| nessbot wrote:
| Murdering buses of people doesn't bring the full force of
| the US military on them. The difference is the risk not the
| depravity.
| p-e-w wrote:
| This is the answer. The cartels would have to be insane
| to poke that particular bear. They would get crushed like
| a bug. IIRC they murdered a single US undercover officer
| in the 90s and the retaliation was so bad that they
| themselves handed over the perpetrators.
| BoredPositron wrote:
| You are right rationality is their strongest character
| trait.
| the_sleaze_ wrote:
| The cartels are incredibly rational - what they lack are
| morals and ethics
| KPGv2 wrote:
| Do you have much evidence of them behaving irrationally?
| mmh0000 wrote:
| I would recommend reading the Freakinomics book or listen
| to their podcasts on drugs.
|
| TL;DR: drug cartels are run like businesses. They are
| very rational. But, unlike your boss, their boss can also
| shoot you in the face if you annoy them too much
| 542354234235 wrote:
| How are they not rational? Violence is a tool. They
| operate an illegal business so they can't sue other
| parties for breach of contract. They can't call the
| police if they are robbed or file an insurance claim for
| what was taken. Even the over-the-top violence has a
| rationale. They aren't punishing the victims as much as
| they are attempting to broadcast that there is a higher
| price to be paid than any gain from giving information,
| to reduce their future losses and enforcement efforts. It
| isn't moral or ethical, but I wouldn't say it is
| irrational.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Lots of organized crime around the world manages to
| operate without cutting all the limbs off somebody then
| arranging them like flowers in a "vase" made out of the
| poor soul's ribcage. The cartels take violence far beyond
| what is pragmatically necessary. Their system of crime
| breeds excessive violence and insanity.
| xkcd-sucks wrote:
| Marketing, if you don't know the answer it's always
| marketing
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This stuff mostly followed after the zetas. It was a very
| deliberate strategy to compete in a hostile landscape
| that others eventually copied to survive.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| It's notable that a lot of the Zetas came from a military
| special forces background, making it seem as if their
| extreme brutality was a strategic choice inculcated
| during their training.
|
| https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-
| sec...
| coolhand2120 wrote:
| > How are they not rational?
|
| It's the meth.
| colechristensen wrote:
| It's a business not an ideology.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> They would get crushed like a bug._
|
| Much as I despise them, I'm not so sure that would be the
| case. I seem to remember folks saying the same about the
| Taliban, and the cartels have a lot more money and high-
| tech kit, than the Taliban.
|
| Asymmetric warfare is a tough gig, on all sides.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I don't think the technology matters nearly as much as
| the asymmetry. Iraq had better technology than the
| Taliban and their military didn't last a week.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| True enough, but the cartels are also experts at running
| what is basically guerrilla warfare, against each other.
| Not sure if the Mexican Army has ever tried to take them
| on. A lot of cartel soldiers come from the army.
| mmooss wrote:
| That conflates two very different things:
|
| * A conventional military war, on a battlefield: Neither
| Saddam Hussein's military nor the cartels nor the Taliban
| would last long against the US.
|
| * An unconventional insurgency: The Iraqis quickly turned
| to this approach and it worked very well for them, as it
| did for the Taliban. The Taliban won, and the Iraqi
| insurgency almost drove the US out of Iraq and was
| eventually co-opted.
|
| The cartels of course would choose the latter. They, the
| Taliban, etc. are not suicidal.
| notahacker wrote:
| I think the key difference between the Taliban and the
| cartels is that the Taliban were a bunch of ideologues
| who actually enjoyed being an insurgency and living under
| siege in caves, with making money from the drugs trade
| being a mere means to their real purpose of fighting
| infidels, whereas the cartel leadership sees wealth and
| power from controlling the drugs trade as an end,
| crushing local rivals as a means, and would really rather
| avoid the sort of conflict that's bad for their medium
| term business prospects.
|
| I mean, some sort of cartels would bounce back after any
| "war on drugs" because supply and demand, but the people
| running them aren't hankering for martyrdom or glory over
| consolidating their territory and accumulating.
| Noaidi wrote:
| How did that full force of the US military work out in
| Vietnam?
| kgermino wrote:
| Pretty badly for both sides
| randallsquared wrote:
| It was never used, there.
| antonymoose wrote:
| Millions of dead Vietnamese.
|
| In any case that was a war against a hardened,
| experienced, determined enemy fighting for its freedom
| from any form of colonial occupation, both as a formal
| military and as an insurgent force in South Vietnam.
|
| I scarcely think the Mexican population would rise up in
| defense of the cartels here.
| boringg wrote:
| I think a lot of people would be cheering on the
| destruction of the cartels.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The destruction of cartels would involve careful policing
| and corruption controls, the best American
| administrations have been bad at this. The worst... can
| barely put its pants on much less dismantle foreign
| organized crime. You can't shoot a missile at a cartel
| and poof it's just gone.
| ryandrake wrote:
| They'd probably quickly stop cheering as their own homes
| and families were destroyed as collateral damage, which
| is what would happen if the "full force of the US
| military" were deployed against the cartels.
| TitaRusell wrote:
| The last time America invaded Mexico City it created
| martyrs. It's a fascinating story that they do not teach
| at US highschools lol.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| We were briefly greeted as liberators in Iraq too.
| adolph wrote:
| A non-aligned population will look out for their own
| interests and are aware that the attention of the US is
| temporary but the cuadillismo that lead to cartels are a
| durable cultural artifact. The Battle of
| Culiacan, also known locally as the Culiacanazo and Black
| Thursday, was a failed attempt to capture Ovidio Guzman
| Lopez, son of Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Joaquin "El
| Chapo" Guzman, who was wanted in the United States
| for drug trafficking. Around 700 cartel
| gunmen began to attack civilian, government and military
| targets around the city, despite orders from Ovidio sent
| at security forces' request. Massive towers of
| smoke could be seen rising from burning cars and
| vehicles. The cartels were well-equipped, with improvised
| armored vehicles, bulletproof vests, .50 caliber
| (12.7 mm) rifles, rocket launchers, grenade
| launchers and heavy machine guns.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culiac%C3%A1n
| boringg wrote:
| I don't really think you thought through that one. It
| sounds like what your saying is that the Vietnamese won
| and thats the outcome that matters. It does matter but
| that isn't the issue - it is the cost that everyone is
| talking about: the amount of destruction that was brought
| upon the country and people was terrible.
| infecto wrote:
| The distinction is those are cases where they are murdering
| Mexican citizens. If a cartel murdered a bus of people in
| America I suspect most any administration would retaliate
| in some form.
| reactordev wrote:
| Dude, Americans are getting kidnapped and murdered in
| Mexico all the time. The cartels don't care your
| nationality.
|
| If the administration strikes cartels first, they may
| find it egregious enough to do what they refused to do in
| the past...
|
| I don't rule out any options when it comes to murderous
| organizations.
|
| *EDIT* This isn't me saying don't go to Mexico or that
| Mexico is unsafe either. Out of the tourists that visit
| from America, 0.001% see violence or are kidnapped or
| anything negative. If anything it would be petty theft
| near cruise ports and resort towns that would be the
| biggest culprit of crime for Americans.
| _heimdall wrote:
| I think the GP was referring to buses on US soil rather
| than Americans on buses in Mexico.
| reactordev wrote:
| Cartels only strike their own on US soil...
| infecto wrote:
| You're missing the point. Absolutely cartel violence
| impacts all types of people in the US and Mexico but
| large scale brutal violence that is usually saved for
| Mexico since unfortunately the Mexican federal government
| does not have control in most of the regions.
|
| There is a huge difference between a one off gang killing
| in the US and someone taking a whole grey hound bus and
| burying the bodies in the desert.
| reactordev wrote:
| Which is why I bring up their affinity for going after
| busses of people, because they have, in Mexico...
|
| The world does not stop at the Us border.
| infecto wrote:
| "Dude", murdering a us citizen in Mexico is different
| than murdering an entire bus of people on US soil.
|
| You say it's happening all the time but then say it's
| .01%.
|
| Looked it up myself, maybe 40 to 300 people annually.
| Hard to discern how many of those are pure tourism vs
| visiting family. I suspect you have a greater risk
| visiting family, especially if it's a border town.
|
| 13.5mm US citizens visit d Mexico in 2024 so .00002% got
| kidnapped. I bet that number is even lower when you
| separate pure tourism vs dual nationals or similar going
| back home to visit.
|
| The point is any action taken on US soil in a large
| capacity would be seen as an attack by any
| administration.
| reactordev wrote:
| I never said "In the US" guy
| infecto wrote:
| Why are you being so rude, dude?
|
| Your right anything can happen but any large attack on US
| grounds or equally blowing up a plane on either side of
| the border is going to bring the full weight of the US on
| the cartels. It makes little sense. Cartels have for
| decades ingrained that into their organizations no matter
| how violent that may be.
| reactordev wrote:
| Dismissing their violence is rude. They are capable and
| willing to do whatever. As evidenced here
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_San_Fernando_massacre
|
| It's a much bigger problem that you all realize. Right
| now they have authorized attacks on border patrol
| agents...
|
| I'm not saying that the US wouldn't retaliate, I'm saying
| our enemies are getting bolder under this
| administration's pressure. Turns out the closure was
| because of drones... But it's still a real issue in
| Mexico that Mexico would love the eradicate.
| jghn wrote:
| > Dude, Americans are getting kidnapped and murdered in
| Mexico all the time
|
| Dude, can you put some numbers with a citation behind
| that? Then we can extrapolate a risk ratio and see if it
| really merits the "all the time" claim.
| reactordev wrote:
| https://cuid.mx/en/blogs/seguridad/la-realidad-de-los-
| secues...
|
| https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-
| tracker/conflict/crimina...
|
| https://www.osac.gov/Content/Report/8f3ac9f0-a827-455f-bf
| 61-...
| jghn wrote:
| No one disagreed it happens. You claimed it happened "all
| the time". Unless I"m missing it, your links don't
| provide numbers of how many Americans are kidnapped &
| murdered per year. Further, it'd be useful to compare
| that to the overall number of American visitors to
| Mexico.
|
| I'm going to go out on a limb and claim it's a small
| fraction of a percent that find themselves kidnapped &
| murdered "all the time". But prove me wrong.
| matwood wrote:
| Of course things happen sometimes. But, the cartels
| typically do not want to mess with Americans,
| particularly in tourist areas, because that brings heat
| they don't want. It's literally bad for business.
| xtracto wrote:
| This is different.
|
| See, Drug cartels over here operate with the blessing and
| favor of our president. They are tightly connected.
|
| If a cartel dared to ground a US flight. The US government
| would have a "free pass" to break all hell loose in Mexico,
| and Sheinbaum wouldn't have a way to stop it.
|
| She doesn't want that in any way, so the message to the
| cartel bosses would be to be very careful in that respect.
|
| Sure, there have been US citizens killed within Mexico here
| and there, but those can easily be attributed to local
| violence. And as retribution, Mexican government sends a
| couple of wanted criminals to the US.
| ekidd wrote:
| Yeah, if a cartel actually used anti-aircraft weapons on
| a US passenger plane in US airspace? It wouldn't even
| matter if MAGA or the Democrats were in charge. The US
| would collectively lose its shit and spend the next 10
| years and several trillion dollars retaliating against
| the cartels. The media would be ecstatic, because it
| would give them a decade of story arcs, starting with
| "our brave troops in uniform" all the way through to
| covering the eventual quagmire and anti-war protests. By
| year 6-8, editorial columnists would be writing columns
| reconsidering their initial support for the war.
|
| Please, let's not do this.
| resters wrote:
| who are we (the US)? People who wantonly murder people on
| fishing boats, etc.
| reactordev wrote:
| I'm not saying our cartel is any better...
| ultrarunner wrote:
| Your use of "our" makes me wonder if the people of Mexico
| see the drug cartels as "theirs".
| reactordev wrote:
| Merely pointing out that the US administration is
| operating like a cartel now a days.
|
| I doubt Mexicans see the Mexican cartels as "theirs" in
| the same way. Cartels have only been interested in paying
| off politicians and (as far as I'm aware) weren't
| interested in being politicians. However, our politicians
| here... would LOVE to be Cartel members and make millions
| it seems. Because they definitely don't give a shit about
| law and order.
| philistine wrote:
| If that aircraft held a person they wanted dead, I would not
| put it past them.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Yes that might be the high-level logic, but if you give a
| MANPAD to a 19 year old sicario on meth, accidents do happen.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I think you misunderstood that movie.
| torpfactory wrote:
| My read is most likely some kind of strike on the cartels.
| There hasn't seemed to be any significant US military buildup
| so it's something they'll be able to do with a smaller force.
|
| The trapezoid makes me worried about a ground incision there-
| it extends to the border and would be a cover space for an
| invasion force. Absolutely bonkers that we are even having this
| discussion.
|
| The TFR is most likely contingency planning for possible
| retaliation by cartel drones and the need to keep the airspace
| clear so they can see (with radar) and shoot down drones and
| not passenger aircraft.
| grosswait wrote:
| You are the first person to mention invasion. Kind of bonkers
| to jump to that conclusion.
| torpfactory wrote:
| It is totally nuts. We will see I guess. If there will be a
| ground invasion, people will see the convoys moving into
| position. You can't really hide that much stuff.
| ben_w wrote:
| Unfortunately, we find ourselves living in a bonkers time.
| alexissantos wrote:
| Nuts, definitely. Bonkers to jump to that conclusion? No,
| especially with this US administration. Mexico itself is
| concerned enough about the possibility that it's made
| statements to make it clear it wouldn't be acceptable.
| Mexico thinks it's nuts, too, but not bonkers to think the
| US might do it.
|
| US troops in Mexico 'not on the table', Sheinbaum tells
| Trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-
| troops-mexi...
| niij wrote:
| She's on the Cartel payroll. Of course she would say
| that. You can't be a simple mayor without cartel
| involvement in Mexico.
| malfist wrote:
| > She's on the Cartel payroll
|
| > You can't be a simple mayor without cartel involvement
| in Mexico.
|
| I don't know what world you're living in, but this is
| absolutely not the case. Mexico is not a failed state,
| don't get all your news from places trying to scare you.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Other commenters here in this thread as well as many people
| on reddit and other sites about this news are also saying
| the same thing. Our minds are not as unique as we think :)
| matthewaveryusa wrote:
| What's also bonkers is our political whimpiness that allowed
| this to happen, right? If there is a drone response it's
| pretty damning evidence that we are way too dovish in our
| policy against drug smuggling up until now
| ben_w wrote:
| It doesn't say much either way.
|
| I'm from the UK, we had the ("real") IRA put a RPG-22 anti-
| tank rocket at the walls of MI6 HQ (the UK version of the
| CIA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_MI6_attack
|
| Dangerous things like these are _not_ expensive, compared
| to even low budget small-time group.
| gsck wrote:
| I mean the RIRA is a splinter group of the PIRA which had
| massive funding from overseas, especially from the United
| States. PIRA was not a small-time group.
| pigbearpig wrote:
| "Maybe, or maybe FL180 is a nice clean line for class A
| airspace. No need to bother transcontinental flights for a
| local issue."
|
| Way more plauible
| petesergeant wrote:
| What does that mean sorry?
| bombcar wrote:
| FL180 is 18000 feet, meaning that flights OVER don't need
| to divert.
| mazugrin2 wrote:
| It is a pedantic but meaningful distinction that I'd only
| point out on a sorta geeky site like this, but actually,
| FL180 (or, flight level one-eight-zero) is the altitude
| at which an altimeter will read 18,000 feet if it's set
| to assume that the barometric pressure is 1013 hPa (29.92
| inHg). Above a certain transition altitude, aircraft
| switch their altimeters from reading altitude in the
| local pressure to this "standard" pressure. This is
| because above that altitude and safely away from terrain,
| it's no longer important to know precisely how high you
| are, but it _is_ important to know what altitude you are
| relative to all the other aircraft nearby.
| anovikov wrote:
| That it limits local flights but not international ones as
| they fly higher.
| reactordev wrote:
| It means that you have no business being below FL180 or
| 18,000ft to enter this airspace.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| It means any aircraft transitioning over the area at high
| altitude isn't impacted, because they're too high to care.
|
| It is a ground and "everything near the ground" stop.
| Meaning low altitude helicopters and private aircraft have
| to consider it, even transitioning, but realistically
| commercial aircraft not taking off/landing in the area
| won't.
| satiated_grue wrote:
| FL180 is the floor of Class A airspace, "the flight levels",
| where airliners etc. operate.
|
| Relevant chapter from FAA "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical
| Knowledge":
| https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/17_phak_ch15.pdf
|
| In the "Flight Levels", altitudes are referred to not in feet
| above sea level but as "FLxxx" where xxx is a nominal
| altitude in 100s of feet.
|
| Altimetry is done using barometric pressure. Since this
| varies with weather, airplanes at lower altitudes set their
| altimeters to the local barometric pressure for a reasonably
| accurate reading. In the flight levels, where planes are
| typically covering ground quickly and there is very little
| chance of your path conflicting with the surface of the
| Earth, every plane sets to an agreed-upon reference of 29.92
| inches of mercury as the altimeter setting.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| Knowing the restriction goes to 18k certainly says that either
| S-A or A-S reach must be limited but the as your post points
| out no buffer between MANPAD actual range and the limit
| imposed. I think unlikely to say MANPAD, specifically.
|
| There's a small private airfield to the west with only a single
| victor airway connecting to el-paso. the victors end at 17999
| ft, effectively cutting traffic for non-commercial or non-
| business jet operators.
|
| Closure of the victor airway there seems, again limiting
| airborne craft due to airborne hazards.
|
| Hazards in the air, near the surface that are, seemingly,
| unplanned with a cone pointing at mexico.
|
| That's kind of the most anyone will get until more info, could
| be some urgent testing of some capability or response to small
| craft (drones) coming over the boarder. Emergency timing could
| be to garner interest or emphasize importance, which works well
| politically.
|
| Las Cruces International Airport and Dana Jetport are
| unaffected.
| timbre1234 wrote:
| The restriction goes to 18k because that's the top of VFR
| space. Anyone operating above 18k has to be on an IFR
| clearance and under positive ATC control. That makes it easy
| for the feds to make a call and say "Hey, center, get
| everyone out of this airspace" wheras in the VFR altitudes
| it's very difficult for them to legally clear the space since
| a VFR plane could be flying around not talking to anyone.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| I only know about Las Cruces from the Organ Mountain
| Outfitters training material in the DaVinci Resolve sample
| footage. Sadly they closed a few months ago, which is a shame
| because I never got my arse in gear to order a shirt from
| them.
| duxup wrote:
| Shooting down civilian American aircraft like that would seem
| to just be for an even more strong response...
|
| Seems unlikely.
| guerrilla wrote:
| They would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels
| historically does not go well for anyone involved.
| alex43578 wrote:
| Escalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has
| also gone poorly. It's been the casus belli many times,
| notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked...
| guerrilla wrote:
| Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely
| different context which has no relevance here. We're not
| in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war
| with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting
| nuclear capabilities for the first time in history.
|
| You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and
| those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq,
| Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating
| an existential threat on your own border is a bad move
| for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not.
| The current situation has the potential to be much more
| dangerous.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| > You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and
| those cases weren't even on its own border.
|
| Doesn't the US have more resources at home, not less?
|
| Wouldn't a strike on US soil be a larger escalation and
| dictate a swift and larger response?
| guerrilla wrote:
| This is real life. They don't to cause a problem they
| can't solve.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| You are now leaning your premise as an argument. I
| disagree that it would cause a problem.
|
| I believe it's unrealistic that "the cartel" would strike
| back against the USG, particularly on US soil.
| willturman wrote:
| The _homeland_? Yikes.
|
| The last time there was an attack within the United
| States' borders it notably ended with a self-owning
| combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of
| time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the
| systematic erosion of enumerated rights.
| m4rtink wrote:
| If only this was a certainty - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
| was shot down with 298 people killed 12 years ago but still
| no one was directly punished for it...
| bluedino wrote:
| Malaysia isn't going to attack Russia.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I highly doubt the Russians/separatists running the Buk
| knew the identity of the flight before shooting it down.
| myrmidon wrote:
| Most certainly not, but I don't see how that is relevant.
|
| The problem (from a victim/Dutch perspective) is that
| there is complete denial from the Russian side (despite
| heaps of evidence around the people involved, origin and
| transport of the launcher from Russian territory).
|
| Even if Russian judges and prosecutors are completely
| corrupt and biased, an actual investigation/trial is the
| least that would be expected here, but all we got are the
| bald faced lies that Russia is particularly fond of.
| m4rtink wrote:
| At least some vengeance has been already done in blood,
| although indirectly, given how oversized has been dutch
| support for Ukraine compared to other similarly sized
| countries.
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| > Shooting down civilian *American* aircraft like that
| would seem to just be for an even more strong response...
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| Of course, the US elected the only celebrity of the 80s and 90s
| who hates blow.
|
| On the other hand a careful analysis of the plumbing system of
| Trump's Tower and Trump's Hotels in general would reveal
| possibly the highest concentration of coke than any other
| building in the world considering the intersection of wealth
| and istrionic personalities who called those apartments home at
| one time or the other.
|
| Fate sure loves irony
|
| Besides I would go to my grave claiming that racism is
| particularly strong in the war on drugs, if coca grew plentiful
| and naturally in the US and Europe it would not be illegal at
| all.
|
| But it's scary because uh ohh inssulfation of an extract of a
| plant coming from the global south we are all gonna die,
| somebody will please think of the children.
|
| But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks which
| equate to about 5-6 fat lines, matter of fact you can gulp 600
| oz and cause yourself a heart attack and nobody would bat an
| eye or investigate the safety profile of such drinks
|
| It's the same old story with alcohol too
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| > But hey you can gulp 60 oz of super strong energy drinks
| which equate to about 5-6 fat lines
|
| Are you joking?
|
| Look, I'm no stranger to drugs, but coke is _not_ a "60oz
| energy drink" and its potential for generally destroying
| someone's life is, while not at the same level, definitely in
| the same ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| 60 oz energy drink = 5-6 fat lines perhaps more
|
| The most dense energy drinks have 350-400 of caffeine in a
| can these days and on top of that there's the taurine etc.
|
| 60 oz is 4 cans, do your math. 4 * 400 = 1600mg of caffeine
| alone
|
| > > potential for generally destroying someone's life is,
| while not at the same level, definitely in the same
| ballpark as crack, heroin, and meth.
|
| That's more of the result of the enviornment and the
| associated people who frequent such circles and not the
| stimulant per se.
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| I don't say this lightly, as someone who has spent
| decades around drugs, and as a result, knows more than a
| few recovering addicts: this comes across as _wild_
| rationalization by an addict.
|
| And while 1600mg of caffeine is 4x the FDA's recommended
| daily intake and _really_ isn 't a good idea, someone on
| that much caffeine is neither going to feel nor behave in
| any way similar to someone on coke.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| I am sorry but you are way off.
|
| Sewer stats tell us that in reality the most civilized
| places in the world have the highest amount of coke in
| their sewers.
|
| Zurich, Brussel, Berlin, Melbourne, Billionaire's row in
| NYC, Nantucket [0]
|
| For those who don't jump the hedonic treadmill blow is
| just edgy chic coffee with the thrill of doing something
| 'illegal' and snorting it instead of consuming it orally.
|
| Of course if you take coffee and nicotine and that gives
| you plenty of stimulation for 6-7 hours you have no
| business moving into the stronger stimulants, although
| they are also availible not just in the form of blow but
| Wellbutrin, Adderall, Dextra etc and again plenty used in
| the most civilized places and not so much used in the
| less civilized places
|
| [0]https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/pods/waste-
| water-ana...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Sounds like a great way to reinforce the "We ready to move
| along from Epstein" narrative.
| danesparza wrote:
| I think it's simpler. It's going to make the cartel drones
| easier to spot.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Do you think the cartels won't see this news? If this is all
| it was, the cartels can just wait 10 days and start up again.
| cameldrv wrote:
| Doing a closure up to 18k feet is common because that's where
| class A airspace starts, i.e. you need a clearance to go there,
| you can't just fly around VFR wherever you want. The airspace
| above 18k might not be officially closed, but controllers can
| be instructed to just not give a clearance into whatever area
| they deem is unsafe on a particular day.
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| The percentage of comments written primarily for the purpose
| irrational political ranting is frustrating, considering the
| genuinely interesting nature of the story.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| "I wish all these people would stop pursuing politics
| discussions about an authoritarian regime, instead can't we all
| just talk about how interesting authoritarianism is?"
|
| Weird take...
| lingrush4 wrote:
| Closing a small patch of airspace while military activity is
| occurring is not authoritarianism. Get a grip you lunatic
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| i think the comment you replied to said what you said
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| I don't think anyone said closing this airspace was an
| authoritarian act... double check the posts above.
| themafia wrote:
| >> for the purpose irrational political ranting
|
| > pursuing politics discussions
|
| Did you intentionally ignore this specific point?
| nnnnico wrote:
| More likely to be related to the E Files than the X ones
| imglorp wrote:
| E-File? Like, taxes?
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| Epstein files.
| cheonn638 wrote:
| > Epstein files.
|
| Nobody cares
| NietzscheanNull wrote:
| Nobody cares that a large number of billionaires and
| world leaders, individuals with the power to steer the
| course of society as a whole, are implicated in one of
| the largest (and darkest) scandals in history?
|
| Speak for yourself.
| imglorp wrote:
| Without rule of law, we don't really have a civilization.
|
| Should there be some people laws don't apply to?
| t1234s wrote:
| Downed UAP recovery?
| dathinab wrote:
| doesn't need commercial air space lock down, at most
| private/small low altitude/drone plain lock down
| chasd00 wrote:
| Some drug cartel probably bought a SAM and they're trying to find
| it.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| What are the odds that Claudia the President of Mexico has
| already been extracted now?
| exegete wrote:
| Live camera of runway
| https://app.truelook.cloud/dashboard/581/980/live
|
| Linked from airport website:
| https://elpasointernationalairport.com/live-cameras/
| 1e1a wrote:
| poor PTZ mount :(
| sriram_malhar wrote:
| "Wag The Dog" movie all over again. Sure looks like deflection
| from the Epstein Files and economy.
| sva_ wrote:
| > Airline sources told Reuters the grounding of flights was
| believed to be tied to the Pentagon's use of counterdrone
| technology to address Mexican drug cartels' use of drones of the
| U.S.-Mexico border.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-halts-all-flights-texass...
| guerrilla wrote:
| I personally don't think that's the whole story. They're likely
| going to act against the cartels to take out cross-border drone
| capabilities and are preparing for S-A retaliation as well.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| A cartel using a SAM against a US civilian aircraft would
| massively solidify public opinion against them just like 9/11
| or the Iran hostage crisis. The US has been trying to extent
| the "foreign terrorist" label and casus belli to drug
| activities forever to justify military operations (ex. the
| "arrest" of Maduro was for drugs, not oil/Cuba/political
| stuff). That would be a massive self-own on the cartels part.
| (And if it did happen, just like 9/11, it would be used as
| justification for anything even remotely immigration or drug
| related at every level.)
| trenning wrote:
| My understanding over the US/MX cartel relations is
| performing an invasion and "act of war" would solidify
| asylum status claims by Mexican residents and throw a
| wrench into the whole immigration scheme every
| administration plays.
|
| But then again this time seems different, laws aren't
| followed or upheld. Human rights are a fleeting staple.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Starting a war with Mexico would be a pretext for
| interning everyone of "Mexican" ethnicity, citizen or
| otherwise, as was done to Japanese nationals.
| _heimdall wrote:
| Its mincing words a bit, but an attack targeting drug
| cartel assets wouldn't necessarily be viewed as a war
| with Mexico. It could lead to that for sure, and the
| Mexican government could declare it an act of war, but we
| did just see the US literally invade a foreign country
| and arrest their sitting leader without war being
| declared on either side.
| eesmith wrote:
| The US hasn't declared war since World War II.
|
| I suspect Mexicans would view it as another Pancho Villa
| Expedition, which was also event where neither side
| declared war.
| filoeleven wrote:
| Yet. It has certainly ratcheted up worldwide tensions, to
| put it mildly.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > A cartel using a SAM against a US civilian aircraft would
| massively solidify public opinion against them
|
| In what world is public opinion not universally against the
| cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
| djcapelis wrote:
| > In what world is public opinion not universally against
| the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
|
| I think you're getting tripped up by some specific
| wording and managing to miss the point the poster was
| making. The point should be taken seriously even if
| imprecisely articulated. While most folks are against the
| cartels, there's a much wider range of belief on how much
| they warrant government or military intervention and to
| what degree we should be spending various resources on
| them. The historical state of play was(is?) that cartels
| are criminal organizations which are generally a policing
| matter that has escalated to specialized policing
| agencies and multinational networks of policing agencies.
| The marked escalation of the military into this is a more
| recent piece that is somewhat more controversial. One
| doesn't have to be "in favor of the cartel" to ask
| questions about whether our military should be bombing
| boats or invading countries to ostensibly neutralize
| organizations that historically have been subject to
| policing operations.
|
| To go back to the parallel... the public wasn't in favor
| of Al Qaeda before 9/11 either, but there was a huge
| difference in the level of response the public was in
| favor of after. It turned from an intelligence monitoring
| level of response into an active military invasion of
| multiple countries.
| vkou wrote:
| The best part about bombing the boats is that the second
| strikes on them were war crimes, while the few survivors
| that were picked up... All ended up repatriated.
|
| If they were all drug runners, why weren't they put on
| trial? Why was so much effort made to sink all the
| evidence? Why did an admiral resign, when told to do
| this?
|
| Everybody involved, _starting from the people pulling the
| trigger_ , to the people giving the orders should be
| getting a fair trial and a swift punishment for that
| little stint of piracy and murder.
|
| But these people all act like there is no such thing as
| consequences.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >But these people all act like there is no such thing as
| consequences.
|
| Are there?
| staticassertion wrote:
| It is, of course. What they mean, I _assume_ , is that it
| would reach a tipping point where intervention would be
| more broadly supported. Virtually everyone is willing to
| say "that's bad" with regards to something happening
| somewhere, it is _far_ less agreed upon that the US
| should intervene in that bad thing. An effective tipping
| point is probably something on the order of "we feel
| attacked".
| starkparker wrote:
| Much of the world was against Saddam Hussein, but it took
| the wholesale invention of an Iraqi nuclear program to
| justify and get authorization for deposing him through
| international military action. Iraq didn't attack us,
| though in attacking an oil partner they might as well
| have, but the public certainly didn't feel attacked until
| someone dreamed up the prospect of Iraq nuking Israel,
| Europe, and/or us.
|
| In that case, the justification was a prerequisite to
| Congress authorizing a war without losing elections, and
| then selling it to the US's allies so we wouldn't have to
| send quite as many troops and thus lose elections. This
| administration demonstrably doesn't care about
| justification, authorization, alliances, or elections. So
| why bother? If they're going to stage an arbitrary
| Venezuela-like military operation in Mexico because of
| "cartels", they wouldn't wait for a civilian mass-death
| event, or for Congress, or regional allies, or public
| opinion. They didn't wait for any of that in Venezuela.
|
| TBQH this just felt like a cheap and easy way for them to
| perpetuate the idea that we're always at war with
| terrorists. Now they're "narcoterrorists", but they're
| still "terrorists". And this administration might not
| like obstacles like authorization and due process, but it
| loves cheap, easy terrorists.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There were plenty of people that were not against Pablo
| Escobar as he spent a lot of money back in his home town.
| Once the violence escalated, like when they took down a
| civilian flight, even that support waned. So I can see
| where GP is saying similar that by the time cartels get
| to the point of shooting down civilian aircraft even
| those that did support them would consider that the final
| straw.
| downrightmike wrote:
| The world where Americans buy billions in illegal drugs
| every year and turn a blind eye to cartels. "My dealer is
| nice"
| viraptor wrote:
| There's still a difference between the opinions on
| cartels and the opinion on an invasion and bombing of
| groups hopefully-related-to-cartels during another years
| long not-war.
| nikcub wrote:
| > In what world is public opinion not universally against
| the cartels? It's hard to take you seriously after that.
|
| They definitely care about not ratting the cage with the
| US - they don't harm US federal agents, or take US
| hostages, and the last incident of Americans being killed
| in Mexico by cartel-affiliated gunmen in a case of
| mistaken identity - it was the cartel who handed the
| perps over and apologised[0]
|
| [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/us/mexico-
| matamoros-ameri...
| TitaRusell wrote:
| What does that even mean? Cartels can buy those DJI drones
| from China by the container load.
|
| Russia and Ukraine can't stop drones. Does the US have a
| secret weapon?
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Does the US have a secret weapon?
|
| It sounds like that's what was being tested requiring the
| NOTAM. We just don't know if it did or didn't work. It
| could have failed so badly they decided to just shut it
| down, or it could have worked so successfully they decided
| no more testing was needed.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Russia and Ukraine can't stop drones. Does the US have a
| secret weapon?
|
| That does actually seem to be what they are saying now,
| yes.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| What cross-border drone capabilities, drug deliveries? People
| are talking like the cartels are conducting Ukraine-style
| drone warfare and blowing up Americans on the regular. Let's
| stick to a factual baseline here.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| This admin is focused on the message of stopping the inflow of
| drugs to the US. There are probably some true believers, and
| there are probably some reactionary accelerationists. There's
| also significant evidence of amateurism, misinformation, and
| incompetence.
|
| All of that coming together, I see this action coming out of
| meeting where - one party was convinced that
| this would solve the fentanyl epidemic - one party was
| hoping this would escalate military action in Mexico -
| one party was convinced that America had lost its masculine
| bravado and taking swift and unprecedented action like this
| would make their wife respect them again - one party was
| busy making "bets" on Kalshi
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut3I6gFmlls
| delaminator wrote:
| > reactionary
|
| they want to overthrow the Jacobites
|
| > accelerationists
|
| how's that going to work ?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Reactionary accelerationists want a local war of some sort
| so they can grab war powers and then roll back all the US's
| post-WW2 social progress (and most of the New Deal too).
| delaminator wrote:
| My understanding is accelerationists or liberals to go
| full hog so that they can go "see".
| matthews3 wrote:
| > bets
|
| Investments on Kalshi!
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| > one party was busy making "bets" on Kalshi
|
| This would arguably be much more severe -- and quite likely
| already happening -- than the whole "congress trading stocks"
| thing because most of those (besides the sports ones) tie
| very directly to government actions in a way that the economy
| or a large company in generally doesn't as predictably.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| It's definitely already happening and should lead to a
| congressional inquiry if we had a functioning congress:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gn93292do
| nemomarx wrote:
| Isn't the whole idea of prediction markets to let insiders
| bet on things so that you'll get insider info leaked?
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Maybe this is fine until it incentivizes easily-achieved
| but adverse actions that would greatly harm the public.
|
| For a silly example, I would imagine the streaker from
| this year's Super Bowl is either (a) a complete idiot, or
| (b) put a significant amount of money on a "prediction
| market" of there being a streaker at the Super Bowl -
| more than enough to cover his ticket, legal, and medical
| costs.
| usefulcat wrote:
| Yes and no. AIUI there's generally a lot less liquidity
| available in prediction markets, which limits the
| profitability.
|
| Even if you have perfect clairvoyance, you still need
| someone to take the other side of the bet.
| sowbug wrote:
| If the US wanted to end the fentanyl and xylazine and
| nitazene epidemic, it would legalize the controlled
| manufacture, sale, and usage of the drugs being adulterated.
| This won't happen, because the 50-year-old War on Drugs is a
| load-bearing pillar of the US government.
| projektfu wrote:
| Xylazine and fentanyl are already legally distributed in
| the US. I believe Xylazine is still unscheduled.
|
| https://www.dechra-us.com/our-
| products/us/equine/horse/presc...
| sowbug wrote:
| Those are the adulterants, not the drugs being
| adulterated such as heroin, meth, and MDMA.
|
| For the most part, no customer wants fentanyl. The
| dealers like it because it's a cheap booster for cutting
| the drugs that their customers actually do want to buy.
| It just has this unfortunate side effect of making small
| overdoses lethal.
|
| That's why "ending the fentanyl crisis" is a curious
| goal. We had a perfectly good War on Drugs going on, but
| fentanyl is making the illicit drug industry too
| dangerous. You'd think that if we wanted to stop drugs,
| and we knew how to do that, we'd stop drugs. Instead
| we're stopping fentanyl, so we can get back to the
| regularly scheduled version of the War on Drugs that was
| always intended to last forever.
| influx wrote:
| I live in Seattle, decriminalizing drugs didn't turn out
| that way here.
| sowbug wrote:
| "controlled" is key. Seattle decriminalized drug use.
| That's a tiny part of a larger solution rooted in harm
| reduction.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Singapore kills drug dealers. That works _much_ better.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| Idk, if the number of people executed increases over
| time, maybe it doesn't.
|
| https://www.afr.com/world/asia/singapore-executions-
| touch-22...
|
| This article cites Singapore saying the existing laws
| mostly get low-level users and not kingpins because
| kingpins operate outside of the country.
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/singapore-drug-
| executions/
|
| Decriminalization of drug use doesn't have to mean
| decriminalization of anything else. Thieves and murderers
| should be prosecuted regardless of any state induced by
| the voluntary ingestion chemicals.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Decriminalization without legalization is something I
| can't support. If it's not illegal for me to have and use
| a drug, them why should I be forced to buy it from
| criminals? Either legalize it, or go whole hog on
| criminalizing it. Execute the dealers and put users into
| mandatory rehab, or let people buy it in shops. Any of
| these half measures are intolerable, they exist to make
| sure the situation is in a constant state of tension, to
| nobody's benefit but the governments.
|
| Ideally we would pick one or the other on a drug by drug
| basis. Executing people for selling weed isn't something
| I actually want, but neither do I want them simply
| imprisoned or fined either. But with shit like fent?
| Trying to find a single policy to fit both drugs is
| inane.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
|
| Anyway: Capital punishment is an _elegant_ solution.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| If we're having a serious conversation about _effective_
| drug policies, it would be remise to not discuss
| Singapore. For some reason the conversation online is
| always about America and European countries, as if the
| rest of the world doesn 't exist.
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| I think it usually doesn't come up because Singapore is a
| very complicated country, perhaps the most "outlier"
| country on the planet. Most people in the US (even well-
| educated ones) don't know nearly enough about the social,
| cultural, and historical dynamics to speak on it
| intelligently, let alone compare and contrast it to a
| country like the United States.
|
| Might as well talk about drug policy in South Sudan to be
| honest.
|
| Edit: I will say I do have one Singaporean expat friend
| who finds capital punishment for drug possession vile,
| and cites it as one of the reasons she no longer lives
| there. Along with the crushing wealth disparity between
| the servant class and the working class. Not that it adds
| much to the conversation except personal flavor.
| notahacker wrote:
| Neighbouring countries including Thailand and Indonesia
| also have the death penalty for drug trafficking. It is
| almost impossible to visit parts of those countries
| _without_ being receiving unsolicited offers of drugs...
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
|
| Do you mean that drug dependence has become more visible?
| That petty crime has increased?
|
| One fun thing about harm reduction policies is that, as a
| result of fewer people dying, more people are on the
| street. So while you don't see people in the morgue on
| your daily commute, you do see them down the alleyway.
| This side effect may be more unpleasant for you, but
| that's only because you're not personally inconvenienced
| by the corpse sitting in the freezer at the coroner.
| drstewart wrote:
| It's like if Canada wanted to end gun smuggling and school
| shootings, it would legalize the controlled manufacture,
| sale, and usage of the guns being banned. But they won't.
| duped wrote:
| I mean, prohibition works while legalization just makes
| more people use whatever you legalize and increases the
| negative externalities of its use. You see that almost
| universally (alcohol, drugs, sex work). The exception is it
| gets rid of the black markets and some (but not all) of the
| violence associated with them.
|
| So if the goal is to put cartels out of business then yea,
| full legalization would help. If the goal is to stop
| overdoses and addiction then absolutely not.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Alcohol is legal. We don't have gun battles between gangs
| of smugglers, or between them and the cops. We also don't
| have people dying or going blind from trying to drink
| wood alcohol.
|
| But we still have a depressingly large number of
| alcoholics. The campaign against drunk driving has helped
| reduce one set of negative side effects, but not others.
| dylan604 wrote:
| --one party was hoping we'd stop talking about Epstein
| datsci_est_2015 wrote:
| Watching the dynamics of the vote count on this post
| throughout the day has been interesting.
| belter wrote:
| "FAA abruptly lifts order halting El Paso airport flights for
| 10 days" - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/11/faa-el-paso-
| airport.html
|
| don't attribute to security concerns...what can be explained by
| incompetence...
| boringg wrote:
| >. "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone
| incursion.
|
| The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to
| commercial travel in the region.
|
| The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are
| resuming."
|
| https://x.com/SecDuffy
| noelsusman wrote:
| Doesn't really pass the sniff test. Why would you need a 10
| day closure to deal with a drone incursion?
|
| I'm guessing DoD and the FAA were squabbling over a test the
| military wanted to run, and it didn't go up the chain fast
| enough to get resolved before testing was scheduled to begin.
|
| Edit: Here's the actual notice from the FAA[1]. Note that it
| was issued at 0332 UTC, but the restrictions weren't
| scheduled to go into place until 0630 UTC. Either the FAA is
| clairvoyant, or Sean Duffy is lying.
|
| [1]https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_6_2233
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Was it meant to be "up to 10 days" rather than 10 days? If
| the drones are no longer flying over the airport it makes
| sense they'd open it back up.
| noelsusman wrote:
| The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a
| reason to do that in response to an active threat.
| schiffern wrote:
| This is OpSec 101. Making the public closure too "tight"
| around the operational timeline could (negligently) leak
| operational details. You can always cancel a closure
| later.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| Is saying "indefinitely" or "until further notice" any
| worse than "10 days?" The specificity of the timeline was
| what caught my eye.
| vachina wrote:
| Indefinitely infers permanence. You'll scare everyone off
| with that language.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Is Opsec 101 to increase the estimate by two orders of
| magnitude? "We think this operation will take about 10
| weeks, so we're estimating 10 years."
| schiffern wrote:
| The answer is "long enough to avoid giving away
| operational details," not some robotically applied
| constant multiplier like 10x.
|
| We also don't know whether they expected this to take 1
| day or more. Just because it worked out quickly doesn't
| mean that's the "worst case" operational timeline.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Isn't that how estimating timelines should work?
| brynnbee wrote:
| I think the point was to get headlines and attention, as
| someone else said it sounds like the FAA is frustrated
| that the DoD isn't cooperating, and this seems like a
| possible attempt to make this frustration public to
| pressure DoD into playing more nicely.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Charitably guessing that if they don't know how long
| they'll need to keep airspace closed then you give yourself
| plenty of time and rescind early if necessary, as opposed
| to continually issuing extensions which could cause
| confusion.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| Or you say "until further notice".
|
| Indeterminate end dates are not a new problem.
| zthrowaway wrote:
| FAA restrictions aren't applied in a hand wavy fashion.
| afavour wrote:
| This story would suggest otherwise.
| zthrowaway wrote:
| In what way?
| nkrisc wrote:
| Can you imagine how much more wild the speculation would
| have been if they had said that instead?
| stefan_ wrote:
| Ding ding. Always assume weaponized incompetence in this
| administration:
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-
| spat-...
|
| > FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford on Tuesday night decided
| to close the airspace -- without alerting White House,
| Pentagon or Homeland Security officials, sources said.
|
| In the meantime, the politician responsible of course made
| up a quick lie and yall ran with it, fantasizing about
| cartel MANPADs:
|
| > Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement,
| "The FAA and DOW acted swiftly to address a cartel drone
| incursion."
| HillRat wrote:
| Recent updates say this was a unilateral call by FAA
| because DOD was refusing to coordinate with them for
| creating safety corridors for DOD drones and/or HEW usage.
| Issues came to a head after DOD shot down a highly
| threatening mylar party balloon, which FAA evidently
| considered to be a somewhat reckless use of military
| weaponry in a US city's airspace.
| downrightmike wrote:
| reckless use of military weaponry in a US city's
| airspace.
| cornellwright wrote:
| Can you share a source for this? It's not in the updates
| to the NYT article.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-
| spat-...
| learingsci wrote:
| CBS is no longer a credible news source.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Balloon looked brown?
| prpl wrote:
| Additionally, that airport would be used to coordinating
| with the military due to proximity of both Fort Bliss and
| White Sands.
|
| It sounds like the DOD was being unusually indifferent to
| the concerns, and after deadly prior mishaps, the FAA has
| to be particularly careful here.
| mrandish wrote:
| > Recent updates say this was a unilateral call by FAA
| because DOD was refusing to coordinate with them for
| creating safety corridors for DOD drones and/or HEW
| usage.
|
| This is the first explanation I've seen that fits the odd
| facts perfectly. This is the kind of thing that happens
| when two regional bureaucracies collide. The FAA has
| long-standing mechanisms for coordinating military use of
| airspace with commercial and civilian flight operations.
|
| But instead of the usual DEA border interdiction, the
| administration is now tasking the military to drive this.
| Military commanders on a new high-priority mission to
| intercept drones which can attempt to cross the border
| anytime and anywhere realized coordinating with the FAA
| would require committing to active corridors and time
| windows in advance, limiting their mission success and
| resisted. The FAA realized that could lead to lots of
| last minute airspace restrictions, flight cancellations
| and increased risk of a mistake resulting in downing a
| civilian flight.
|
| The regional FAA administrators responsible for flight
| safety around El Paso decided to escalate the dispute by
| simply shutting down all civilian flights, knowing that
| would get immediate national attention. It was an extreme
| action but one that's within their purview if they can't
| guarantee the safety of the airspace. I'm sure they
| expected it would put political pressure on the military
| to limit operations and it worked. In a sense, it also
| helps the military commanders because being ordered to
| accept FAA operational limitations gives them cover if it
| reduces their mission effectiveness below what they'd
| promised. That's probably why the military wouldn't agree
| on their own without it being ordered from above. They're
| the ones responsible for deploying expensive new anti-
| drone tech in field ops for the first time. Future
| budgets and careers are on the line.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| "Threat" might be an exaggeration.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-shot-down-party-
| balloon...
| lysace wrote:
| _Fox News first reported that the airborne object was
| intercepted after raising concerns of a potential drone
| operating near the southern border. Officials later
| concluded the object was not an unmanned aircraft but a
| party balloon, a U.S. official told the outlet._
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-military-shot-down-
| party...
|
| _US military shot down party balloon near El Paso after
| drone suspicion, official says_
|
| Would be funny if they used some new fancy laser weapon to,
| let's say, discombobulate this imminent threat, as
| indicated by other reports.
| golem14 wrote:
| 99 Luftballons
| lysace wrote:
| This is too poignant not to quote, apologies in advance.
|
| _The lyrics of the original German version tell a story:
| 99 balloons are mistaken for UFOs, causing a military
| general to send pilots to investigate. Finding nothing
| but balloons, the pilots put on a large show of
| firepower. The display of force worries the nations along
| the borders and the defence ministers on each side
| encourage conflict to grab power for themselves._
|
| _In the end, a cataclysmic war results from the
| otherwise harmless flight of balloons and causes
| devastation on all sides without a victor, as indicated
| in the denouement of the song: "99 Jahre Krieg liessen
| keinen Platz fur Sieger," which means "99 years of war
| left no room for victors." The anti-war song finishes
| with the singer walking through the devastated ruins of
| the world and finding a single balloon. The description
| of what happens in the final line of the piece is the
| same in German and English: "'Denk' an dich und lass' ihn
| fliegen," or "Think of you and let it go."_
|
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Luftballons#Lyrics)
| RupertSalt wrote:
| I'm learning to sing in German with Nena.
|
| I especially like the way she rhymes "Captain Kirk" with
| "Feuerwerk".
|
| https://genius.com/Nena-99-luftballons-lyrics
|
| _In other news, Director Gabbard and Secretaries Noem,
| Hegseth, and Kennedy met with Secretary Leavitt for her
| big Gender Reveal Party in El Paso..._
| dragontamer wrote:
| She does that 'Captain Kirk's rhyme in the English
| version too though.
|
| The real treat for German listeners is the first verse:
| ich, mich, dich, and neun-und-neunZIG (zig is pronounced
| like ich in the main German dialect).
|
| It's a rhyming scheme that cannot be replicated in
| English at all.
| ndiddy wrote:
| Looks like they shot the drone down with a laser:
|
| > UPDATE (CNN): Source briefed by FAA tells me that military
| activity behind the El Paso flight ban included unmanned
| aircraft operations and laser countermeasure testing in
| airspace directly adjacent to civilian routes into El Paso
| International. Airspace restriction just lifted.
|
| https://x.com/petemuntean/status/2021586247827828812
| lysace wrote:
| Good thing they allocated 10 days of airspace shutdown for
| taking out a single (edit: or a few) drone(s).
|
| I get the feeling this was a case of really wanting to test a
| new weapon combined with general organizational dysfunction
| for something unusual like this.
|
| On CNN, they talked about how a shutdown like this would be
| the first time something like this has happened since 9/11.
| Is that really correct?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| How do we know it was a "single" drone, or that they knew
| for sure that it was?
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| So with this lack of information: Why 10 days? Why not 3,
| or 12, or some other number instead?
|
| Or: Why must there be a number?
|
| Is the officious equivalent of "We've got some shit to
| deal with, so El Paso's airspace is closed for now"
| insufficient?
| tclancy wrote:
| Well this could get ugly.
| https://x.com/Acyn/status/2021613820553335090
| outside1234 wrote:
| The only confirmed thing they have shot down was a child's
| birthday balloon
| cozzyd wrote:
| During the ICE surge in Chicago drone traffic was banned for a
| while but this is obviously much more extreme if for a similar
| reason. Note that at least on some roads out (I'm most familiar
| with the road to Carlsbad from El Paso since I used to have to
| travel there in grad school, often from ELP) there are already
| CBP checkpoints.
| baggachipz wrote:
| El Paso is in a very Red state, ICE involvement is minimal
| there.
| fallingmeat wrote:
| guys. it's aliens. nbd.
| dummydummy1234 wrote:
| If it was aliens trump would be telling everyone and taking
| credit for finally telling the people the truth.
| dylan604 wrote:
| No, he'd be rounding them up and deporting them. Have you not
| been reading the news lately?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > BREAKING: A source briefed by FAA tells me the El Paso flight
| ban was driven by military operations from Biggs Army Air Field
| at Fort Bliss
| https://x.com/petemuntean/status/2021573468341383284
| chasd00 wrote:
| Probably an attempt to embarrass the admin. Now watch for the
| orangemanbad articles about a reckless military operation
| personally planned by the president in the middle of the night
| on X.
|
| Hah im trying to be tongue-in-cheek but I have to admit that
| doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility actually lol
| durge wrote:
| Could be a window for a bunch of deportation activity? It's not
| very low profile if that's the case.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| If a reasonable administration took this step without any
| justification, I'd have serious questions.
|
| Under _this_ administration, I 'm very very concerned that it's
| cover for something deeply nefarious.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| FAA has rescinded the TFR - looks like a possible DoD goof in
| relation to army exercises, leading to the FAA being
| overcautious.
| Noaidi wrote:
| They lifted the restriction:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/11/faa-el-paso-airport.html
|
| TACOs.....
| utf_8x wrote:
| The closure has been lifted:
| https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421
| wocka wrote:
| The Federal Aviation Administration said it had lifted the
| temporary closure of airspace over El Paso that it had imposed
| last night. "All flights will resume as normal," the F.A.A. said
| on social media.
| huevosabio wrote:
| What a bizarre move.
| baq wrote:
| Reminds me of the chaos monkey. Building resilience by
| breaking and fixing stuff.
|
| Not sure if applicable here, though.
| thomasjudge wrote:
| Closure rescinded
| https://x.com/FAANews/status/2021583720465969421
| Trasmatta wrote:
| So bizarre
|
| Why the 10 day announcement overnight only to totally rescind
| it before the majority of US citizens wake up and read the
| news?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Hoping it slips under other news like "Woah someone else
| should pay for this wall/bridge/investigation" so no one
| really notices it. To be fair, seems most things are about
| trying to direct the news somewhere else, most of the times
| being successful at that too.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| Hanlon's Razor
|
| "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
| by stupidity."
|
| Someone probably just screwed up
| input_sh wrote:
| You don't screw up something this major, it doesn't happen
| by accident nor by incompetence.
|
| They had plans to bomb something south of that airport,
| they had to postpone those plans now that the info is
| public enough that whatever their target was is definitely
| aware of those plans.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| They have confirmed it was for testing a counter-drone
| weapon. They did not say why they set it to expire in 10
| days, that part seems like it was probably a mistake.
| input_sh wrote:
| They gave you a plausible-enough reason and you took
| their word for it. That's completely fine, you are well
| within your rights to decide for yourself whether you
| believe them or not.
|
| I don't, and since neither of us can know for sure given
| the info we've been given, it's useless for us to argue
| about our opinions.
| spaceywilly wrote:
| I am curious, what explanation would justify a full
| closure of the airspace over a major us city for 10 days,
| in your opinion? That is the real screwup here. Whatever
| justification they are giving is entirely beside the
| point. Closing the airspace, even to emergency medevac
| flights, is negligence.
| input_sh wrote:
| Miss me with your jUsT cUrIoUs, I have no need to make up
| hypothetical scenarios under which this would be
| justifiable. The burden of proof is not on me.
| GJim wrote:
| > You don't screw up something this major
|
| Liz Truss begs to differ.
| OldSchool wrote:
| If there was ever a time when the old Soviet Union could
| have won the Cold War... Fortunately for us, the window of
| top-down incompetence came far too late.
| fuzzylightbulb wrote:
| Their stupidity is a true threat to our lives. Regardless
| of how you want to classify it we need to remove it as a
| threat.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| NYT reports they're claiming it was about testing anti-drone
| tech at Fort Bliss.
|
| > The brief shutdown was related to a test of new counter-
| drone technology by the military at nearby Fort Bliss Army
| base, according to a person briefed on the matter.
| jeffwask wrote:
| There is also a detention center at Fort Bliss from which
| some very unsettling reports have emerged.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories, but starting a
| 240 hours closure, ending it after 4, and claiming it was a
| test? What sort of testing are they doing that they were
| off by two orders of magnitude about the duration?
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Who knows. Maybe the system was malfunctioning and they
| didn't know how long it would take to shut it down. More
| likely the admin is just blabbing the first thing they
| think will shut everyone up.
| threetonesun wrote:
| Someone probably briefly thought they brought Skynet
| online via AI powered drones.
| philistine wrote:
| This is ridiculous and patently false. The US is equipped
| with many bases with permanent air space restrictions where
| they could perform such tests. It makes less than zero
| sense to test anti-drone tech in a crowded civilian space.
| I fully blame incompetence.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Latest update from NYT
|
| > According to a social media post by the Secretary of
| Transportation, Sean Duffy, Mexican cartel drones
| breached U.S. airspace, prompting temporary closure of
| airspace over El Paso. The Defense Department took action
| to disable the drones, Mr. Duffy said. Another person
| familiar with the situation had described the cause of
| the shutdown as a test of anti-drone technology. It is
| unclear if the brief airport closure was directly related
| to the presence of drones or how the technology was
| deployed.
|
| It does not seem implausible or unreasonable to me that
| an anti-drone system would trigger airspace restrictions
| when activated. Whether system activation is intended to
| put out a 10 days block is probably a different issue,
| but probably related to SOP for an event of unknown
| duration.
| LanceH wrote:
| If you shut it down for too long and there is a lapse in
| reopening it, planes are grounded for an extra bit of time.
|
| If you shut it down for too short and there is a lapse in
| extending the grounding, planes are getting shot out of the
| sky (or whatever threat it was).
|
| edit: I would add that maybe there are forms for shutting
| down airspace of various specific time lengths and a
| convenient time for something of unknown duration would be 10
| days. 10 days might also be enough time to be sure whatever
| resources need to be brought to bear on this are available
| where an hour or day might not be. Shut it down basically
| indefinitely, or at least long enough that the crew who
| handles this extraordinary situation will be on hand to turn
| it off.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| WTF? The FAA announces a ban on all flights at an international
| airport and then withdraws the ban within a few hours of the
| announcement? What kind of insane police state would try a
| stunt like that? Even for the Trump administration, that is
| setting the bar at a new low.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think the military did a thing without telling the FAA so
| they had to guess?
| lingrush4 wrote:
| Trump needs to be impeached immediately for this. How dare he
| close airspace and then just lift that closure once the
| danger has passed.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| What danger?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| What kind of government would use their statutory
| authority to shut down an airport when there is a risk to
| the planes?
|
| Why do you think the FAA doesn't have this authority? Or,
| why do you think the FAA shouldn't have this authority?
|
| In other words: This may have been needed but poorly
| executed; this may have been incompetent planning and
| response. But I wouldn't call the FAA shutting down an
| airport "police state".
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| >> What kind of government would use their statutory
| authority to shut down an airport when there is a risk to
| the planes?
|
| It could be either an incompetent government or an
| authoritarian government that is trying to militarize
| certain institutions of civilian life.
|
| >> Why do you think the FAA doesn't have this authority?
| Or, why do you think the FAA shouldn't have this
| authority?
|
| The FAA does indeed have the authority. The question is
| simply: why did the FAA choose to exercise its authority
| in this case? If there was a real danger to the public,
| then the FAA should be honest with the people and tell
| them what is the danger. That is what citizens should
| expect from a democratic government.
|
| >> This may have been needed but poorly executed; this
| may have been incompetent planning and response. But I
| wouldn't call the FAA shutting down an airport "police
| state".
|
| The reason why I ask if this is an example of police
| state behavior is because in this case the government
| apparently took drastic measures without explaining to
| the people why it was doing so.
| joezydeco wrote:
| You should have been here a month ago. The FAA halted all air
| traffic to and from the Caribbean region with no explanation
| (well, duh) and no announcement of a resume date. Then it was
| lifted 24 hours later with no notice.
| infecto wrote:
| Will be interesting when/if more information is released. I am
| not sure why folks are so surprised or think it's shocking.
| While definitely out of the norm, my mind was immediately
| thinking 10 days seems like an even number where you are trying
| to find or do something, not sure how long it's going to take
| so you just stick it. Certainly odd that it's only a few hours
| but for all I know there is some written government procedure
| for whoever is doing that sets it at 10 days.
| belter wrote:
| don't attribute to security concerns...what can be explained by
| incompetence...
| idontwantthis wrote:
| Or alcoholism
| state_less wrote:
| The explanation given is that cartel air drones entered US
| airspace.
|
| I guess my question is, doesn't this happen all the time? I
| would think drones would be an easy way to fly a Kilo over the
| border to whatever dropspot you wanted. I wonder what the new
| wrinkle is?
| camillomiller wrote:
| agricultural drones used for spraying can lift up to 60-80kg
| payloads.
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| The smuggling is nothing new. Sounds like they're testing
| laser-based countermeasures against them now.
|
| [0] https://x.com/petemuntean/status/2021586247827828812
| guerrilla wrote:
| > I guess my question is, doesn't this happen all the time?
|
| Yes, all the time.
| MiguelHudnandez wrote:
| I think it's worth correcting the record here because drone
| warfare is pretty different from what actually happened. What
| they identified and shot down was a mylar party balloon.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-
| spat-...
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-military-shot-down-
| party...
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| It was reported on Democracy Now! that an anonymous source said
| the military representing Biggs Army Air Field at Fort Bliss
| (KBIF) couldn't guarantee safety of commercial air traffic around
| El Paso International Airport (KELP). There was no specific
| details communicated and the message released caused unnecessary
| panic. The most likely explanation seems to be an unresolved
| dispute between the military and the FAA related to improving
| airspace safety around military flight tracks near major airports
| (class B/C/D airspace).
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| Another source from Thom Hartmann mentioned the military was
| testing counter-drone lasers and failed to inform the FAA.
| Seems like the FAA used unreasonable collective punishment to
| passive-aggressively chastise the military publicly.
| theonlyjesus wrote:
| I'm from El Paso. This is bullshit if I've ever heard. There are
| no fucking drones around here, especially not from cartels. The
| only criminal cartel here is ICE.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| NPR just announced the El Paso airport is back online for air
| travel.
| weirdsweatsuit wrote:
| Representative Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat, said in a
| news conference that the explanation citing Mexican drones
| crossing the border as the reason for the closure was "not the
| information that we in Congress have been told."
|
| She said that there was no current or past threat to the area.
| "There's no threat. There was not a threat, which is why the
| F.A.A. lifted this restriction so quickly," she said. "The
| information coming from the administration does not add up."
|
| "There have been drone incursions from Mexico going back to as
| long as drones existed. So this is nothing new" (NYT)
| josefritzishere wrote:
| Is Trump planning to attack Mexico?
| beej71 wrote:
| Who knows, but everyone's got that on their mind, now.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Related to the Guthrie kidnapping perhaps?
| kgwxd wrote:
| Another distraction from the Trump Files.
| VizualAbstract wrote:
| It was a party balloon. GG.
|
| https://x.com/clashreport/status/2021642699603144708
| tantalor wrote:
| Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal
| pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Venus was at its peak brilliance last night. You probably
| thought you saw something up in the sky other than Venus, but
| I assure you, it was Venus.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Whatever happened to the New Jersey drones? Did we give up on
| them or did they give up on us?
| banga wrote:
| Today I learned of the broader disruptive capabilities of a mylar
| birthday balloon.
| superfrank wrote:
| The elders sang songs of this day, and we were foolish not to
| take heed
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY
| scoofy wrote:
| I just think it's weird that major events regarding the Epstein
| files always seem to be below the fold because something huge,
| that just happens to be _entirely under executive branch
| discretion,_ ends up dominating the headlines.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-11 23:00 UTC)