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.
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.
There isn't a real analogy there because cartel leaders have no official state support anywhere, let alone in a bordering nuclear power, but even if they did, it hardly seems reassuring from their perspective to know the drug trade will outlive them after they all get killed. It's different when you're deeply religious and believe what you're doing is worth dying for and the larger arc of history is more important than your own life and wellbeing. I don't think drug lords think that way.
* 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.
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.
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-sec...
It's the meth.
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
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.
The Battle of Culiacán, also known locally as the Culiacanazo and Black
Thursday, was a failed attempt to capture Ovidio Guzmán López, son of Sinaloa
Cartel kingpin Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The world does not stop at the Us border.
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.
https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/crimina...
https://www.osac.gov/Content/Report/8f3ac9f0-a827-455f-bf61-...
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.
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.
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.
Please, let's not do this.
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.
A trapped animal will generally use all its facilities regardless of its expected effectiveness.
Extremely good, highly researched book if you want to get angry at me or call me idiot!
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.
US troops in Mexico 'not on the table', Sheinbaum tells Trump https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260112-us-troops-mexi...
> 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.
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.
Way more plauible
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.
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.
Seems unlikely.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe it's unrealistic that "the cartel" would strike back against the USG, particularly on US soil.
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?
Second point, it’s not obvious if its for MANPAD reasons or it’s our own operation though we can speculate.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
I doubt the same is true of cartels and their members.