User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:27:42 AM EDT
[#1]
the current crop of terrorists seem to have a rather superficial understanding of how america works. theyll go for highly visible image targets. new york, DC, LA, hollywood.
it'll take them a year or so to get their act together again, and catch us with our guard down. ive been amused at the level of panic in atlanta, my guess is the vast majority of terrorists dont even know atlanta (or georgia) exists. we get all self-important here, and are offended that they dont consider us significant targets.[%|] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:34:07 AM EDT
[#2]
I hope never.
But, in reality I expect some activity within the next 24 months. It will be a high profile location such as D.C., NYC, LA or Boston. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:38:27 AM EDT
[#3]
If we were smart we would take out the nuke weilding terrorist and rouge states before they can muster up a warhead. In the world of nuclear warfare, it's premptive strike, or it's except the loss of all your major cities.
All it takes is 5 B-2s to knock the PRC out of the nuclear club before they have a chance to retaliate. Strike hard, strike fast, but above all else strike first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:41:14 AM EDT
[#4]
{Refrain}
Say goodbye to Hollywood Say goodbye my baby Say goodbye to Hollywood Say goodbye my baby |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:41:47 AM EDT
[#5]
I think it is a long way off (an actual bomb that is, not a 'dirty bomb'), a chemical or bio attack is much more likely. I think that DC is a more likely target than N.Y., it stands for much more. randon acts of terror are more the norm, they will have a demoralizing effect on the average citizen, just look at Israel and the public opinion of the PM. Our greatest strength now is the backing we are giving our govt. and troops, breaking this would be a bigger victory for terrorists than another 9/11 scenario.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:45:23 AM EDT
[#6]
You can bet the farm that the U.S. will get nuked. It's only a matter of time. I'd say almost definately in the next 10-15 years. Personally, I think we;ll have another attack the makes the WTC look like a sunny day w/in the next 5 years.
About 6 months prior to 9/11, I remember telling my girlfriend that we would see a major terrorist attack on the U.S. in the near future. I hate it when I'm right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:46:40 AM EDT
[#7]
They will try probably within a year. NYC, DC, Miami, LA, Chicago?
I'm hoping it can be stopped, even though if it doesn't actually happen the dickheads will figure it wasn't a real threat. I can't see the enemies of our country bommbing Hollywood. Why would you hurt your allies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:00:37 AM EDT
[#8]
I still think Savannah river site will be a target maybe not for nukes but for enemy attacks trying to take over the site. If you don't know what SRS is I'll tell you.
It was built back in the 1950 by DOE(Department of energy.) To produce weapons-grade nuclear materials, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Five reactors were built to manufacture these nuclear materials by irradiating target materials with neutrons. Also built were support plants, heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility. Info came from S.W.A.T. Feb 2002 pages 28-32 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:05:28 AM EDT
[#9]
I think we will be nuked within the next 2 years. I think manhatten is the most likely target because it seems to me that the terrorists are more angry with us bec we have money. And NYC is a symbol of America's wealth. Plus add to that that NYC has alot of jews and it is a 2fer for them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:07:13 AM EDT
[#10]
if we get nuked, it will be on the western coast. seattle, san francisco etc. they will use the winds advantage to maximize the fallout pattern. better get your potassium iodate!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:14:06 AM EDT
[#11]
I really have mixed thoughts about topics like this. Problem is that they could give some [i]very[/i] unfriendly types some bright idea, or lead to one. While I have my thoughts on specific targets, etc., I think I'll keep them to myself...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:18:44 AM EDT
[#12]
exsanguinate, good point. I was thinking about that also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:20:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I think we will be nuked within the next 2 years. I think manhatten is the most likely target because it seems to me that the terrorists are more angry with us bec we have money. And NYC is a symbol of America's wealth. Plus add to that that NYC has alot of jews and it is a 2fer for them. Sucks for me! However, I do agree, NY is too important of an icon for then to ignore(Statue of Liberty, Wall St, UN, Waverunner), not to mention it would cripple the world economy and destroy one of the largest population-dense cities in the world. Strategically, NY is a super easy target as well. Boats can come in pretty easily and smuggle a nuke yards from our shore before anyone is the wiser. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:21:24 AM EDT
[#14]
I agree. NYC, DC, LA, Chicago.....Miami dont sound right for some reason. Attempt within 24 months.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:53:47 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: if we get nuked, it will be on the western coast. seattle, san francisco etc. they will use the winds advantage to maximize the fallout pattern. better get your potassium iodate!!! What has been the best price you have seen for the potassium iodate? Mine was $19.95 for 200 85mg tablets. If anyone seen them cheaper please tell me where . |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:15:32 AM EDT
[#16]
If it wasn't for the fallout I really wouldn't mind much if they did hit Berkeley. Not much chance of that though. Too many allies there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:28:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: What has been the best price you have seen for the potassium iodate? Mine was $19.95 for 200 85mg tablets. If anyone seen them cheaper please tell me where . Where did you buy these? Internet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:34:43 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: What has been the best price you have seen for the potassium iodate? Mine was $19.95 for 200 85mg tablets. If anyone seen them cheaper please tell me where . Where did you buy these? Internet? I found there here [url]http://www.majorsurplusnsurvival.com/cgi/webc.cgi/store/st_prod.html?p_prodid=1142691&sid=8NxGfR0Vl2lU7hO [/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:45:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: I still think Savannah river site will be a target maybe not for nukes but for enemy attacks trying to take over the site. If you don't know what SRS is I'll tell you. It was built back in the 1950 by DOE(Department of energy.) To produce weapons-grade nuclear materials, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Five reactors were built to manufacture these nuclear materials by irradiating target materials with neutrons. Also built were support plants, heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility. Info came from S.W.A.T. Feb 2002 pages 28-32 SRS would be a hard nut to crack. It'd take a large "dedicated" team to get to the stuff. I doubt that it would be tried for other than a statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:51:12 AM EDT
[#20]
I think it is a long way off before we are nuked. These guys have been trying to get us good for how many years? They finally hit us big on 9/11. I don't see the US getting complacent enough for a nuclear attack anytime soon. If at all, it will be at least 10 years before we are taken by suprise again.
Has anybody read about the "E-bomb" threat? Pretty interesting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 12:04:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: I still think Savannah river site will be a target maybe not for nukes but for enemy attacks trying to take over the site. If you don't know what SRS is I'll tell you. It was built back in the 1950 by DOE(Department of energy.) To produce weapons-grade nuclear materials, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Five reactors were built to manufacture these nuclear materials by irradiating target materials with neutrons. Also built were support plants, heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility. Info came from S.W.A.T. Feb 2002 pages 28-32 SRS would be a hard nut to crack. It'd take a large "dedicated" team to get to the stuff. I doubt that it would be tried for other than a statement. They say the got 870-person paramilitary force so it would be hard. I'm guessing that they have twice as many men there now and most a going to be military so it will be a lot harder to hit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 12:12:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Has anybody read about the "E-bomb" threat? Pretty interesting... I've brought that up before, but most people just laugh it off. A EMP would do a hell of a lot of damage, and would be A LOT easier to sneak into a country than a dirty atom bomb. They could even build it here. Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 12:13:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Why would they hit NYC again?
Why would they hit DC again? If we are talking about a terrorist nuclear strike, then I would imagine that they would choose a city like Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, or Las Vegas. If the goal is cause terror in the hearts of the infidel Americans, then would they not hit them/us in some place where they/we are not likely to expect it to happen. It just seem to me that the NYC & DC are far too logical and are in return far "harder" targets than any other city. Slightly off topic: I wonder if there will be any definative intelligence released to the masses about OBL when death finally catches up to him-I would think that the news of his death would be a trigger for futher action of the cells that are scattered around the globe. For all we know, he has assumed room temp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 12:37:37 PM EDT
[#24]
I doubt we will get nuked. I think the ease of smuggling in a nuclear device has been exaggerated.
However, if it did happen, it would most likely not happen in a place like LA, NYC or DC because those are the areas that we will be LOOKING for that sort of thing with radiation detectors, etc... I would say it would happen in a place like Florida, Georgia or South Carolina, in a port city. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 12:38:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Well, I think those of us in the Detroit area are safe in that we have the largest arab population in the world outside of the middle east. I wouldn't want to be them if their cousin's nuke the US.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 1:12:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Mid west (IL? sorry). They will want to show penetration, not just a coastal area. This will then drive a nail of fear into the whole nation. It would be "They are here, they did it, now where are they?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 2:04:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: I agree. NYC, DC, LA, Chicago.....Miami dont sound right for some reason. Attempt within 24 months. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO not DC, I live near that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 2:29:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I doubt we will get nuked. I think the ease of smuggling in a nuclear device has been exaggerated. However, if it did happen, it would most likely not happen in a place like LA, NYC or DC because those are the areas that we will be LOOKING for that sort of thing with radiation detectors, etc... I would say it would happen in a place like Florida, Georgia or South Carolina, in a port city. What good are radiation detectors? By the time the bomb reaches port its too late. I have heard of no plans to stop all ships outside the 12mi limit to search them for nukes. That is the only way to prevent it. They would send it to whatever port would give the highest death toll, do the most general damage. LA would be the best target, probably Houston and New York after that. All the bomb would need is a simple time fuze timed to set it off within hours of arriving in harbor. It never has to be unloaded, customs and security would never see it as things stand now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 2:36:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Mid west (IL? sorry). They will want to show penetration, not just a coastal area. This will then drive a nail of fear into the whole nation. It would be "They are here, they did it, now where are they?" I could see them do something to the Sears tower or O'Hara airport! O'Hara because it is the busiest airport in the world so that would freak people out. Sears tower because of just how many people work in it and how many big buildings are around it. I don't know how it was by the WTC it looked like there was no other tall buildings by it but in Chicago there are a lot by the Sears tower. Although the could hit Great Lakes and there goes the only Navy boot camp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 4:28:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Has anybody read about the "E-bomb" threat? Pretty interesting... I've brought that up before, but most people just laugh it off. A EMP would do a hell of a lot of damage, and would be A LOT easier to sneak into a country than a dirty atom bomb. They could even build it here. Av. I think if there is going to be a "bombing", it will be an E-bomb, or similar device. Nukes are hard to come by, at best, and easy to detect. E-bombs on the other hand, are easy (incredibly easy) to make, and one or two strategically placed EMPs could and would cause more of a ruckus, or SHTF if you will, than a nuke. A mythodically planned EMP attack is much easier to pull off than a planned nuke attack. And, debatably, more damaging. Its unfortunate that people do not take this one seriously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 4:51:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: E-bombs on the other hand, are easy (incredibly easy) to make, and one or two strategically placed EMPs could and would cause more of a ruckus, or SHTF if you will, than a nuke. A mythodically planned EMP attack is much easier to pull off than a planned nuke attack. And, debatably, more damaging. Its unfortunate that people do not take this one seriously. Bring it on! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:02:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: What good are radiation detectors? The bomb would likely be leaking radiation to some extent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:16:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: What good are radiation detectors? The bomb would likely be leaking radiation to some extent. Yeah, but how close do you have to get to the ship to use them? Once the bomb is in the harbor its too late. Can they be used from a helicopter hovering over a ship at sea? Or do you have to board them? A nuke going off anywhere in New York harbor or San Pedro will still destroy much of the city and kill hundreds of thousands if not millions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:23:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Yeah, but how close do you have to get to the ship to use them? Once the bomb is in the harbor its too late. Can they be used from a helicopter hovering over a ship at sea? As I understand it, they can indeed be used from the air, from helicopters and from airplanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:33:25 PM EDT
[#35]
I think we will see another attack within a year. These bastards will use a dirty bomb and detonate it on the west coast. With the prevailing winds, radiation will be carried across the country creating fear and panic for those well out of the blast zone but within the fallout path. CNN will have a field day.
A note: I really hope I'm wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:16:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Has anybody read about the "E-bomb" threat? Pretty interesting... I've brought that up before, but most people just laugh it off. A EMP would do a hell of a lot of damage, and would be A LOT easier to sneak into a country than a dirty atom bomb. They could even build it here. Av. I'm guessing you are referring to the article in Popular Mechanics? Send technology back to the stone age on a budget of $400. The E-bombs are simple to build and the components are readily available. http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:28:31 PM EDT
[#37]
[url]http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml [/url]
Also I have never heard of a dirty bomb what is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 8:48:48 AM EDT
[#38]
btt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 9:11:55 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: [url]http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml [/url] Also I have never heard of a dirty bomb what is that? A dirty atom bomb is a nuclear device that spreads a lot of radiation over a wide area. The destruction is less than a full blown atom bomb, but there is a lot more radiation. "Dirty" atom bombs are easier to build, and require less nuclear material to work. They just don't cause the massive structural damage a regular atom bomb does. However, all of the radiation is more deadly long term. Av. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 9:21:23 AM EDT
[#40]
The goal behind terrorism is fear = panic = instability.
In the days after 9/11 there were several news reports on the terrorist were trying to get crop dusting planes. A terrorist attack that could have maximum effect with minimal effort would be to use these planes to spray some grain and corn fields with biological chemical agents over several states in the midwest. These would be small attacks effecting a small portion of fields but could have big results. Because of fear of some fields may have been sprayed undetected, testing/eradication would have to be conducted. This would send the commodities market into a tailspin, grocery stores would be rushed, price gouging would occur, some food riots, and National Guard troops would have to be deployed at the supermarket just like at the airports. One of America's strengths has always been that we can feed ourselves and a good portion of the rest of the worlds. That's another good reason to attack us there. Plus they aren't guarded by anyone really. It's an easy target. It's one thing for people to loose their retirement savings or pay $7.00 a gallon for gas,entirely something else to get them hungry or fear of hunger. We're used to getting food on demand here, take that away, watch your neighbor change. They may start wondering "does he have food in his house" or if you taste good with honey/mustard sauce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 10:11:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Suitcase nukes are just so much propagandist blather. It's fearmongering at its worst (or best, depending on your point of view, I guess).
I am more concerned about our government taking away more civil liberties in the name of fighting drugs, terror and what ever else they can devise. The nuke threat is a wedge to get us to diverge from our freedoms. And it's working. A more likely threat is that some horrible weaponized virus developed in the good old USA gets out of one of our own labs and kills thousands or millions of people. If that occurs, it will no doubt be blamed on some vaguely defined terror group and then Congress will pass laws repealing the Bill of Rights completely. I worry a lot less about what a bunch of asshole towelheads from The Middle East are doing and a hell of a lot more about what our no accountability military industrial complex has stashed away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 10:39:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: What good are radiation detectors? The bomb would likely be leaking radiation to some extent. You can fit a LOT of radiation shielding in a cargo container. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 10:52:25 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I still think Savannah river site will be a target maybe not for nukes but for enemy attacks trying to take over the site. If you don't know what SRS is I'll tell you. It was built back in the 1950 by DOE(Department of energy.) To produce weapons-grade nuclear materials, primarily tritium and plutonium-239. Five reactors were built to manufacture these nuclear materials by irradiating target materials with neutrons. Also built were support plants, heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility. Info came from S.W.A.T. Feb 2002 pages 28-32 my boss bought timber off of the SRS when he worked for IP....the place freaked him out...he said one time he was going along through the woods when he stumbled across and old gas station with some other structures around it....all surrounded by timber.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 11:12:16 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: [url]http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml [/url] Also I have never heard of a dirty bomb what is that? A "dirty" bomb in this context, is a conventional high explosive device surrounded by radioactive material. Such a weapon would be far easier to build than a real nuclear weapon, although it could be relatively effective. Remember, McVeigh used about 4,000 of explosive materials and look at the results. Now...surround that bomb with...say a hundred pounds of radioactive materials and viola!...a dirty bomb. Although there would be no nuclear chain reaction with the usual heat/blast/ionizing radiation effects, the residual effects from alpha and beta radiation scattered all over the place would be a nightmare to clean up and could involve many casualties. A real no-shit nuke is far worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 11:38:23 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Suitcase nukes are just so much propagandist blather. It's fearmongering at its worst (or best, depending on your point of view, I guess). I am more concerned about our government taking away more civil liberties in the name of fighting drugs, terror and what ever else they can devise. The nuke threat is a wedge to get us to diverge from our freedoms. And it's working. A more likely threat is that some horrible weaponized virus developed in the good old USA gets out of one of our own labs and kills thousands or millions of people. If that occurs, it will no doubt be blamed on some vaguely defined terror group and then Congress will pass laws repealing the Bill of Rights completely. I worry a lot less about what a bunch of asshole towelheads from The Middle East are doing and a hell of a lot more about what our no accountability military industrial complex has stashed away. Trickshot, If only you were right on this one... I wish they were just so much blather. Shot old boy...you need to climb out of your bunker and quite worrying so much about your neighbors and a bit more about those folks out there who really want you (and the rest of us) dead. Listen carefully: "Suitcase" nukes as you and others call them do in fact exist. I have seen them. They have been around for decades, although the term suitcase is a bit misleading. The United States designed and built two, the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) and the Medium Atomic Demolition Munition (MADM). The SADM was the smaller of the two, about the size of a duffle bag. It was one-man portable. It had the yield of about 1,000 tons (about twenty times less than that one dropped on Hiroshima). The MADM was (Is?) a much larger weapon. Here is a picture: [url]http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/barracks/7089/Image1.jpg[/url]. This device weighs 163 pounds and can be carted abound by two special forces troops such as SEALs. The actual physics package is the second from the right in this picture. The yield was much larger than the SADM. This information has been declassified for a number of years now. Now ask yourself...if we built these things...what are the chances the Soviets did too...and that just maybe, now the Al Qaeda have one in their possession? Unlikely, I will admit...but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. From a card-carrying member of the Military Industrial Complex (28 year military retired and now a government contractor in Washington...with 17 years nuke experience.). (Edited 'cause one of these days...I gotta learn how to write!) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2002 8:20:23 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: [url]http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/9/e-bomb/print.phtml [/url] Also I have never heard of a dirty bomb what is that? A "dirty" bomb in this context, is a conventional high explosive device surrounded by radioactive material. Such a weapon would be far easier to build than a real nuclear weapon, although it could be relatively effective. Remember, McVeigh used about 4,000 of explosive materials and look at the results. Now...surround that bomb with...say a hundred pounds of radioactive materials and viola!...a dirty bomb. Although there would be no nuclear chain reaction with the usual heat/blast/ionizing radiation effects, the residual effects from alpha and beta radiation scattered all over the place would be a nightmare to clean up and could involve many casualties. A real no-shit nuke is far worse. Thanks for the info on that. That would suck if they got the material to make one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2002 9:01:41 AM EDT
[#47]
As bad as it would be for me and my family, I think Miami would be an easy target. All they'd have to do is load it onto a Haitian Cargo ship and float it up the Miami River rigged to go off as soon as the DEA boards the ship.
Seriously, with the steady (daily) flow of Cocaine up the Miami River, it wouldn't be hard to place a nuke on one of those ships. Hell, DEA and Customs let the ships get all the way into port and then board them searching for Cocaine. Once it is in port, it is over. I lived within 5 minutes of the 9/11 terrorists. So, if S. Florida is nuked my family will be decimated. Depending on where I am (Pensacola or North Lauderdale), I might not be around either. I also have family in Atlanta and Dallas, so I hope neither of them get hit. Which way does the wind blow from Houston (since Pensacola is practically due east). Now, as for my bet: NYC (Symbolic, Wall Street), DC (Congress/President), LA (Hollywood), Miami (God I Hope Not), Atlanta (Airline Hub), Waco (Bush's Place), Houston (Oil Industry), Norfolk (Naval Shipyards), San Fransisco, Seattle (Microsoft) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2002 9:14:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: They will try probably within a year. NYC, DC, Miami, LA, Chicago? I'm hoping it can be stopped, even though if it doesn't actually happen the dickheads will figure it wasn't a real threat. I can't see the enemies of our country bommbing Hollywood. Why would you hurt your allies? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2002 9:53:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: They say the got 870-person paramilitary force so it would be hard. I'm guessing that they have twice as many men there now and most a going to be military so it will be a lot harder to hit. They took out both World Trade Centers, part of the Pentagon, and Gertrude the Cow's pasture using nothing but box cutters. There is ALWAYS a way. The element of surprise can make up for alot of manpower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2002 10:23:56 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: While I have my thoughts on specific targets, etc., I think I'll keep them to myself... I agree with RAF on this... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
