[grey_whiskers]

Short of having an out-and-out liberal Democrat (or hard-core libertarian, but I digress) in office at the time, the landing of a Chinese force large enough to attack the lower 48 in Mexico would result in U.S. forces crossing the Mexican frontier to meet them.

What of a small holding force, gradually increased over time? "Nothing overt" they could claim, so we couldn't go after them; and then, when they were ready, a surprise attack in conjunction with a financial attack, cyber attack, activation of sleeper cells (including Chinese students in the sciences killing as many other University people as they could reach), and whatever else the Chinese could dream up.

No, I'm not *demanding* they're going to do these things--but if they are going to attack us, then the above would be the worst case scenario short of nukes...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my threat." Whatever you think it was, I'm sure I acted on it a good while ago.

Threat of "weapons-free" -- which I took to mean a flame war unleashed on anyone who suggested that the corridors might be used by China to facilitate an attack on the US.

[1rudeboy]

Incrementally would be the way I'd do it . . . but that doesn't speak toward the issue of opposing the NAFTA Superhighway on the basis of national security. Interstate 35 already exists, so short of tearing it up and mining the route, there is little that can be done to make the ChiComs' (hypothetical) job any harder.

In other words, observing that an invader can use the route is either noting the obvious (witness the backpedaling that happened), or simple anti-[fill in the blank] demagoguery masked as concern for national security.