Officials Claim Drone Incursion Led to Shutdown of El Paso Airport
nytimes.com
Latest archive link: https://archive.is/Qdq4x
nytimes.com
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-halts-all-flights-texass...
But then again this time seems different, laws aren’t followed or upheld. Human rights are a fleeting staple.
I suspect Mexicans would view it as another Pancho Villa Expedition, which was also event where neither side declared war.
Not in the metaphorical "war on poverty" sort of way.
FWIW, examples in addition to Maduro are Aguinaldo (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Hussein (Iraq), and Aristide (Haiti).
(Technically speaking, the US didn't recognize Philippine independence so didn't consider Aguinaldo to be its president, but instead a rightful cession from the Kingdom of Spain due to the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Spanish–American War, where the US had made a formal declaration of war.)
(Also, the US says Aristide's departure was voluntary.)
rather than arming the cartels to fight against the mexican government, thr US could just... not
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.
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.
Are there?
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.
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...
Russia and Ukraine can't stop drones. 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.
That does actually seem to be what they are saying now, yes.
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 Kalshithey want to overthrow the Jacobites
> accelerationists
how's that going to work ?
The Republicans may wave the "Conservative" flag, but they're the only ones I see going full-hog on pretty much anything.
That said, pre-Trump Republicans were milquetoast in comparison to what has happened over the last 13 months. Assuming US democracy doesn't collapse before the next transition of power, I wouldn't want to guess if the next Democrat government will continue this trend or be as full-hog in disregarding all checks-and-balances constraints on executive power to get stuff done.
"yeah but I agreed with those"
No, because so far as I know the Democrat Party didn't arrest him.
The State of Georgia arrested him, after a grand jury indicted him on charges of election racketeering, if that's what you have in mind?
> Do you remember when they put J6 people in prison in solitary confinement for a year?
Nope. Tried looking, I find stories about 4 months?
But sure, let's say that's a distinction without a difference. How is this "go full hog"? It's not like solitary confinement is all that rare in the US prison system.
If you want to treat solitary confinement as a wild and unacceptable punishment, please do campaign against it entirely, I'd like to see that change in your system. But it would be a change, which is kinda the point I'm making here: the Democrats *don't do change*. Not fast.
> Do you remember when they locked you in your house for a year?
Three problems with that:
1) Look at my profile to see why that's a dumb question in the first place
2) These clearly show state-level responses, not federal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_governmen...
3) Look at the dates on the previous link, which are both significantly shorter than a year, and also (except for CA) entirely contained within Trump's own first term.
So, if you did want to blame just one single party executive, which would be weird, you'd have to blame the Republicans.
> Do you remember when they fired people from the military for not having forced medical procedures?
You know how the military are supposed to follow any lawful orders even when those orders will definitely result in their own deaths?
Of all the pearls people clutch over the pandemic, the two which most confuse me are this particular one about the military, and which specific political tribe ended up being the one affiliated with hating masks. Slap some fake cameo pattern on it, call it "tactical", perhaps brand it "lung armour". Still, was obvious that eventually most people would hate them and it was just a matter of which party picked up the loudest mask haters, as per what happened in the Spanish Flu pandemic.
Investments 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.
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.
Even if you have perfect clairvoyance, you still need someone to take the other side of the bet.
https://www.dechra-us.com/our-products/us/equine/horse/presc...
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.
I'm not sure I believe that making heroin legal and available for "recreational" use would solve the problem. People who propose it usually say that it's working in another country (such as Portugal), but then you look at that country and it's not really legal or available, it's just that they do not jail people for personal use anymore. I can agree with that, but it doesn't solve the trafficking problem. The only way to get rid of trafficking is to either allow people to easily buy it legally without onerous taxation, or to reduce demand to zero. If you do the former, you will still be stuck with lots of addicts, the associated crime and suffering, and probably many overdoses. Most likely, the number of addicts will increase, as they did with OxyContin, Actiq, etc. Worth mentioning that Actiq is fentanyl and it was in demand.
Reducing demand is a multifaceted problem with complicated solutions, many of which are politically unpopular.
Interestingly, some drugs can simply be taken off the market and the demand plummets. Quaalude is one example. Nobody stepped in to make an illicit version and the users probably just stopped using or switched to benzodiazepines and then hopefully stopped those. Unfortunately, it seems like we have a persistent demand for opioids.
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.
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.
Anyway: Capital punishment is an elegant solution.
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.
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.
There are still legal ways to have a gun in Australia and many other countries that “ban guns”. They don’t have total bans, they just have more restrictive regulations than the United States.
Consider how we regulate alcohol or marijuana as examples of how legalization of drugs works.
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.
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.
Maybe an unintended positive externality of marijuana legalization?
don't attribute to security concerns...what can be explained by incompetence...
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."
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.
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.
Indeterminate end dates are not a new problem.
For example, see the Disneyland TFR (FDC 4/3635): https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_4_3635
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."
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.
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.
> The Pentagon allowed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use an anti-drone laser earlier this week, leading the Federal Aviation Administration to suddenly close the airspace over El Paso, Texas, on Wednesday, according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-military-shot-down-party-balloon...
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.
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 für 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."
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...
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).
With all of the 'neunundneunzig' (aka 99) repeated throughout the song, the ich/dich/mich/vielleicht rhymes is really a superior start over the English version.
It's a rhyming scheme that cannot be replicated in English at all.
(I can mostly understand spoken German. Have heard this song in German many times before. Never got the message. It's tricky!)
So just sing along. Every word, and understand as much as you can.
------
Once you know all the words, then the next step is to learn the grammar and learn how the words work together. If you give it a few months, full understanding will come!
Dann singe ich ein Lied für dich
Von 99 Luftballons
Auf ihrem Weg zum ... well, El Paso as it turns out.
the English rewrite of course starts:
You and I in a little toyshop
Buy a bag of balloons with the money we've got
Set them free at the break of dawn
'til one by one, they were gone...
And rather than see the government have egg on face people (probably a majority here) will vote for politicians who promise all sorts of licenses and regulations on balloons because of it and then in 20yr when I complain and remind them that once upon a time every store used to sell balloons with no KYC BS they'll act like I'm some sort of barbarian, screech, wring their hands, clutch their pearls, etc.
How have we not blown ourselves up yet?
It's not that we haven't, it's just that we can only observe from those few realities where we didn't.
Most people aren't sadistically malicious, and most security is professional, so random little failures like metalled balloons or reflections off clouds (or the moon) scaring a security system will only blow up to something important (even on the scale of previous paragraph) every decade or so.
But what do we know, maybe it was an evil terrorist party balloon. You see, the wall just needs to be a little higher to protect that beautiful country from all southern evils.
Sounds like a great way for a drug-runner to proceed - release 1000 balloons across a very large area, and have only one of them carry their payload of drugs (or whatever).
That said, I doubt they even bother with such small-scale trade. The narco-submarines are much higher capacity and now apparently well-built enough to be trans-pacific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
Which way are the prevailing winds at altitude over the Ukrainian-Russian border region, anyway?
Unbelievable. Next I'll read they shot down "balloon boy".
> 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.
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?
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?
NOTAMs require a range of timestamps for which they're in effect.
https://lite.cnn.com/2026/02/11/us/faa-el-paso-texas-flight-...
The single drone was in fact a mylar party balloon.
That means a normal amusement park balloon can lift about 14 grams, assuming that the weight of the balloon itself and the string is negligible.
About 99 of them could probably do the job, though.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
https://ctc.westpoint.edu/a-profile-of-los-zetas-mexicos-sec...
It's the meth.
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.
* 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.
The US decided to leave because staying was not politically popular, and left. They were not beaten by the Taliban, they were beaten by the political climate at home.
If someone is actively kicking your ass, then they decide that you aren't worth the effort to keep hurting and decide to walk away, that doesn't mean you "won" the fight even if you get what you want afterwards.
It's also a perfectly common, expected way to win a war: First, wars always end with political solutions. The most well known principle of warfare is that it is 'politics conducted by other means' (i.e., by violence rather than by law or diplomacy). If there is no political solution, the war never ends. That's why the US didn't win the war in Afghanistan after decades - they couldn't create a stable political solution because they were unable to impose one on the Taliban, who in the end imposed one on the US and its allies.
Victory by outlasting enemy resources, including political will, is fundamental to warfare; wars end when resources to fight (for the political outcome) run out, but few end in total kinetic destruction of those resources - someone runs out of money or political will. It's also the explicit strategy of insurgencies. Enemies of the US know it very well and have used it for generations - that is how North Vietnam won, for example. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Afghans famously told them, 'you have the clocks (the technology), we have the time'.
Your parents get frustrated and leave. You now take a cookie from the jar.
You have a cookie, but that doesn't mean you won the argument.
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.
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.
I didn’t mean to start this giant thread about Mexican Cartels but here we are. Most think it’s just an isolated problem. Others know it’s more widespread. I simply stated that these murderous thugs are out there in full force with technology and armored vehicles. If provoked, they would lash out. It’s ridiculous because of course going up against the US is a losing proposition but each “generation” of cartel leader thinks they can somehow manage it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Table 1): RIRA Estimated running costs (per year) "£500,00", Estimated fundraising capacity (per year) "£5 million".
I'm assuming that's a typo missing a zero (i.e. should be half a million), not a typo substituting comma for decimal (i.e. five hundred quid). Even with 24 years of inflation, that spend does not suggest a big group to me.
Way more plauible
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.
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.
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.
Seems unlikely.
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.
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.
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.
Which isn't relevant if the people who shot it down had no idea if it was / wasn't Malaysian.
Similar to how cartels likely wouldn't have the sophistication to nationally ID any aerial targets they choose to shoot.
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...
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.
- 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...
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.
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
[1] https://www.spaceforce.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-D...
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:
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
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.
There are plenty of better places for them to do this.
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.
Nukes mean nothing to a cartel. What an insane idea.
Fantasy often likes extreme options but most probably saner reason like expected strike on cartels and their retaliation is whats happening.
So 100% Trump
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.
Why the 10 day announcement overnight only to totally rescind it before the majority of US citizens wake up and read the news?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Someone probably just screwed up
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.
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.
Liz Truss begs to differ.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-spat-...
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Yes, all the time.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airspace-closure-followed-spat-...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-military-shot-down-party...
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1r7tu/what_does...
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/1r1pqnp/10_day_tfr_is...
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.
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.
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.
Maybe they dropped a nuke by accident (again)
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.
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.
As a Minnesotan I wonder what this does to the deportation flights going to and from Camp East Montana.
The speculation, however, is just that. But, I think we all understand that the reason this was done is not for the reasons stated, and there is something else going on that we are not privy to.
It includes a local city Councilmember who's says he is working to get more information.
https://elpasomatters.org/2026/02/11/unexplained-faa-order-s...
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
Russia calls is “the Ukraine” because they think it’s their territory and not an independent nation.
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)
Not sure if applicable here, though.
Linked from airport website: https://elpasointernationalairport.com/live-cameras/
- 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
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
https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1r1s4zt/faa_groun...
Seems like they understand risk calculus more than you.
Maybe that new F-47 did a trump and fell asleep somewhere in the desert
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.
Nobody cares
Speak for yourself.
Should there be some people laws don't apply to?
Are you so tightly wound up that even seeing someone simply answer a direct question about what "e-files" means sets you off?
I think it might be a good time to step back and evaluate your engagement with media, HN, and the internet. Because it seems like you've got a wildly partisan reflex here.
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.
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
(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.)
Not even to mention you’re ignoring the TFR far outside and away from El Paso over the Potrillo volcanic mountains
A lot of the speculation is ridiculous given only a small area has been closed. That is not a prelude to war, for example!
Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire were closed off the day before Maduro's extraction
Map of both: https://i0.wp.com/elpasomatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/...
(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.
El Paso is a hub for cargo. Probably takes some days to go through all that parcel.
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.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/11/faa-el-paso-airport.html
TACOs…..
Under this administration, I'm very very concerned that it's cover for something deeply nefarious.
(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
https://skyvector.com/?ll=31.836456906566234,-106.7029640846...
https://apnews.com/article/faa-el-paso-texas-air-space-close...
Pentagon wanted to test the new laser but didn't give FAA enough information to assure safety of the NAS and civilian aviation (when, where, effects, etc.) so they felt forced to pull the big TFR lever. They fired the laser of at who knows what and then FAA lifted the TFR.
Occam's Razor says, this order came down from Trump. If that's the case, only question remaining would be what is he planning.
As for why? No clue.
But seriously, is this normal without any explanation? The cost must be enormous.
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.)
Not saying this isn't suspect though.
>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)
(I wish this were a joke.)
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.