Re Nighthawk and Garret. - I really don't understand the arguments put forward by both sides. I might be straying into politics (I apologise before hand as this is possibly against house rules) but isn't true that the United States is a democratic country, in which has its citizens freedoms are enshrined in a written constitution. Is not fair to say that no terrorist attack however heinous or any natural disaster can undermine the principles put forward in that constitution, because the constitution is in reality just a powerful set of democratic ideals and objectives. Only its citizens and its elected representatives of the United States of America can undermine its constitution through apathy, corruption and tyranny. Why would armed US marines or armed US army personnel be deployed under these circumstances? Isn't the Presidents elective position to serve and protect the constitution. Is it not the elective Presidents duty to serve all its citizens and that the armed services are there to serve the President as Commander in Chief thereby serving its citizens. Here I think lies the problem you face. Conflicts between individuals and nations arises because the citizens and leaders of these nations have disregarded a set of well understood and well known international laws. It makes me sad that the US government has even difficulty implementing the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War. This has happened in the UK also. Instead of being fearful about terrorism and natural disaster isn't it probably more wise to have a think about a Quotation from a former President Franklin D. Roosevelt 'There is nothing to fear but fear itself'. This quote also applies when you are cold tired and hungry in the wilderness also because fear is perhaps the most debilitating impediments to a successful outcome of personal survival.