Just wanted to get peoples' opinions on this. Original Poster had started Another thread on overpopulation, but I think this thread looks at it a little differently.

The questions I'm asking, here, is in regards to overpopulation as a national security risk. We all know, and have seen, how aggressively 'national security risks' are being stamped out. Indefinite detention; death by drone without due process; torture; rendition; world-wide manhunts...these are all apparently acceptable courses of action when dealing with someone or something deemed a threat to national security. Much of this is done in secret; often behind an iron curtain of lies and public deceit, and often using methods that many argue are tantamount to war crimes.

What about population, in general? Or, more specifically, overpopulation.

Now, I'm not talking about overpopulation in terms of sheer space/land in our country. I'm talking about the number of people that would constitute a threat to this country maintaining its level of stability (however questionable). What happens when we meet that critical mass? Has it ever been met in the past? If it has been, or will be, how is it handled?

What I'm driving at, here, is: at what point does an active depopulation campaign begin? What does it consist of? What could it consist of? In a world where the most heinous of crimes are committed (and excused) by governments like ours (USA), in the name of national security, is it possible that, at some point up the chain of command, active neutralization of the population explosion could include flat-out murder? Or anything that might be as morally questionable? How about involuntary sterilization?

At the end of the day, when the sh!t hits the fan, how far do you think those in charge of this great country would be willing to go, to avoid what could eventually lead up to irreversible damage to 'the machine' known as the United States? It's a bit of a paranoid question, sure (and one that forces you to fully ponder how low the government might possibly stoop to maintain the status quo), but a fair one, I think.