It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NORAD bugout

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
just a thought, maybe they don't need it now as new secret technology has been invented to replace its function of alert, and possible even protection from incoming air bourne missiles, possible particle beam star wars grid, scalar weapons ready to sink enemy country's if they try and nuke us, who knows I'm sure all those trillions pumped into defense must of come up with loads of top secret technology and breakthroughs in science. I do get the feeling we are ready and we are trying to push things to the limit so we could wipe our enemys out and maybe start new world order alot of odd things going on as of late in the world.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by blobby]




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
just a thought, maybe they don't need it now as new secret technology has been invented to replace its function of alert, and possible even protection from incoming air bourne missiles, possible particle beam star wars grid, scalar weapons ready to sink enemy country's if they try and nuke us, who knows I'm sure all those trillions pumped into defense must of come up with loads of top secret technology and breakthroughs in science. I do get the feeling we are ready and we are trying to push things to the limit so we could wipe our enemys out and maybe start new world order alot of odd things going on as of late in the world.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by blobby]


i think you could be on to something, blobby - i get the feeling that some of those missles that NK set off last month didn't fail because of "incompetence" - rather were brought down by particle beam, etc. - might also help explain reports from northern japan of very odd red color in the sky during the missile firings



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Nah, somewhere bigger, better, safer has been established.
We just cant say so..
Its now failsafe.
specially since people know where it is, bunker busters are becoming the norm.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
somewhere bigger, better, safer has been established.


I sure hope you are right. Cheyenne Mountain was much more defendable than
the places that NORAD are supposedly being dispersed to. I don't know where
'they' could put a safer more secure NORAD type installation. Cheyenne Mountain
was pretty darn solid.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
NORAD isn't headquarted at Cheyen and never was.




To accomplish its aerospace warning and control mission, NORAD is divided into three regions: Alaskan NORAD Region, with headquarters at Elmendorf AFB; Canadian NORAD Region, with headquarters at Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Continental U.S. NORAD Region, with headquarters at Tyndall AFB, Fla.


Ever stop to think that it might be more expensive to upgrade/renovate the old facility than it is to build a new one?

The place was built in the 60's - computing/processing power has both increased and gotten a whole lot smaller. Why waste money on space you don't need?

[edit on 31-7-2006 by crisko]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Like others have said, NORAD itself is not closing, it’s just relocating to a nearby AFB. NO surveillance and or command capability will be lost. The complex at Cheyenne Mountain was designed in the 60’s as such it was designed to cope with the ICBM technology at the time. Newer more accurate ICBM’s can hit close enough to the facility and with enough firepower to completely destroy it (wouldn’t even be a contest). As such like Zaphod said its primary mission can be accomplished from elsewhere without spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year to maintain the mountain facility. Under today’s circumstances and in terms of our nuclear response and or command capability we are just as capable and or "safe" whether NORAD is located at Peterson AFB or Cheyenne Mountain. We can still maintain MAD no matter where NORAD is located, and that’s all that matters.

EDIT: Just to add, the facility at Cheyenne Mountain will not be completely closed, it will maintained/preserved and on a one-hour standby.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
NORAD closing doesn't sound right. Not after 9/11

Has anyone ever considered that maybe this is a fake, or that they may be moving to an upgraded facility in a nearby mountain?

Tim



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Tim did you read the entire thread? You don’t need this but just for good measure NORAD stands for North American Aerospace Defense Command, now that organization itself is not closing down, the current facility in which they operate from located inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado will be "closed". It will be preserved, occupied by support staff and kept on a one-hour stand by. Now the new facility that NORAD is moving into is located at Peterson AFB near Colorado Springs. The main three reasons for the move are listed below.

1. The threat of a preemptive nuclear strike by Russia is no longer seen as realistic and neither is a strike by China.

2. The Facility has cost hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade since 9/11 and it takes around 250 Million annually to maintain and upgrade the facility.

3. Peterson AFB is home to USNORTHCOM and to the 21ST Space Wing, as well Air Force Space Command and the US Army SMDC.

Now, having NORAD/NORTHCOM/21ST Space Wing/USAF Space Command/US Army SMDC all operating from one center will provide better coordination and use of combined assets. All these organizations have related missions and responsibilities.

Related Links

NORAD News Release
NORAD

[edit on 2-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
1. The threat of a preemptive nuclear strike by Russia is no longer seen as realistic and neither is a strike by China.

Really i don't think thats true the way Russia and China act sometimes, anyone in power I'm sure could do a preemptive nuke strike am i correct? what if one day they went insane and decide today is a good day for nuclear war? however unlikely it sounds it is a possibility, or rogue elements in governments gain sudden control and access also possible but unlikely but still in realms of the realistic.


Maybe they got to say #1 just to keep them happy and docile to the real plan, or if they really think that I'm thinking theres alot of enemy moles manipulating things behind the scenes not for our benefit but for enemy country's.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Tim did you read the entire thread? You don’t need this but just for good measure NORAD stands for North American Aerospace Defense Command, now that organization itself is not closing down, the current facility in which they operate from located inside Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado will be "closed". It will be preserved, occupied by support staff and kept on a one-hour stand by. Now the new facility that NORAD is moving into is located at Peterson AFB near Colorado Springs. The main three reasons for the move are listed below.


I read the thread! However, I think I was off yesterday. Yesterday was a rough day for me. Sorry! I didn't mean to say NORAD was closing. I also read the thread and the three main reasons.

However, in the wake of 9/11, where aircraft were used as suicide weapons, and crashed into surface targets like WW2 Kamikazis, I think moving out of their deeply burried command center may be premature, even if we aren't expecting a missile attack. As for the one hour standby, on 9/11 that would have done no good. If someone wanted to crash an airplane into NORRAD HQ, they won't give us a 1 hour notice to move back into the mountain!

The Pentagon was hit by terrorist, what makes you think they wouldn't try to hit NORAD?

In a post 9/11 world, can we really afford to take that chance?

Tim



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
If someone wanted to crash an airplane into NORRAD HQ, they won't give us a 1 hour notice to move back into the mountain!

The Pentagon was hit by terrorist, what makes you think they wouldn't try to hit NORAD?


Tim, Colorado Springs and the nearby area is home to half a dozen major USAF military bases and instillations (including USAF Academy). The airspace above these sites is monitored, if not outright restricted, keep in mind these are Air Force Bases they are quite capable (especially in the wake of 9/11) of detecting a plane heading into their air space and taking appropriate action, like launching fighters. They don’t have to sit there and let the plane hit them, a giant mountain is not necessary for defense. The Pentagon shot was a one time thing, the airspace above the capitol area now days is restricted and very closely monitored not to mention that Langley AFB is on constant alert. We don’t have to move the Pentagon and every major military instillation we have into mountains to defend them against civilian airplanes. We can take action instead or relaying on a passive defense.


Originally posted by ghost
In a post 9/11 world, can we really afford to take that chance?


In a post 9/11 world it’s a very small chance.


Originally posted by blobby
Really i don't think thats true the way Russia and China act sometimes, anyone in power I'm sure could do a preemptive nuke strike am i correct? what if one day they went insane and decide today is a good day for nuclear war?


Of course, that’s always been the case, if someone is hell-bent on Nuclear War they won’t care whether NORAD is in NYC, Cheyenne Mountain or on the Moon, they’ll still attack, and in that scenario it doesn’t matter where NORAD is. If they can hit Colorado Springs they can hit Cheyenne Mountain and by that time it’ll be a moot point, those commands would have fulfilled their purpose.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Good point! Westpoint 23, I think you got me again. I'm not afraid to admit I can be wrong.

Still, for some reason I felt safer knowing everyting was tucked away inside the mountain. Maybe I'm a bit old fasion. Who knows!

Tim



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Cuba still has missles pointed at right pat confirmed by my grandpa who passed away a couple years ago alos there are no alien saucers and that bull# they test top secret composites + other technology including antimatter engines for planes


edit grandpa was a top engineer for GD then for lockheed worked at the pentagon and worked at white sands filming missels as a teen has been in it all for years and has a set of id badges with the wierdest securty # ever an inch thick....name was on the list dedicated to the f-22 on its inaugeral launch as a key engineer.....


p.s. on a random question along time ago my grandpa and a friend of his wifes and i where riding somewhere the friend was a science teacher and somehow the topic of antimatter came up they bagan talking and what not then my granpa started talking about the possiblites of it in airplanes and what not then all of a sudden turned white as a ghost and immesiatly quit talking to us about that subject and said he couldent anymore, anything known about what he couldent talk about

lol still might have some old still not declassified composites sitting around.....







[edit on 3-8-2006 by RF Squibbles]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RF Squibbles
Cuba still has missles pointed at right pat…


Do you mean that Cuba has or had, missiles pointed at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio?

Could you clarify this? I don’t think Cuba currently has any missiles capable of reaching that far.


[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by RF Squibbles
Cuba still has missles pointed at right pat…


Do you mean that Cuba has or had, missiles pointed at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio?

[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]


I think you two are talking about the Cuban Missile Crises! If that is the case, technically, you'd both be wrong!

The missiles in Cuba in 1962 belonged to the USSR (now Russia). Although they were on Cuban soil, the Cuban government had nothing to do with where those missiles were aimed or if they would be used.

So, Technecally, you really can't say that Cuba ever pointed a missile at anyone!

Tim



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Having NORAD deters others from attacking this country. By others I mean the big
players like China and Cuba ... nuclear missile players. When we have a highly
defended and defendable military bunker that controls information and security
then it is a major reason that these other countries may not hit us at all.

Peace through strength.

When the bad guys see us strong, and NORAD is definately strength, then they are
less likely to hit us with their nukes.

As far as wanting to live through a nuclear war ... I don't know if that's possible for
the majority of Americans. Living where I do - just outside Philly - we'd vaporize
anyways.



Yeah, they did a smashup job on 9/11



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by ghost
In a post 9/11 world, can we really afford to take that chance?


In a post 9/11 world it’s a very small chance.


WestPoint23,

Strange! Didn't they say the same thing after the end of the cold war?

Before 9/11 everyone said the chance of the US being attacked on our own soil was very small!

The last time we let our arrogence interfer with sound policy based on caution, it costed over 5'000 lives! Arrogence is very dangerous.

Tim



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Strange! Didn't they say the same thing after the end of the cold war?


Can’t recall, was a young lad back then but if they did they must have been referring to the former USSR.


Originally posted by ghost
Before 9/11 everyone said the chance of the US being attacked on our own soil was very small!


…By a foreign nation yes, it was, and still is, and the chance of us being attacked by a terrorist organization is still there. However what I meant was that the chance of a terrorist successfully "attacking" NORAD is very slim. Again, moving NORAD will not mean that capabilities will be lost, nor does it mean that NORAD is more susceptible to attack from terrorists.


Originally posted by ghost
The last time we let our arrogence interfer with sound policy based on caution, it costed over 5'000 lives! Arrogence is very dangerous.


Its not arrogance, if we were arrogant we wouldn’t have reformed the way we monitor and respond to "threats".



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by ghost
Strange! Didn't they say the same thing after the end of the cold war?


Can’t recall, was a young lad back then but if they did they must have been referring to the former USSR.


I was still in elementry school when the USSR colapsed and the Clod War ended.


…By a foreign nation yes, it was, and still is, and the chance of us being attacked by a terrorist organization is still there. However what I meant was that the chance of a terrorist successfully "attacking" NORAD is very slim. Again, moving NORAD will not mean that capabilities will be lost, nor does it mean that NORAD is more susceptible to attack from terrorists.


They thought that about the Pentagon too! The Pentagon was supposed to be safe from air attack. I know exactly what you meant, however, I still disagree with you. The attak on the Pentagon, the bombing of the USS Cole and the Current attaks in Iraq hvae shown us that they are willing and able to attack military targets sucessfully!

If you move NORAD from it's hardened and well protected shelter inside of Cheyenne Mountain to a building on a nearby Air Force Base, what makes you think that it's vunerability doesn't increase?

I've read your argument four times and still can't follow your logic here!



Originally posted by ghost
The last time we let our arrogence interfer with sound policy based on caution, it costed over 5'000 lives! Arrogence is very dangerous.


Its not arrogance, if we were arrogant we wouldn’t have reformed the way we monitor and respond to "threats".


We are softening our targets in the middle of a war! We take it for granted that the chages we made with our intelligence system are enough by themselves to justify reducing the permanent security measues we use to protect critical military targets.

How do you not see arrogence here?

I respect your oppinion, but I can't follow your logic!


Tim

[edit on 9-8-2006 by ghost]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
How do you not see arrogence here?


I don’t see arrogance because we are still trying to counter the overall threat of terrorism and we still acknowledge the fact that we’re not 100% secure, nor will we ever be.


Originally posted by ghost
I respect your oppinion, but I can't follow your logic!


I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. And Tim that’s ok, few can!



Originally posted by ghost
I was still in elementry school when the USSR colapsed and the Clod War ended.


Well, I was about two when the Cold War "ended".



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join