I can see some circumstances where this would make sense for example alot of terroist bombings use cellular phones as remote detonators they are cheap and unlikely to be accidently triggered and will often stay in standby for days at a time.

Yes it would be a nuisance for everyone not to have the ability to make calls during an emergency but if it stops terrorists from being able to co-ordinate a large attack it would be worth it.

Immagine this scenario its a busy saturday in a shopping mall or any other large building where people gather and a terrorist group detonates multiple small explosives perhaps even the odd suicide bomber or two in an attempt too cause maximum chaos and confusion. Emergency services, police, fire department, paramedics all rush too the scence and begin to deal with the situation. Unknown to them the terrorists have planted another device which is massive and designed to wipe out all the people who arrive too rescue and deal with the situation. It is detonated remotely by cell phone and the person who decides when too detonate it is at the scence himself using a cell phone to instruct others or directly himself detonate the larger device killing perhaps up too a hundred people.

Suddenly it seems a bit more reasonable eh? The police, fire department and paramedics all have secure radio networks they can use too co-ordinate their efforts so it would not impede them from doing their jobs saving lives and protecting the public

[edit on 9-1-2009 by sabre151]

sorry my bad double post

[edit on 9-1-2009 by sabre151]

Hmmm. But, what about the workers that come in from different agencies across the U.S.? Not everyone is on the 800 MHZ Digital Secure Wireless Radio network. Some agencies are still using VHF, UHF, & 800 MHZ analog. So, will these people be able to communicate?

Please, this is such a transparent attempt a getting more control by the power structure over the citizens. And the ironic thing is, is that our tax dollars will pay for the technology that takes our ability to communicate away and the phone companies will still charge us when the service is down.

"Bend over I got somthin for you"

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house!!

[edit on 9-1-2009 by whaaa]

Wait wouldn't it make more sense for people to use their cell phones during a terrorist attacks? I would think that more people would be hurt if there was a terrorist attack and they didn't have a cell phone.

I can understand the reasoning behind this sort of thing, Yes in the event of an attack 9/11 or 7/7 here in the UK , the mobile networks were inundated with people trying to call loved ones to see if theyre ok.

Simple solution is , get ALL the network suppliers to increase their services to be able to cope with something like an attack, look at their records and decide what they need to be able to cope.

Not develop technology to block.

The only reason you need to block communication is WHEN you KNOW that an attack is IMMINENT.

The only other reason to block communication is to STOP a co-ordinated counter-attack should you want to attack someone else.
Say the public, when you declare Marshal law against the US citizenry.

Originally posted by jhill76
Hmmm. But, what about the workers that come in from different agencies across the U.S.? Not everyone is on the 800 MHZ Digital Secure Wireless Radio network. Some agencies are still using VHF, UHF, & 800 MHZ analog. So, will these people be able to communicate?

Glad I got my digital scanner!

They could use this as a excuse to preemptively cut off the communications, sounds fishy to me, since anything could merit a threat to the state.