Errant Flight Prompts Capitol Evacuations
- Thread starter Ozzieman
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
LAK-
Just curious, and based on your answer, you'll find not at all off topic.
In recent years, did you have a bad personal experience with:
a) Divorce Settlement
b) Significant Investment or Retirement Portfolio losses
c) Government or IRS charges or Audit
Rich
Just curious, and based on your answer, you'll find not at all off topic.
In recent years, did you have a bad personal experience with:
a) Divorce Settlement
b) Significant Investment or Retirement Portfolio losses
c) Government or IRS charges or Audit
Rich
Novus Collectus
The federal government under the Bush administration as well as the one before it has wasted or lost trillions - and has us in debt at a record level to the same tune, climbing with no end in sight.
If they had started on this three and a half years ago it could have been done in stages, and not necessarily just building large bunkers for people. Does DC have an underground transport system these days?
Either the continuing threats to this country are real - or they are not. If they are, then why are we not spending the resources to protect American citizens - the population at large - in the places at highest risk?
This isn't just about buildings - we do not have a viable civil defense plan period - rather duct tape, plastic, and a huge Federal bureaucracy in place to tell us all what to do and where to go and not go in the event of another big event.
The federal government under the Bush administration as well as the one before it has wasted or lost trillions - and has us in debt at a record level to the same tune, climbing with no end in sight.
It is not just waste in Iraq, it is enormous sums at home in continuation of socialist programs that this administration still supports, and overseas in places outside Iraq. The U.N. and all it's peripheral organizations and programs. It is literally trillions in agregate.
If they had started on this three and a half years ago it could have been done in stages, and not necessarily just building large bunkers for people. Does DC have an underground transport system these days?
Either the continuing threats to this country are real - or they are not. If they are, then why are we not spending the resources to protect American citizens - the population at large - in the places at highest risk?
novus collectus
Moderator
Yes, since 1975.
Makes me wonder why you came up with an opener like "You should do some research before you make a claim about those "facilities" (IMO)". I should perhaps now suggest you do the same.
It takes far less money to modify and make use of a readily adaptable underground structure and system than building one from scratch. This has been done elsewhere. It is not perfect, not adaptable to all threats in all places, for everyone. But it is certainly a viable starting point and has been done elsewhere in the world. And is better than nothing.
It takes far less money to modify and make use of a readily adaptable underground structure and system than building one from scratch. This has been done elsewhere. It is not perfect, not adaptable to all threats in all places, for everyone. But it is certainly a viable starting point and has been done elsewhere in the world. And is better than nothing.
novus collectus
Moderator
It doesn't connect every building and since D.C. is mostly built on a swamp, rerouting an underground system would be even more expensive. Research LAK research.
I will admit that you made a good point about Bush wasting money and a defense plan should have been addressed in stages and he has the biggest government in history, but I disagree with your view of the magnitude you use. I also disagree with your asumption that we should spend billions on protecting just a few ten thousand workers and politicians and yet leave the other 700,000 (guesstimate) workers to the wolves. If a particular building is targeted and they only have 8 minutes to do something (14 if it was handled better I admit), what could you suggest that could be done other than the same response that would be used if a fire alarm was sounded in a fire and without spending 1-12 billion dollars.
The capitol dome is very fragile and even this small plane could have toppled it. It would take a billion dollars (guesstimate) or more to shore it up or rebuild it with todays local labor wage. The Davis-Bacon act of the 1930's makes the government pay a prevailing wage of the locale where the building is being built and so the government would not be able to use minimum wage illegal immigrants construction workers to rebuild the government owned part of D.C.. I would like to see billions of tax dollars spent in my area (again
) and to see the disrupted buisinessess reimbursed, but as an American first, I see the idea you proposed so far as drastic, expensive, not completely necessary when cheaper ways should be found and we cannot afford it (especially since Bush wasted all our excess money and gotten us into debt).
I will admit that you made a good point about Bush wasting money and a defense plan should have been addressed in stages and he has the biggest government in history, but I disagree with your view of the magnitude you use. I also disagree with your asumption that we should spend billions on protecting just a few ten thousand workers and politicians and yet leave the other 700,000 (guesstimate) workers to the wolves. If a particular building is targeted and they only have 8 minutes to do something (14 if it was handled better I admit), what could you suggest that could be done other than the same response that would be used if a fire alarm was sounded in a fire and without spending 1-12 billion dollars.
The capitol dome is very fragile and even this small plane could have toppled it. It would take a billion dollars (guesstimate) or more to shore it up or rebuild it with todays local labor wage. The Davis-Bacon act of the 1930's makes the government pay a prevailing wage of the locale where the building is being built and so the government would not be able to use minimum wage illegal immigrants construction workers to rebuild the government owned part of D.C.. I would like to see billions of tax dollars spent in my area (again
) and to see the disrupted buisinessess reimbursed, but as an American first, I see the idea you proposed so far as drastic, expensive, not completely necessary when cheaper ways should be found and we cannot afford it (especially since Bush wasted all our excess money and gotten us into debt).Rich Lucibella
Staff
LAK-
Never mind. The answers were voluntary. Had a mini-psych profile in my head. Just wanted to see how accurate it was.
Rich
Never mind. The answers were voluntary. Had a mini-psych profile in my head. Just wanted to see how accurate it was.
Rich
Novus Collectus
"Run from the building!" ?
Of course; and the closer to the major targets, the more provision should be made for the public in general - not just people that might be at work.
It does not have to connect every single building. Of course it is going to be expensive - what is not expensive when it comes to national security and a nation? The point is that right now, at the sound of "incoming!" people in these target areas are basically told to "go forth and fend for yourself". That's all well and good if it is merely a single-engine Cessna with a few hundred pounds of HE heading for a particular target; but what of a wider and more concerted attack? What if it is something arriving special delivery from Korea or other belligerent nation?
"Run from the building!" ?
More than two trillion that can not be accounted for by the Pentagon alone. And that is just one major government public purse recipient. It does not include many other avenues and outright wastage.
.
Of course; and the closer to the major targets, the more provision should be made for the public in general - not just people that might be at work.
Back to the crux of the matter and the same applies; there is no cheap solution - it is going to be expensive. But we are spending that kind of money on a monthly basis overseas in foreign countries, and wasting billions in domestic socialist programs and bureaucracies.
Hardening historical buildings and other surface structures is a futile concept; people closest to major targets need some viable shelter as part of a tangible civil defense plan.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
There are three major airports within three flying minutes or less of the White House and Capitol: Dulles International, Ronald Reagan/Washington National, and Baltimore-Washington International.
You simply cannot devise a realistic system that will get a few ten thousand people into bunkers fast enough if someone decides to abort final on one of these airports and steer their plane towards a government target. Try to picture getting a crowd out of a stadium at the end of a ball game in three minutes or less, and you'll have a rough idea of the logistics involved...and that's without the panic that would grip a crowd if they knew an emergency was at hand.
Under the circumstances, "get away from the high-profile bullseyes" seems like a fairly reasonable suggestion, but I guess you'd find a fault with any course of action, whether they're told to run or stay put.
There are plenty of things to criticize about our current administration...not being able to build an Instant Bunker System for all the Washington bureaucrats is not one of them. That just sounds like griping for the sake of griping.
You simply cannot devise a realistic system that will get a few ten thousand people into bunkers fast enough if someone decides to abort final on one of these airports and steer their plane towards a government target. Try to picture getting a crowd out of a stadium at the end of a ball game in three minutes or less, and you'll have a rough idea of the logistics involved...and that's without the panic that would grip a crowd if they knew an emergency was at hand.
Under the circumstances, "get away from the high-profile bullseyes" seems like a fairly reasonable suggestion, but I guess you'd find a fault with any course of action, whether they're told to run or stay put.
There are plenty of things to criticize about our current administration...not being able to build an Instant Bunker System for all the Washington bureaucrats is not one of them. That just sounds like griping for the sake of griping.
Marko Kloos,
I am surprized you didn't catch on - but I did state that it did not have to, and could not be, something to protect everyone from any kind of threat, everywhere in the country.
Griping?
Even the Soviet Union had an active civil defense program decades ago. Even North Korea has one.
We have trillions of public money seeping away, billions being spent on half the rest of the world - and a rising credit card debt to spend even more on them - and it is "griping" to expect it to be spent here on a real civil defense program?
Give me a break.
You know it is funny thinking back to when Saddam Hussein's "bunkers" were exposed; how he had a lavishly equipped safe haven for him and his hierarchy - while the Iraqi people were left exposed. And what a big deal the media made about it - and how many others gloated right along with them - about what a bad man Saddam Hussein was because of it.
Doublethink.
I am surprized you didn't catch on - but I did state that it did not have to, and could not be, something to protect everyone from any kind of threat, everywhere in the country.
Griping?
Even the Soviet Union had an active civil defense program decades ago. Even North Korea has one.
We have trillions of public money seeping away, billions being spent on half the rest of the world - and a rising credit card debt to spend even more on them - and it is "griping" to expect it to be spent here on a real civil defense program?
Give me a break.
You know it is funny thinking back to when Saddam Hussein's "bunkers" were exposed; how he had a lavishly equipped safe haven for him and his hierarchy - while the Iraqi people were left exposed. And what a big deal the media made about it - and how many others gloated right along with them - about what a bad man Saddam Hussein was because of it.
Doublethink.
LAK...
What are you talking about??? Sadaam's bunkers were an issue because the money used to build the most recent of them was embezzeled from the UN oil for food program, not because the population was left exposed to attack. After years of war with Iran, Baghdad had a pretty good civil defense system, IIRC.
'Two trillion that cannot be accounted for by the Pentagon alone'....source, please.
Besides, why are the folks in DC so special? If they deserve an instant bunker to cringe in everytime a Piper Cub violates restricted airspace, the same should be provided for everybody, all over the country.
You didn't answer Marko's question...how are you gonna get 60k workers into secure bunkers with 3-5 minute notice? Teleportation is not an option.
What are you talking about??? Sadaam's bunkers were an issue because the money used to build the most recent of them was embezzeled from the UN oil for food program, not because the population was left exposed to attack. After years of war with Iran, Baghdad had a pretty good civil defense system, IIRC.
'Two trillion that cannot be accounted for by the Pentagon alone'....source, please.
Besides, why are the folks in DC so special? If they deserve an instant bunker to cringe in everytime a Piper Cub violates restricted airspace, the same should be provided for everybody, all over the country.
You didn't answer Marko's question...how are you gonna get 60k workers into secure bunkers with 3-5 minute notice? Teleportation is not an option.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Buzz-Buzz Knox said:
I'm thinking something a bit more cataclysmic than that.
Working Profile:
- Mid to late 50's WM
- Professional, good paying job
- Financially on the road to a comfortable retirement during the 90's. Then came the crash of 2000
Why me, when all the other fat cats just keep getting richer? Must be the neo-military-industrial complex has embraced the New World Order, marching us onto the Global Plantation. AM Talk shows seem to provide the missing pieces to this puzzle. We're just puppets on a string. The Unseen Enemy grows stronger by the day. I'm angry and frustrated, but mostly I just feel completely helpless against the onslaught.
How close am I, LAK?
Rich
novus collectus
Moderator
LAK
IIRC the reason you suggested the subway in the first place is because you were responding to my claim that you need to do research on the prohibitive expense of building bomb shelters and escape systems and you offered the subway system idea up, which implied that it was the cheap way to do it. Now you agree that modifying the subway is expensive too???? Sounds like you are trying to defend your earlier statement by distraction when you segue to "national security".
Moscow's subway system was designed from it's inception (an assumption) as a bomb shelter for the populace and IIRC they even had escape shutes for the commanding elite from their offices to the subway. The subways were more than a hundred feet underground and it took them a good portion of their money to build it. Maybe we should copy the U.S.S.R. and spend more than we can afford on defense? Sure they felt safer in case of an attack, but they lost their way of life in the end paying for it (communism fell, country split and they are still paying for it). If we did that too, then the terrorists will have won without ever attacking us again. (what I am saying with this extreme example, is that we need a balance and we have to be practical. Your suggestions seem anything but and they seem as extreme as the example).
You have still not responded to the question that has been asked a few times now- How is the response to the plane any different than a fire in the building? They obviously would not be going to a bomb shelter if there was a fire and I am sure they wouldn't want to be trapped in a building that collapsed while they were waiting in line for the shelter when a plane hit it.
IIRC the reason you suggested the subway in the first place is because you were responding to my claim that you need to do research on the prohibitive expense of building bomb shelters and escape systems and you offered the subway system idea up, which implied that it was the cheap way to do it. Now you agree that modifying the subway is expensive too???? Sounds like you are trying to defend your earlier statement by distraction when you segue to "national security".
Moscow's subway system was designed from it's inception (an assumption) as a bomb shelter for the populace and IIRC they even had escape shutes for the commanding elite from their offices to the subway. The subways were more than a hundred feet underground and it took them a good portion of their money to build it. Maybe we should copy the U.S.S.R. and spend more than we can afford on defense? Sure they felt safer in case of an attack, but they lost their way of life in the end paying for it (communism fell, country split and they are still paying for it). If we did that too, then the terrorists will have won without ever attacking us again. (what I am saying with this extreme example, is that we need a balance and we have to be practical. Your suggestions seem anything but and they seem as extreme as the example).
It is not futile, it has been done to the White House and the Pentagon (that is why only a few hundred died there instead of thousands on 9/11). But once again, it would be very expensive.
You have still not responded to the question that has been asked a few times now- How is the response to the plane any different than a fire in the building? They obviously would not be going to a bomb shelter if there was a fire and I am sure they wouldn't want to be trapped in a building that collapsed while they were waiting in line for the shelter when a plane hit it.
Rich, I understand. But lengthy and/or unsuccessful court actions can sometimes contribute to a fear of and belief in conspiracies. I had one pro se plaintiff get dissatisifed enough with a court's ruling that he started talking about killing any gov't agent (including yours truly) who set foot on his property.
LAK...
Even if we did manage to find and utilize the 'trillions' of dollars that you alledge are seeping away from the Federal coffers, on some kind of underground shelters for the general worker drone population in DC; what would make them any less of a boondoggle than any other .gov program that these monies seep from?
If we had been proactive and started the project 5 years ago, it wouldn't be on line today. Not even close. It takes a couple of years just to do the environmental impact study. That's after years of debate over location selection, funding, land allocation, infrastructure support studies, and wrangling over which alphabet agency would be in charge of the whole thing. Look how long it took to start, build and complete the Viet Nam vets memorial.
In any case, these place(s) would be used rarely, if ever, would cost a fortune to outfit and maintain and end up like the bunker complex at the Greenbriar Resort;
a huge waste of money and bad idea whose time never came. Their only benefit would be to provide you something else to fixate on.
Even if we did manage to find and utilize the 'trillions' of dollars that you alledge are seeping away from the Federal coffers, on some kind of underground shelters for the general worker drone population in DC; what would make them any less of a boondoggle than any other .gov program that these monies seep from?
If we had been proactive and started the project 5 years ago, it wouldn't be on line today. Not even close. It takes a couple of years just to do the environmental impact study. That's after years of debate over location selection, funding, land allocation, infrastructure support studies, and wrangling over which alphabet agency would be in charge of the whole thing. Look how long it took to start, build and complete the Viet Nam vets memorial.
In any case, these place(s) would be used rarely, if ever, would cost a fortune to outfit and maintain and end up like the bunker complex at the Greenbriar Resort;
a huge waste of money and bad idea whose time never came. Their only benefit would be to provide you something else to fixate on.
Last edited:
gburner
No; that was not the dominant theme of the news reports when our troops entered them and it was the focus of major media attention as portrayed by the CNN presentations etc at the time. Nor was it the general tone of conversation about them on forums like this one.
Well ... thanks for that tidbit of information. While I don't doubt it, isn't that somewhat contrary to the image of the Hussein government? I mean didn't Saddam and his cronies live high on the hog, steal all the big money from Iraq's citizens leaving them vulnerable to every imaginable horror? Or is the opposite true; Iraq was actually very civilized - and the standard of living was quite high, and the needs of it's citizens well addressed?
Pentagon auditors. Donald himself in fact spoke of the figure being perhaps $2.3 trillion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Right, and my point. Hardened shelter is not needed nor practical for the whole country of course; but the major target areas. The further away from the major target areas other measures could be implemented.
I never claimed it was possible - or necessary. The point is that right now there is nothing for any of them.
Novus Collectus
The effectiveness of terrorist attacks and those from any nation can largely be a matter of how prepared we are. Duct tape, plastic and a mopping up plan are not what I would call sanity in any scenario.
I shouldn't have to repeat this; but evidently it hasn't sunk in yet. There is no cheap way to do this; just some that might be cheaper and more expedient than others. Of course it is expensive, what isn't when it comes to national security - the security of any nation?
Russia is still alive and well; in the long run they haven't lost anything as a direct result of having a civil defense plan. In fact they are still in a strong position because of it. If we can afford to prop up half the world we can certainly remove that drain and spend it on our nation instead without breaking our bank.
The effectiveness of terrorist attacks and those from any nation can largely be a matter of how prepared we are. Duct tape, plastic and a mopping up plan are not what I would call sanity in any scenario.
Hardening individual buildings is really not a rational and logical approach to a national civil defense plan. We are treading over ground which has already been discussed here; we need a national plan and facilities for those in major target areas.
I do not know why you can not grasp this; a fire plan for a building and a civil defense plan and facilities for a nation are not the same thing.