Slashdot Log In
Back to the Bunker
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:20 AM
Oldsmobile writes "On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology -- alerts and updates delivered by pager and PDA, wireless priority service, video teleconferencing, remote backups -- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted in an emergency."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
...never to be seen again (Score:3, Funny)
Re:...never to be seen again (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on... they're "saying goodbye to their families"? Oh, that can't be good for a marriage. "Yes, darling, I'm just practicing for when there's a national disaster and I abandon you to the collapse of civilisation."
My advice - stay in the bunker!
Re:...never to be seen again (Score:5, Funny)
Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...never to be seen again (Score:5, Insightful)
Their families aren't the only ones being abandoned. Doesn't it warm your heart and fill you with patriotic pride to know that your leaders are going to leave you to die like rats when shit hits the fan ?
There was a time when the leader was the guy who shouted "Follow me!" in battle, not the guy who sits home and makes speeches about the sacrifices of his loyal troops are doing somewhere far away...
Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems evertyhing is provided for survival of "government" elite - who have the wealth and/or connections to get elected and appointed.
But what about hordes of people who constitute 'the people' in the declaration of independence ?
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh* how easily we forget history. Watch those old training films. Hiding under a desk or picnic blanket will provide protection in the event of a nuclear attack.
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:4, Funny)
Or just go around the corner and down the street [ready.gov].
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:3, Informative)
If you see the flash of a nuclear explosion, and if you're not already dead, then it probabl
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:4, Interesting)
As we were instructed during my Navy boot camp: find a shielded spot, sit down, place your head between your knees, and kiss your 4ss goodbye...
Nobody should be surprised by this. I mean, surely I wasn't the only one that noticed that the Federal governments first response after 9/11 was to protect itself (i.e. Federal buildings, etc.)? State, County, and City governments were left to fend for themselves until the Fed had its ass covered; us mere citizens don't get squat, if you don't count the 'protection' we get from TSA airport screeners, the Patriot Act, and other catchy-titled programs.
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Moreover, since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the definition of what constitutes an "essential" government function has been expanded so ridiculously beyond core national security functions -- do we really need patent and trademark processing in the middle of a nuclear holocaust?...."
are horrific. Placing government officials above citizens is old news and expected, planning (presumably) to enforce who has the right to print 'Coke' on a can or copy a CD under terrorist nuclear attack moves the government into territories until now the sole domain of Dali or Escher. It's yet another example of how corporate lobbying have twisted and distorted government.
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again, like they say on every #%# flight, "Put on your ow
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what about hordes of people who constitute 'the people' in the declaration of independence ?
Oh, that's easy! Once the "government elite" have left for the bunkers, the hords of people above ground will weld the doors shut. The world forever will be a better place to live =)
Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? (Score:5, Funny)
rj
Re:'the people' (Score:3, Insightful)
In 1770, even the 'white land owners' being 'the people' was a HUGE step in the direction of freedom. The outlook on humanism has to be proportionally far-fetched today too.
Scheduled Revolutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Would that be the November 7, 2006 Congressional elections? Or the November 4, 2008 elections, showing exceptionally long-range planning?
Credibility gap (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Credibility gap (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, there are two things:
1) Being able to continue critical operations in times of an emergency
2) Actually doing what makes sense in the situation
For example, if they put all the think-tanks in a scenic office of the WTC, they'd be running around like a bunch of headless chicken because the head just got chopped off. That has really more to do with "can we get hold of people", "where should people go to get work done", "how do we get information from the field", "who will take over these responsibilities" than how they actually act on that information.
Yes, you need a good strategy in case of an emergency... which is not that easy to create, imagine trying to plan for everything from the WTC attack to the hurricanes in the US to the Tsunami in SE Asia. Someone got a nuke from old Soviet? Chemical weapons from Iraq? Picked up an ebola strain in Africa? A natural pandemic (bird flu)? But you also need a contingency on how to execute it - unless your strategy is so completely without merit it makes no difference at all, and quite frankly they're not quite that bad. That is why you need drills like this.
Kjella
Re:Credibility gap (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait...
Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know (Score:3, Interesting)
Bright!!! Save the people who are responsible... (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmmm... maybe be sure to save the Telephone Sanitizers this time around.
Tinfoil hat time! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, conspiracy theory over!
Re:Tinfoil hat time! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tinfoil hat time! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tinfoil hat time! (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, conspiracy theory over!
Dear Ruiner13,
Normally the Agency eliminates conspiracy theorists who happen to get it right, but in this particular case there appears to be no point in doing so.
Enjoy the light show, wear sunscreen, etc.
Yours,
Agent 103181
ROOM 11741
Sublevel C-3A
Undisclosed location,
Virginia, USA
Re:Tinfoil hat time! (Score:3, Funny)
Really? I wouldn't put it past any US politician to eat their own young if it would further their political career.
Re:Tinfoil hat time! (Score:3, Funny)
Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service (Score:5, Funny)
So now they're going to practice their coffee breaks, giving rude service to the public and wasting our tax dollars on dubious projects... all from underneath a fortified bunker, to ensure this very fine tradition is not lost in the event of a nuclear attack?
Re:Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service (Score:3)
A Waste of Time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Waste of Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you
Not so secret after all (Score:5, Insightful)
So, posting it on slashdot counts as secrecy nowadays.
text messages (Score:5, Funny)
RICE_BABY: "LOLZ IN DA BUNKA WHERE U @?"
CHAIN_MAN: "AT DA DOOR OPEN UP LOL"
SHRUB: "B SERIYUS U 2"
BROWNIE: "YEAH U NEVER KNOW WHOS GONNA SEE YER MESSAGES"
WASH_POST: "YEAH LOL IN UR NETWORK READIN YER MESSAGES SEE YOU IN THE PAPERS"
RUMMY: "LOL SEE YOU IN GITMO ALL YOUR RIGHTS ARE BELONG TO ME"
WASH_POST: "OH SHI..."
Re:text messages (Score:4, Funny)
I can still see a need... (Score:5, Insightful)
With increased WMD proliferation - from big budget nukes to dirt cheap chemical weapons - that can be used to attack the U.S. capital and government installations, I'd say that such a plan is smart to have as a backup. Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington (a possibility in the future), we would certainly be able to retaliate and turn it into the Islamic Republic of Glass Bowl or Parking Lot (pick your favorite), but what would happen to all of the government infrastructure there? We're not just talking about continuity of elected leaders, but about the civilian side of the government as well, which this plan seems to focus on, too.
While nuclear war with Russia or another fairly heavily armed power (i.e. China) remains an enormously remote possibility, exchanges with countries that possess only a handful of nukes (Iran, North Korea, etc.) are much more likely. In such an event, the U.S. would not need to focus simply on making sure the attacker is completely wiped out - this is a given - but that it can survive a relatively small attack affecting only a handful of cities such as Washington and New York rather than a widespread nuclear holocaust in which all of this would simply be moot anyways.
The author is obviously unhappy with the inefficiency of this program, but I'm not entirely convinced by his arguments. Security, backups, etc. are always inefficient. Security and efficiency are always at odds with each other. Spending hundreds of millions on a backup that MIGHT be used is entirely inefficient EXCEPT when you need it, in which case it becomes a necessity. Combine this with the fact that the government is also not known for its efficiency and you've got a problem.
The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more, as many slashdotters have claimed and the author seems to hint at. It's getting ready for a limited nuclear exchange in which, yes, things like the patent office and budget offices must continue operating in the months and years to come when their main offices have been wiped out but a vast majority of the U.S. has been left unscathed.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending every action of this program. I would encourage others, however, to take a more nuanced look at it. And nuance is something slashdot appears to be lacking these days. It's likely my karma will pay for it, but so be it.
(As a side note, my "confirm I'm not a script" word was "senate"... coincidence?)
Yeah, but would they go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, as this article hints, they would have had to leave their families to do so.
Thinking about the "human factors" involved...would their be enough warning for anyone to be able to make it to the bunker in time? Would the roads/airspace/transit function well enough to get them to the bunkers? Would they leave their families to do so?
Re:I can still see a need... (Score:4, Insightful)
My personal opinion? 10 years or so.
I mean, they'd have to develop a nuclear weapon,
Perhaps you haven't been following the news...
a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device),
Iran presently possesses the ability to launch against Southern Europe with its existing devices and can acquire other technology as needed.
weaponising their little pop-gun fission device so their long range delivery system can carry the thing (Very hard)
Iran presently possesses ballistic missile capability. While they have yet to develop ICBMs, their regional weapons are quite good. Additionally, why would it need to be ground launched from Iran? They have a wide terrorist network (yes, they actually do...) capable of using a nuke, and if recent GAO reports are any indicator of the present quality of border control when it comes to fissile material, I've got my doubts.
and then be Bat Shit Crazy enough to use it,
Again, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news...
hoping that the US don't simply shoot it out of the sky before it gets to them.
Countermeasures to missile defense systems exist.
Then they'd be turned into the world biggest sheet of glass.
Would they? I'm not entirely convinced. A small nuclear attack of that sort would likely result in a proportional strike - good bye Tehran, for example. Massive retaliation MAY not be the response, though it certainly is possible.
I mean, I'm all for sensationalist propoganda and fear based war-mongering, but that's some pretty futuristic fture you've got there.
I think you meant to post that over here [dailykos.com]. Go knock yourself out.
Re:I can still see a need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran might be working on a nuclear weapons capability. Maybe. They don't have it yet.
If they do build one, it's likely to be something that can just barely be carried by the world's biggest bombers. Like the US and Soviet Union's first efforts were. Going from one of those monsters to something you can launch on a missile is HARD.
Going from a missile that can maybe sort of hit near something a thousand kilometres away to something that can reliably (you only get one shot) hit something halfway around the world is HARD. It's also very hard to buy that technology. People tend to wonder when you post your "wanted, ICBM, will pay cash, small denomination Euros" ad on Craig's List.
Not going to use an ICBM? If a nuclear weapon were smuggled into Washington and detonated the high governmental officials probably wouldn't get ten minute's warning. More likely their first hint would be a very bright light. The ten minute thing is sort of the worst case for a ballistic missile, which take a decent amount of time to travel half way around the world and are fairly conspicuous while doing it.
Re:I can still see a need... (Score:4, Funny)
Are you kidding me? European newspapers don't even try to pretend to be objective and non-partisan. Either you are a total dupe that swallows the Kool-Aid because it conveniently fits your worldview, or you are a total ass.
Just politics, folks! (Score:3, Funny)
The 2006 mid-term elections?
Bury the devils while we have the chance (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events (Score:5, Insightful)
It's good to know we will be able to handle an occurrence that has killed less than 1000 people each year. I wonder if we'll be prepared for another realistic disaster like Katrina or Rita, or if we'll be prepared for the millions who die of heart disease. Hurry to the bunkers!
Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't rational long-term thinking, it's complacency and short-term thinking. Schemes like this are simply insurance policies.
How many times has your home burned down? None? You still have home insurance though, right? Having home insurance doesn't mean you are "paralysed by fear" of your home burning down, does it?
Yes, things like heart disease are immediate problems, but that doesn't mean you can simply stick your head in the sand and ignore potential long-term problems.
"even more catastrophic" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
9/11 was a local disaster affecting one municipality.
Hurricane Katrina was a regional disaster affecting a couple states.
The race riots in France were a regional crisis
The student riots in France were a localized crisis
If bird flu suddenly spread like wildfire killing hundreds of thousands to millions in multiple states, THAT would be a national-level crisis.
Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? (Score:4, Informative)
Two municipalities. Let's not forget that a lot of people died at the Pentagon; a former co-worker of mine [ucsb.edu] was on that plane.
Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
What a perfect opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)
All you'd need to happen with the execs were safely away is some cooked up "terrorist" attack, maybe a series of dirty bombs going off coupled with a financial crisis. Good excuse to roll the military out into the streets.
Nah, couldn't happen here, right? Just because something similar happened...well, several times in the past is no reason to think it could ever happen here.
Hey ... Wait a damn minute here... (Score:5, Interesting)
I might need a tin-foil hat here, but it just seems to convenient that they are having a 'practice run' like they were practicing before 9/11.
Not a troll what actually happned (Score:4, Interesting)
Wed Aug 21, 7:45 PM ET
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Virginia-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about 4 miles (6 kilometers) from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world ( news - Y! TV) events began, we canceled the exercise."
Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon ( news - web sites) -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA ( news - web sites).
After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.
An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team
The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.
___
On the Net:
National Reconnaissance Office: http://www.nro.gov/ [nro.gov]
Central Intelligence Agency ( news - web sites): http://www.cia.gov/ [cia.gov]
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute: http://www.nlsi.net/ [nlsi.net] "
Although his link is from "prison planet" the original article is from AP.