[dbruning]

Is the airforce standdown going to pass without incident?
Was there a plan to use nuclear weapons, but it's been exposed and put on hold?
If there was a blackops planned, is it still going to go forward?

What do you guys think?

[dbruning]

hmm, was supposed to be a 3rd option saying "Of course it'll be a boring Friday, nothing was planned."

I am referring to a possible attack on Iran or on the US homeland, not financial meltdowns or anything else, just that possibility.

There was a nuclear armament mixup a few days ago that was exposed, was it intentional? If so, what were they planning? If not, why the hell aren't they more careful about dealing with these types of weapons...

Your thoughts please.

[RdSnt]

Ah, there was a stand-down just before 9-11.

[sjn]

Of course it is significant. It's my 30th birthday!

[Baldwin]

According to one article, supposedly a nuke is missing. 6 nukes went onboard the plane and 5 were recovered. NY, D.C., LA...take your pick.

As I live 2 miles from the New York City border, i have a vested interest in not having NY blown to smithereens.

[dbruning]

Happy Birthday SJN

I'll remember that for next time, thanks Shannymara. Oh hey, and congrats on the promotion!!!

If I put my tinfoil hat on for a moment, I could certainly see how a publically proclaimed standdown of the Airforce could tie in with a few 'misplaced' nukes...

But I'm thinking if I can see that, the truth MUST be more devilish or sneaky...

maybe this is like the magician making all our eyes look at the pretty nukes in his left hand, while his right hand sprays Avian Flu at the audience?

And of course if I take the shiny hat off, I can also see how a typical boneheaded mistake can happen.

Problem is, with the level of protocols I would assume are in place to control and prevent mis-allocation of nuclear armaments, the Shiny Hat Theory is easier to swallow for me...hence my post.

Someone be so kind as to point out I'll be 36 this year and i'll getting paranoid in my old age?

[Plantagenet]

The military, CIA, FBI etc. went to a heightened alert status for several days around Sept. 11, in case there was a terror attack on the anniversay of the 9/11 attack.

Now that the anniversary has passed without incident, the air force is standing down from the state of alert.

[dbruning]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to one article, supposedly a nuke is missing. 6 nukes went onboard the plane and 5 were recovered. NY, D.C., LA...take your pick.

[Bas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')he military, CIA, FBI etc. went to a heightened alert status for several days around Sept. 11, in case there was a terror attack on the anniversay of the 9/11 attack.

Now that the anniversary has passed without incident, the air force is standing down from the state of alert.

[Plantagenet]

A day is long enough for all units to review safety procedures (and, as a bonus, to give the crews who flew extra hours in the days around the 9/11 anniversary some time off).

USAF explains stand down

[Bas]

edit

[dbruning]

Well, the beauty of this particular post is that within a day or so we'll know if there is going to be a problem or not.

At least within the context of the original question.

[sjn]

The whole thing lacks subtlety. Who isn't going to notice that the national air defense is standing down for the day? Its almost like they're inviting something to happen. The stated reason is absolute nonsense. Of course people noticed that there was a stand-down on 9/11 too, yet to point it out only serves to get one labled as a loony CT. Perhaps they're that brazen?

[dbruning]

The part I like from the link that got posted in this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust how serious Keys takes the lapse of regulations at Minot is reflected in the fact that the safety stand-down is the first commandwide safety day in recent memory. In the past, the command has singled out specific types of aircraft for safety days and in 1997 the Department of Defense held a departmentwide safety review day.

[RdSnt]

You do a stand-down to provide a baseline to measure from. In the case of the air force there is so much going on at every give moment, you can't trace the critical path of your protocols with good accuracy, since everything is in motion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'A') day is long enough for all units to review safety procedures (and, as a bonus, to give the crews who flew extra hours in the days around the 9/11 anniversary some time off).

USAF explains stand down

[dbruning]

But couldn't some minimum level of activity be tolerated/controlled and factured in?

Here's the thing. In order to provide Americans with national security, they've done a ton of things that have made people post here practically screaming to get torches and pitchforks.

And then they decide to publically announce they plan on being defenseless for a day?

Even if nothing happens, I just don't understand, why not treat it as a national security event and keep it wrapped as tight as absolutely possible...why announce it, what is the benefit over treating it as something to be quiet about.

Hell, at the very least I'd lie Say it was going to happen on the 15th, get it done on the 14th, and kick the living crap out of anyone that tried to take advantage the next day

[dukey]

this was a regular stand down
nothing to see here

[sjn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', 'T')he part I like from the link that got posted in this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust how serious Keys takes the lapse of regulations at Minot is reflected in the fact that the safety stand-down is the first commandwide safety day in recent memory. In the past, the command has singled out specific types of aircraft for safety days and in 1997 the Department of Defense held a departmentwide safety review day.

[RdSnt]

Mind you, (just so the paranoia level doesn't drop too low ), to have a nation wide stand-down is total overkill (no pun intended) and completely unnecessary.
This was a, subposed, mistake within the nuke weapons protocol, which is very specific and compartmentalized. That is the only area that needed inspection.
Frankly though, I still don't buy the whole story. I've posted before that I regard it as extremely remote that the flight crew wouldn't know the difference in whether the missiles were nuke tipped.
A missile with a nuke load weighs a hell of a lot more than an empty one, by at least 1000lbs.
The flight crew needs to know what weight they are carrying, to determine fuel loads and simply to be able to take off. You can't take off without logging your take-off weight. Even on a B52 6000lbs is not something you don't notice.
Too many points of failure would have had to occur in succession.

[Plantagenet]

Having an air-force wide stand down to review safety procedures emphasizes how important safety procedures are.