Cheyenne Mtn installation closing

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Cheyenne Mtn installation closing

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:40 pm

In the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>before</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> time, I would have taken this as a positive sign. Now, it just puts another knot in my stomach.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Report: Military Closing Mountain Complex</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>The Associated Press<br>Friday, July 28, 2006; 4:49 AM<br><br>COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The military is virtually closing the secretive defense complex carved into Cheyenne Mountain that for decades has monitored North American skies for threats, a newspaper reported.<br><br>The Denver Post reported late Thursday that the North American Aerospace Defense Command operations center will be moved to nearby Peterson Air Force Base, which is home to the U.S. Northern Command created after the Sept. 11 attacks.<br><br>NORAD, a joint U.S. and Canadian command, was set up in the 1960s to monitor the skies for threats like missiles, aircraft and space objects.<br><br>Adm. Tim Keating, who commands both NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command, said the government's best intelligence "leads us to believe a missile attack from China or Russia is very unlikely."<br><br>That, along with the emergence of varied terrorist threats such as suicide bombers, "is what recommends to us that we don't need to maintain Cheyenne Mountain in a 24/7 status. We can put it on `warm standby,'" Keating told the newspaper.<br><br>Keating was scheduled to make the announcement Friday. He said 230 surveillance crew members and an undetermined number of the support staff will make the move within two years.<br><br>About 1,100 people work in the mountain, long a symbol of the Cold War. Buildings inside it are mounted on springs to absorb the shock from a nuclear blast, while the entrance is guarded by a vault-like door several feet thick.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072800127.html">www.washingtonpost.com</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Knots

Postby Avalon » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:04 pm

What's the undertext for you, Jeff? <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Knots

Postby Rigorous Intuition » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:17 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>What's the undertext for you, Jeff?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>It seems bizarre to me for the US military to virtually abandon one of the most secure locations in the world merely on the grounds that a nuclear attack appears "less likely." Perhaps more bizarre is how seemingly transparent they're being about it. I think it could be strategically destabilizing. So I wonder whether, in the minds of some, this is actually intended to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>increase</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the likelihood of a first strike. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 7/28/06 7:19 pm<br></i>
Rigorous Intuition
 
Posts: 1744
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Knots

Postby greencrow0 » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:44 pm

Very strange, indeed.<br><br>Trying to put a neoCon thinking cap on for a moment....ugh<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :o --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I would say it meant they're trying for 'plausible deniability'...i'e', if something happens they can say <br><br><br>goooooooooolllllllllllllyyyyyyyyy<br><br><br>we did NOT see that coming.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
greencrow0
 
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Knots

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:48 pm

Too much valueble property up there to let it become a target. I read somewhere that the QOE purchased a shitload of property up in Denver as per DIA discussions..<br><br>They're probably moving out that icky technicial crap so they can have more room for luxuriant Illuminati suites, that's all.<br><br> <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "What's the undertext for you, Jeff?"

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:55 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Perhaps more bizarre is how seemingly transparent they're being about it. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Typical conflicting signals, a disinfo tactic on the Pentagon's part.<br><br>This is at the same time that Seymour Hersh and others are running around warning that "they are so crazy they're gonna nuke Iran."<br><br>I see a long history of working the public's perceptions about war to keep it just horrible enough to induce learned helplessness but not so horrible that we collectively say "Enough is enough. Never again."<br><br>The Civil War reinforced our instincts for peace as has every war since.<br><br>The Big Nuclear Armageddon problem has led the Pentagon's Army Corps of Social Engineers to come up with ways to keep war a viable (and thus inevitable) option without it spelling the end of the world to the public.<br><br>Lots of messaging went into reassuring the public during the Cold War that it was still ok to go to war. The 'Atoms for Peace' campaign during the Eisenhower years and the not-too-subtle subtitle of Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove'-<br>"or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb."<br><br>Recall that movie's beginning with text reassuring the audience that the Pentagon said what was in the movie couldn't really happen.<br><br>So psyching out Iran with nuclear threats blows back into the domestic theater and counter-measures like this 'stand-down' move are probably meant to act like control rods cooling the public's anti-war panic response.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "What's the undertext for you, Jeff?"

Postby gotnoscript » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:29 pm

More likely they've already replaced the complex with a deeper, more secret one. One that'll absorb an impact from several comets. <p></p><i></i>
gotnoscript
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re: "What's the undertext for you, Jeff?"

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:53 pm

They can't close it! Where will SG-1 go? How will they move that big circle-thing-a-ma-jig out from the gateroom unnoticed with the rest of the moving boxes??<br> <p></p><i></i>
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest