Slashdot Mirror


Back to the Bunker

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."

404 comments

  1. ...never to be seen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Farewell!

    1. Re:...never to be seen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fresh food for the larder!

    2. Re:...never to be seen again by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, 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!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:...never to be seen again by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny
      Muffley:

      You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?

      Strangelove:

      It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

      Muffley:

      Well I... I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down.

      Strangelove:

      Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute. Arrrrr! Restrains right arm with left. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.

      Muffley:

      But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

      Strangelove:

      No sir... Right arm rolls his wheelchair backwards. Excuse me. Struggles with wayward right arm, ultimately subduing it with a beating from his left.

      Also when... when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh! Right are reflexes into Nazi salute. He pulls it back into his lap and beats it again. Gloved hand attempts to strangle him.

      Turgidson:

      Doctor, you mentioned the ration of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

      Strangelove:

      Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

      DeSadeski:

      I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

      Strangelove:

      Thank you, sir.

      So with that in mind, what makes you think they don't want to say goodbye to their families?
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:...never to be seen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So with that in mind, what makes you think they don't want to say goodbye to their families?


      Four words: Ann Coulter Harpy Clones.

    5. Re:...never to be seen again by madnuke · · Score: 1

      Technically you would need at least 250 people to repopulate the Earth because of the number of genes you would need to have enough so generations down the line don't have curly teeth and straigh hair and 6 fingers. Still then Dr. Strangeglove was right!

    6. Re:...never to be seen again by Thing+1 · · Score: 1, Funny
      Given the religious fundamentalism shown by US leadership, I'm somewhat surprised that this "exercise" wasn't started on June 5, 2006.

      Newkyalur holocaust on 6-6-06 would be just so ... fitting for an end, wouldn't it? (Yes, the remake of the Omen is hyping it up.)

      But, perhaps our (or their) calendars are off by a few weeks wrt BC/AD. Vacation that week has a nice ring to it.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    7. Re:...never to be seen again by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

      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...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:...never to be seen again by Gno · · Score: 1, Funny

      mabye the people are going away beacuse there not the most reliable people eh? Woops we "accidently" "forgot" to turn the oxygen supply on.

      --
      It's not -1 Flamebait! It's +5 Funny. You just didn't get the joke...
    9. Re:...never to be seen again by fiendy · · Score: 1

      You have to remember to buy the padlocks before you can say that.

    10. Re:...never to be seen again by infofc · · Score: 1

      Good to see that the government have the welfare of the people they govern foremost on their minds. P.S. Colapse of civilisation requires that you have a civilisation, and I guess it also has to be the only one.

    11. Re:...never to be seen again by Kpau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that, in a nutshell, is why this whole scenario is stupid and unrealistic --- 4000+ civilians are going to *abandon* their husbands, wives, children, etc. to burrow themselves in deep caverns in order "keep the essential functions of government working". It might have made *some* sense if immediate family were brought along --- how productive am I going to be not knowing the wellbeing of my family in a really big disaster? Make sure they're safe and you'll have some highly motivated people... Makes me want to staplegun a DVD of Dr. Strangelove to the foreheads of these loons we have in charge...

    12. Re:...never to be seen again by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      There was a time when the leader was the guy who shouted "Follow me!" in battle

      Yeah. Now he shouts "I'm the Decider!" and runs for cover. After giving what is left of our civil rights a good reaming, of course.

      George Bush: The man who finally killed the myth of white supremacy.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:...never to be seen again by fnord_uk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah. The B Ark strategy.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
    14. Re:...never to be seen again by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      You DO intend to padlock them from the outside, yes? Then all we'll need is some wire cutters to clip off their communications, and we're done with them.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:...never to be seen again by MSZ · · Score: 1

      Padlock? You want them to get out that easily?

      I say weld these steel doors shut and dump few (or not so few) tons of fresh concrete on the top.

      And put some fence around the place, marked "Nuclear Waste Dump".

      That should do it.

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    16. Re:...never to be seen again by bhiestand · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Padlock? You want them to get out that easily?

      I say weld these steel doors shut and dump few (or not so few) tons of fresh concrete on the top.

      And put some fence around the place, marked "Nuclear Waste Dump".

      You forgot to mention the part about actually storing nuclear waste there. It really would kill three birds with one stone.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    17. Re:...never to be seen again by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that, after dumping nuclear waste in their and sealing them in, we can ensure nobody wants to enter the site by putting a sign that says

      CAUTION
      Bureaucrats and Politicians Are Buried Here

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    18. Re:...never to be seen again by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I sit corrected.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  2. Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Huh ?

    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 ?

    1. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by servognome · · Score: 5, Funny

      But what about hordes of people who constitute 'the people' in the declaration of independence ?

      *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.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      The children have their desks to hide under.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Knuckles · · Score: 0, Troll

      But what about hordes of people who constitute 'the people' in the declaration of independence ?

      This is America - every man for himself, I guess. At least this is what I hear when it's about taxes and health care.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm gonna cover my roof with school desks. That's 5/8 inch particle board...nothing goes through that.

      rj

    5. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Dorsai65 · · 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.

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    6. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hiding under a desk or picnic blanket will provide protection in the event of a nuclear attack.

      Or just go around the corner and down the street.

    7. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There is more reason to it than you think. Hint: what do you hear on the loudspeaker after you boarded the plane and it is ready to take off?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    8. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Shelled · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This takes it a step further though. The implications of the following:

      "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.

    9. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)?

      Then again, like they say on every #%# flight, "Put on your own mask before assisting others". It did seem like an attack on the heads of business, military and government (the 4th plane was going to the Capitol building), not random civilians. I think large federal institutions like e.g. CIA headquarters would be a much bigger target than any local goverment (as in state or smaller). YMMV, but to seem it seems like the right decision.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

      And if, say, a suitcase nuke goes off (the Terrorists of Unspecified National, Ethnic, or Religious Origins would - of course - warn us so the Feds could implement their plan, right?) in St. Louis, then the citizens are all going to try and contact the Federal government, instead of calling the local cops, fire department, hospitals, and so forth, you suppose?

      No, it seems more likely that the Feds are trying to position themselves so that they can continue to run things after they've written off whatever area(s) are affected after the fact, rather than dealing with such things as damage control and relief efforts immediately after the terrorist event itself.

      I could be wrong, of course. I'm just judging by how the Federal government and agencies have acted in recent memory.

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    11. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      "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.)?"

      It's only natural, since they are the ones seriously pissing other nations off.

    12. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      As others have said, the Government needs to protect itself first, so that it can still be there to help others later. The reason that this looks so strange is what the Government had done to deplete our ability to fend for ourselves while the Government is taking care of itself.

      Part of the point of the second amendment:

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      or perhaps the rationale, is that the Government can't be everywhere at once. The most obvious expectation that they should be is due to their attack on our ability to protect ourselves. The main reason I can see for this attack is that being able to protect ourselves means we have the capacity to attack the government, whether for the purposes of protecting ourselves or not. And it's the "or not" that the Government uses as what I see as the main rationale for destroying our ability to defend ourselves.

    13. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we are, discussing death by nuclear holocaust and you find the word ass obscene?

    14. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by antime · · Score: 1

      Relax, patent and trademark officials take shelter in "Ark B".

    15. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      *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.

      If you see the flash of a nuclear explosion, and if you're not already dead, then it probably means that you and the building you're in will be hit with a powerful shock wave in a few seconds.

      So yes, getting under a desk is an extremely good idea. Just getting down on the floor or ground is a good move. If you are standing up, you will be thrown around a lot more.

      The very worst thing is to think: Gee whiz, what the hell was that, stand up, and walk over to the window to look outside. Unfortunately, it's also the natural human reaction. If you read the accounts of Hiroshima survivors, it's clear that, because of this natural reaction, there was a lot of death and injury in the zone where you get a few seconds warning.

      The other things to know are to leave the city, since the part which is not flattened will be burning down for a while, and to avoid fallout -- especially eating or drinking anything contaminated by fallout.

      Obviously you're going to have very many people killed in any nuclear attack on a population center. But if you have advice that could save five or ten percent of those people, it would be very wrong not to give it out. It's much the same as training for earthquakes, tornadoes, or fires.

    16. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by bobamu · · Score: 1

      aside from bigger particles

    17. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      A slit trench is excellent protection from the immediate effects of a nuclear blast. The next problem is avoiding the fallout footprint. You don't want to be downwind from the point of detonation.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    18. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, 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 ?


      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 =)

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      Drinks can be purchased from the flight attendants for near-robbery prices?

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    20. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      No, the part about oxygen masks.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    21. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      Reminds of the Southpark episode "Volcano" where they watch an instructional video on what to do if a volcano errupts. The video is meant to look circa 1950's. The advice given? Duck and cover. It's pretty hillarious that the lava flow goes right over some people who put a picnic blanket over themselves. Then, when it happened in real life to see the white bones of the victims rise from the steaming river of lava when they thought it would save them.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    22. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Relax, patent and trademark officials take shelter in "Ark B".

      Is FEMA in there too?

    23. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by mcheu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the terrorists aren't using Nuclear Weapons. Until Iran goes online, they don't have access to the materials, so they'll be using Biological and Chemical weapons. Do the public health hand washing campaign PSAs count as the modern equivalent?

    24. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should look at the films from japan again and also from a the various tests done in nevada/pacific. Duck and cover provides very good protection from nuclear bombs. Go ahead and laugh. Ok so if one goes off very close to you, you probably won't survive but keep in mind having a ton of debri flying toward your face from the shock wave while doing nothing is no way to survive either.

    25. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about hordes of people who constitute 'the people' in the declaration of independence ?

      'The people' elected and re-elected George Bush. You'll get what you deserve.

    26. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


        The very worst thing is to think: Gee whiz, what the hell was that, stand up, and walk over to the window to look outside.

      That's what happened to many people in the Halifax Explosion.

    27. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the next problem is avoiding the survivors, who are going to have re-evaluated what "civilized behavior" consists of...

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    28. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by bit01 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      A slit trench is excellent protection from the immediate effects of a nuclear blast.

      Even at ground zero?

      ---

      Keep your options open!

    29. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Let me attempt an adequate translation of an old Russian (Soviet, even) joke:

      Recruit: A question, sir? What should I do in the event of a close-proximity nuclear blast, sir?
      Sergeant: You hold the rifle in front of you, stretching hands out as far as possible, so that melting metal does not spoil the boots - they are state property, don't you forget that!

    30. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      I tell you...They knew how to engineer a school desk in the 1950's. Today's models could never stand up to a nuclear weapon detonation, nosiree.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    31. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      You make that sound like we had a better choice...

      I am no big fan of Bush, never have been. But the alternative was even scarier IMHO. With around 300+10e6 people in this country you'd think we could get some decent candidates.

      I remember reading a Larry Niven novel years ago from his "known Space" series. In the asteroid belt, the "Belters" considered anyone who wanted to be in control of the government possessed of a severe character flaw. So, they had intelligence and pyschological profiles done for all their citizens and actually appointed a proper person to act in charge for a limited duration. I know this is unworkable in the real world but I am always deeply suspicious about "anyone" who wants to be president.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    32. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Detritus · · Score: 1
      Even at ground zero?

      No, but it dramatically reduces the "kill radius" of the weapon. For a 15 kt blast, from 2.1 km to 684 m. It provides protection from thermal radiation, ionizing radiation, flying debris and structural failure of buildings.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    33. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by murdocj · · Score: 1
      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      Emphasis on the "well-regulated" portion... the last thing I want in a disaster situation is a bunch of heavily armed random folks running around deciding what they are going to help themselves to.

    34. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by bit01 · · Score: 1

      Thanks but it was just a (bad?) joke. I have this vision of a grunt crouching in the slit trench, looking up and saying "Oh sh...".

      ---

      New game: Spot the lying astroturfer on /.!

    35. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      How about the level of oxygen so close to ground zero? Won't most air be gone for long enough to get you killed anyway?

    36. Re:Where are the bunkers to protect Citizens ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the Zaphod Beeblebrox paradox I believe. Anyone who wants to rule
      over their fellows should on no account be allowed to do so.

  3. Scheduled Revolutions by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"

    Would that be the November 7, 2006 Congressional elections? Or the November 4, 2008 elections, showing exceptionally long-range planning?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because as we all know the 2000 and 2004 elections lead to.... ... less intrusive government ... enforcemnent of the bills of rights ... a balanced budget ... seperation of church and state ... more fair tax assessments for the suffering rich ... a golden age in stem cell and evolutionary science ... better foreign relations ... security for Americans caught in natural disasters ... protections of the human rights of prisoners of war ... action to protect the environment we live in

      Yupper great steps forward.

        Heck even the Libetarians would be worth a shot if it wasn't for the fact William Crystol works for Murdock. This is the problem that occurs when successful businessmen also try to pretend they are philosophers. They really are clueless about the subject matter beyond cherry picking a few facts to suit their greedy needs.

          The term "greed" exist for a reason you know.

    2. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by archangel85j · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aid: "Mr. President, please come out of the bunker."
      Former president Bush: "But I don wanna..."

    3. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Heck even the Libetarians would be worth a shot if it wasn't for the fact William Crystol works for Murdock.

      http://www.ateamshrine.co.uk/murdock.php

      He's Crystol's boss? I'd vote Libertarian on that basis alone.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    4. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'd vote Libertarian on that basis alone."

            I see. So I take you prefer MAN enslaved by man.

          Personally I'm not one of the oh-communism-collapsed-so-lets-jump-on-the-extreme -rightwing-bandwagen kind of people. More of a pragmatist actually. We got here with mixed economies and let's stick with them for now instead of spreading the gospel that laissez-faire absolutely 100% works. It's last showing ended pretty poorly and lead to its antithesis communism which plagued the world for 50 years. (I imagine the dark ages probably started because of something along these lines)

          If the people saying this stuff were reasonable about it... and stated it as a theory (instead of cherry picking economic facts).... I probably would take them more seriously. In the end though they just appear like greedy crackpots that will say anything to have their way. Really nothing new about their ideas or methods. Greed and the survival-of-the-fittest social mentallity is not a new debate... ask Aryans.

          I don't want to come across that I disagree with everything Libetarian though. In fact classical Libetarians and I have much in common. Neo-libetarians like Murdock are much more violent and unreasonable though. Rand is a good thing--in small doses and with an eye to other voices.

            I think that government is indeed too big and corrupt. We just differ on what I would trim and who are the one's that have allowed themselves to become monsters. If these guys had real power over the people-- hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in nuclear chimneys by now.

          Are these the values you were brought up with?

    5. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing either you (a) didn't click the link; (b) are too young to remember the A-Team; or (c) genuinely consider a link to a shrine site for a character from a tacky 80's action show to be a serious political statement.

      You're funnier trying to be serious than I am trying to be funny; I surrender!

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    6. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're funnier trying to be serious than I am trying to be funny; I surrender!"

          Irony is often difficult to translate online. Sorry I didn't get the joke. However in my defense good comedy doesn't need me to be very smart. Work on your humour Mr.Chappelle.

          Glad I was good for a laugh although it's a fairly common practice today for some writers/pundits to use humour/ridicule to disarm people (usually aimed at clueless kids)-- to assist in sneaking in their own philosophical opinions under guise of a harmless giggle. Usually these people aren't "bystanders" taking a break and most often they typically have a strong slant left or right. Being "serious" at times is really only a respect, honesty and maturity around others--without trying to always manipulate them with emotions.

          You're absolutely correct that I'm pretty serious about certain issues. I sometimes have a laugh about them but I don't imagine people that really care about "whatever" spend much time ridiculing their pet issues. (ie. I'm pretty sure US soldiers in the field don't laugh at many latenight jokes as they are emptying their m-16s-- because of light hearted political debates that got them there.

          I'm not trying to discourage you from using humour around politics. Use whatever allows you to cope with the issues of life---but don't be surprised when someone starts disassembling you when you try to do the same. For what it's worth, "lighten up" is just more words by someone trying to get you to do what THEY WANT during a debate. By allowing an adversary to turn everything into a joke... basically it allows them to undermine ones own arguments (probably why politicians are usually a humourless bunch).

      btw- I WAS AROUND FOR THE A-TEAM. Great show but was always pissed about no blood after 5 zillion rounds and 40
      Megatons of TNT jerryrigged from a combination of ammonianitrate and spam.

    7. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Irony is often difficult to translate online.

      I know, that's why I used absurdism instead. I find it mind-boggling that anyone could possibly take a link to a "Howling Mad" Murdock site seriously.

      However in my defense good comedy doesn't need me to be very smart.

      Only smart enough to click a link. Or just smart enough to read the URL, for that matter; "www.ateamshrine.co.uk/murdock.php" in easily visible green letters should have been clue enough, surely. Besides, even if you weren't expecting humour you still obviously didn't bother check the relevance of the link to what I wrote, so feeble comedy is really no excuse: having a rant was clearly far more important to you than clarifying my intended meaning. That's your choice, but don't expect to be taken seriously for it.

      ...it's a fairly common practice today for some writers/pundits to use humour/ridicule to disarm people (usually aimed at clueless kids)-- to assist in sneaking in their own philosophical opinions under guise of a harmless giggle.

      Of course. Saying I'd vote for a person because they work for an insane fictional character (instead of the "Murdock" you meant, whichever one that is) is hardly a compliment.

      But you're right, and the reason humour is aimed at "clueless kids" is because they don't have the necessary skills to cope with it rationally, so they end up ranting in response and looking silly. And ranting more when its pointed out how silly they look. Part of growing up is learning to accept our mistakes and not hide behind vapid generalisations disguised as excuses; its how we learn to avoid those same mistakes later.

      Usually these people aren't "bystanders" taking a break and most often they typically have a strong slant left or right.

      What bias would you have detected if you'd clicked the link? I really don't care about what happens "usually"; responding to what's written is the only mark of respect I recognise, whether serious or in jest. Which brings us to:

      Being "serious" at times is really only a respect, honesty and maturity around others--without trying to always manipulate them with emotions.

      While making wild assumptions about my political leanings based on a single sentence taken out of context is respect, honesty and maturity?

      I sometimes have a laugh about them but I don't imagine people that really care about "whatever" spend much time ridiculing their pet issues.

      Not everyone in the world is utterly humourless about the things that matter to them; in fact, people that are usually earn the label "zealot". But a question, and think hard (for your own benefit, not mine): how many people have you managed to convert to your way of thinking with this approach, or do eyes glaze over when you start talking politics?

      I'm pretty sure US soldiers in the field don't laugh at many latenight jokes as they are emptying their m-16s

      Kettle says: who's manipulating emotions now, Mr Pot? BTW, leaping to an unrelated but emotionally charged issue is a classic propaganda technique, made famous by Godwin's favourites.

      because of light hearted political debates that got them there.

      Odd, I seem to recall most debates over military deployment being rather heated. If you're going to use an issue like this as an example, at least try not to make it look like you're twisting the facts to suit yourself. Honesty evaporated pretty quickly in favour of hyperbole, I see.

      I'm not trying to discourage you from using humour around politics.

      You wouldn't succeed anyway. I've personally dealt with far too many politicians for that to happen.

      Use whatever allows you to cope with the issues of life

      That, in my experience, is the catch phrase of anyone who regularly misses jokes but still believes they have an intimate understanding of psychology. Vapid generalisations aside (see, insulting isn't it?), not being from t

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re:Scheduled Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ----
      "You decided I was an adversary on the basis of one sentence taken out of context"
      ----

          I read the your post. You spent some time writing and seemed pretty passionate so I thought I'd be decent enough to respond. I'm not sure if I'm hearing hostility back or just a rebuttle but you do seem upset. We often have a different pereption of written words and tone of voice.

      http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.htm l?tw=rss.index
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism

      ----
      don't make myself a target by misunderstanding my opponent's comments and launching into needless diatribe
      ----

          You just seemed to-- although I believe one man's diatribe is often just another's wisdom.

      ----
      "I find it mind-boggling that anyone could possibly take a link to a "Howling Mad" Murdock site seriously."
      ----

          I find it amazing that some adults haven't learned that other people don't always get their motivations or use of language from a quick remark. This is why it's called DEBATE and this why Slashdot is called a FORUM.

            As for my lack of humor, I still manage to laugh at Chappelle jokes so apparently he's doing something you aren't. (Don't feel bad or get so defensive--I'm not claiming to be a talented comedian either:)

          Just continuing on the theme.... laughter to me is basically like food or taking a sh~t. I don't force feed food to myself because I view it as unhealthy to my body. If I'm hungry I eat. Similarly I view gorging on "laugher" as an unhealthy practice for our minds. It fills some emotional need I have at the moment and that's it. Humans are many emotions and we should cherish all of them--not try and force the issue.

          There is this popular myth that if we aren't laughing like jackels we are therefore unhappy. I can assure you that's media bullshit that's probably largely to blame for millions of Americans addictions to SSRIs and illicit drugs. From my perspective it seems obvious that too many people use laugher as a both a weapon and a crutch. (Not saying this is you... just a general comment) There is way too much philosophy in the concept of giggling-- which is essentially a physical health issue approximating the aforementioned crap.

      ----
      "including speculative views attributed to me that you then proceeded to argue against."
      ----

      True that. This why it's up to you to clarify those things with a rebuttle instead of going postal on me. My comments were not intended as putdowns (other than I didn't get your joke part). Obviously I know nothing about you.

      Mind you I now know you have lots of pride. :)

      -----
      we need civilized leaders rather than jungle dwellers
      -----

      And who defines them? You? Them? Are the rest supposed to just shut up and play the inferior role? (not saying this is your opinion...just asking)

  4. Credibility gap by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When the emergency preparedness procedures are woefully inadequate in cases where the responsible agencies are operating from their regular offices, why should I believe they would be effective when staff are trying to react in a situation of real chaos.

    1. Re:Credibility gap by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When the emergency preparedness procedures are woefully inadequate in cases where the responsible agencies are operating from their regular offices, why should I believe they would be effective when staff are trying to react in a situation of real chaos.

      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

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Credibility gap by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good point, maybe they should like have a practice run or something.


      Oh wait...

    3. Re:Credibility gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, plus it is five years later. It took them five years to come up with this plan. Talk about inefficient government. (Unless the Washington Post is recycling old news -- I don't click thru to them on principle.)

    4. Re:Credibility gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, consider the likelyhood that the Bush incarnations of the EPA and OSHA examined the sites and proclaimed them free of methane, carbon monoxide and other common mine gasses?

      Perhaps incompetent government *will* be proven to be self correcting.

    5. Re:Credibility gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, can someone from the States express a little persprective about 9/11 for once? A heinous crime though it was there's a line of countries stretching around the block who'ld willing trade in a second what America underwent on 9/11 for what America dealt them across the 20th Century. And the howls of indignation coupled with a military response smacking of insanity, FFS what happened to the America I knew as a child? You've become morose, self-pitying, self-absorbed and spoiled children with guns. Really big guns.

    6. Re:Credibility gap by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      It is frankly amazing to me that you seem to be typing these things with a straight face - have you not "gotten it" yet? The Dubya Regime are the terrorists. Why the hell would the citizens need the Regime to continue to operate after the Regime has staged the Bigger, Better Reichstag Fire? You know, the one that will happen between Nov 2006 and Nov 2008 - the one that will necessitate martial law and the suspension of federal elections until after the end of the War on Terror (which Dubya tells use "will not come within our lifetimes")?

      Find their freaking holes in the ground and treat the fukkers like fire ants, I say: fill 'em up with hot grits soaked in kerosene - one thing for sure, we don't want those fukkers breeding and coming back out to start it all over again...

      I'm not too worried about the breeding part [aside the great humour that can be conjoured around the subject], but if the federal regime survives - not that will be a problem - at least if they didn't we could e.g. have an election and get the country up and running again (assuming survivors above ground, of course, which appreantly the Regime does, since they seem to think there will be somehting left ot govern).

      Get it, Kjalla - the current regime in Washington are not a legitimate government. In fact, there is a deal of question whether or not they are even US citizens. The regime is the problem, not the solution to any.

      What you're say might apply to a legitimate government that had some interest in preservation of American ideals or a [free] American population, but these guys? Uh-uh. They're just looking to live out their little right-wing fundie fanstasies of The Book of Revelation [Christian Bible - New Testament] - complete with Armaggeddon. I'd bet money they've got it figured right down to the "144,000" who are to be "saved"...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    7. Re:Credibility gap by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1
      "You know, the one that will happen between Nov 2006 and Nov 2008 - the one that will necessitate martial law and the suspension of federal elections..."

      Unfortunately, this is scarily plausible. I cannot imagine the neo-cons giving up power willingly. They know they are in for a beating, perhaps an impeachment. They will do what they must do to maintain control. Afterall, they couldn't care less for inconviences like the Constitution and Civil Rights, and now they have the Supremes to give the kiss of legitimacy to their 'ends justify the means' mentality.

      Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
  5. 7 Emergency 911 calls were interrupted to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...bring you this Wireless Priority Service message.

    The showgirls will arrive on 06/18/2006 at 16:30 hours and they'll be sooo lonely....

  6. M:F Ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a male:female ratio of 1:10 of course!

    1. Re:M:F Ratio by paraleet · · Score: 1
      Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
      --
      LEARNING, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious. A. Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
  7. Great, just great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What happened last time everyone went for training exercises? If you've watched loose change, you know. And since bush's ratings are in the toilet I suspect it'll happen again.

  8. To the evacuees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring along a few spare water chips, okay?

  9. Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by TibbonZero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is the men to women ratio favourable in Dr Strangelove's eyes? I mean, of course every many would have to perform his 'duty to his country' often with many women to repopulate the earth, but I think they can all suck it up and deal with it.
     

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think another question raised by Dr. Strangelove is, what are the Russians doing about it? Do they have their own exercises planned for continuity of government, or will they allow a mine-shaft gap?

    2. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by Poppler · · Score: 1

      I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

      --
      What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
    3. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by FidelCatsro · · Score: 0

      Well , let us hope there is an 100% male population down there . So when situational sexuality kicks in , The politicians will get a taste of what they have been doing tot he world for years ;)

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Actually, if your goal is to repopulate, and you only have room for, say, a thousand people, then it would make sense to have as many of them as possible who can produce offspring, at least in the first generation or so.

      OTOH, studies of teenagers in arts high schools have shown that any concentration of people with a f:m ratio of anything over 3:1 results in a high degree of homosexuality, counteracting any strategic advantage of a high female population.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Interesting. If you can provide a link or more information on those studies I'd be interested to read it.

    6. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      studies of teenagers in arts high schools have shown that any concentration of people with a f:m ratio of anything over 3:1 results in a high degree of homosexuality
      Gee, choosing that population couldn't have introduced any selection bias to the study, could it?

      In the absence of a reference, I call bullshit.
    7. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      If you can provide a link or more information on those studies I'd be interested to read it.

      I just bet you would! :)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    8. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I was half expecting a response like that. Damn you! :)

    9. Re:Men/Women Ratio? Dr. Strangelove wants to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more curious on which side of that ratio lands Condoleeza. =D

  10. Bright!!! Save the people who are responsible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for the mess to begin with.

    Mmmmm... maybe be sure to save the Telephone Sanitizers this time around.

  11. Tinfoil hat time! by ruiner13 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What if there is an asteroid about to hir Earth and the governement knows this and planned a "drill" to evacuate people underground that really isn't a drill. It would save people not on the list from trying to get there :)

    Ok, conspiracy theory over!

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

    1. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by DannyO152 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Three thoughts. Glad I'm taking vacation this week. I'll be sure to see Cars on Friday. And, I for one, posthumously welcome our underground bureaucratic overlords.

    2. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

      It's only a conspiracy theory if they wouldn't actually do it. Since I trust that our government really would do something like that, your suggestion is merely 'letting the cat out of the bag' :-/

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    3. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by czarangelus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I thought the exact same thing... I wonder if there's a big terrorist attack coming. I never used to be this paranoid... *sigh*

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    4. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one, posthumously welcome our underground bureaucratic overlords.

      Wouldn't that be underlords?

    5. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      A couple problems with that scenario.

      If there was an asteroid about to hit earth, hiding a few hundreds yards beneath the surface isn't going to do much for you, as an appropriately sized asteroid is going to turn the surface of the earth into a giant molten mess. You would have to be down pretty far, hope the asteroid didn't hit where you were, hope you could drill your way out afterwards, and have plenty of food.

      If the asteroid was sufficiently small, you are going to be killed by the population when you come out anyway.

      That said, it would come as no surprise to me if they were expecting _something_, just probably not an asteroid. But then, I'd expect them to bring their families with them if they were really expecting something.

    6. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      if a meteor hit the earth causing catastrophic damage where most life died, i wont want to be protected in a bunker only to come out and see a dead planet, what then? slowly starve to death because the environment is ruined, or die quickly from a poisoned atmosphere? living in a sterile bubble wont be a life it would be a prison sentence

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by ruiner13 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "But then, I'd expect them to bring their families with them if they were really expecting something."

      Really? I wouldn't put it past any US politician to eat their own young if it would further their political career.

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    8. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Gondola · · Score: 1

      Rats. I hate when I read through all the replies only to find the gist of what I was going to post has already been done!

      Anyway, my theory is that it's an as-yet unannounced meteor that will devastate the world with tsunami and such.

    9. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking too. Wouldn't that be an ODD coincidence, eh? And who'd be around to pummel them if it were too.

    10. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's precisely why they would want to bring their family along ...

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    11. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Funny

      What if there is an asteroid about to hir Earth and the governement knows this and planned a "drill" to evacuate people underground that really isn't a drill. It would save people not on the list from trying to get there :)

      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

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    12. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Three thoughts. Glad I'm taking vacation this week. I'll be sure to see Cars on Friday. And, I for one, posthumously welcome our underground bureaucratic overlords.

      Posthumously?

      Wow, you really do need a vacation.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    13. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      slowly starve to death because the environment is ruined, or die quickly from a poisoned atmosphere?

      Or have a nuclear powered greenhouse to keep plantlife alive over worst of it, to be used for both food and restoring the ecosystems. There are plants quite capable of living off the bare bedrock - moss, for example - so even if all the topsoil was burnt away, you could still begin anew.

      living in a sterile bubble wont be a life it would be a prison sentence

      Personally, I'd rather go to prison than gallows.

      Besides, you are living in a small life-supporting area (Earth) surrounded by hostile environment (space) right now.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Ok, conspiracy theory over!

      Is it really conspiracy if it's public knowledge ?

      Coming to think of it, is it even possible for the US government to do something so evil that no one would have believed them capable of that ? Considering their reputation, earned or not, and the level of hatred and distrust several posters on this very site seem to have against them, I'm hard pressed to think of any such thing.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, if a full scale nuclear attack were launched or some other disaster was about hit the US, do you honestly think for one second this government would tell everyone?

      Ken ah git a big "Hell NO!"?

      Doing so would create a mass panic, which would hinder "those that need to be saved" from getting saved. As several have pointed out, most of these would be rich and powerful (people with connections).

      In reality, if a big disaster were about to hit, the evacuations would happen with a whisper.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    16. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, we're about to make our annual trip through the beta Taurid cometary fragment stream (June 26 - July 6). If you WERE about to take a major impact, moving to your bunkers about 10 days beforehand would make a lot of sense.

    17. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by boarsai · · Score: 1

      Underlords not overlords. If you are going to take the time to comment, please get it right. ;)

    18. Re:Tinfoil hat time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the date tommorrow will be 6/6/6 so maybe some religious whackos are indeed doing this just in case.

  12. Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service by Lew+Payne · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...to ensure that 'essential' government functions continue undisrupted in an emergency."

    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?

    1. Re:Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service by QCompson · · Score: 3

      No, no. They're going to make sure that any survivors left after a nuclear attack are not trading copyrighted music or movies. Catastrophic attack or not, sharing files is wrong, and people must be punished!

    2. Re:Continuation of Coffee Breaks and Rude Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... someone modded the above "troll" ?

      Completely unrelated point, so I'm posting anonymously. The moderation on slashdot is getting really awful.

      Troll does not = "He's mocking something, and I don't find it that funny".
      Flamebait does not = "I disagree".

      People should be forced to moderate a selection of prefab comments before they are set loose with mod points. Moderation exists so that we don't have to see flamewars and freeipod links, not so that someone can make judgements as to the worth of a valid comment with relation to their own personal opinion.

  13. A Waste of Time by thecitruskid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The leadership of this country has a wildly overblown sense of self-importance. Even if we were to lose every politician in Washington, we have the largest prison population in the world, a vast pool from which to build a new government.

    1. Re:A Waste of Time by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we have the largest prison warden population in the world, a vast pool from which to build a new government

      Fixed that for you

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:A Waste of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're a slightly more moral pool of people, too. It's a win-win situation!

  14. Not so secret after all by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology

    So, posting it on slashdot counts as secrecy nowadays.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  15. text messages by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Funny
    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

    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..."

    1. Re:text messages by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Nice one... Wish I had some mod points for a +1 funny.

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    2. Re:text messages by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Funny

      BIN-L: WAZZUP!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:text messages by Dorsai65 · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that have been:

      BIN-L: GOTCHA! UR BAS BLONG 2 US!

      or something along those lines?

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
  16. oh come on... by mangus_angus · · Score: 1

    "a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001,"

    a drill my ass! They go off in their little holes and the next thing we know we have Goa'uld mother ships over new your or something....

    1. Re:oh come on... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      They go off in their little holes and the next thing we know we have Goa'uld mother ships over new your or something....

      Yes, but seriously: would Goa'uld's actually make worse rulers ? Especially if they'd bring Holodeck technology with them ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  17. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they think we would want the government to "continue" and/or "to be safe"? When an entity develops a survival instinct, that is the true test as to whether or not it has evolved artificial intelligence. (cf. Hal in 2001)

  18. I can still see a need... by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the Wa Post columnist - it should be noted that this is an opinion piece, not an article - is obviously not too fond of the idea, I'd say it still has at least some merit.

    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?)

    1. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How far the future are you looking where "Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington" be possible? I mean, they'd have to develop a nuclear weapon, a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device), weaponising their little pop-gun fission device so their long range delivery system can carry the thing (Very hard) and then be Bat Shit Crazy enough to use it, hoping that the US don't simply shoot it out of the sky before it gets to them. Then they'd be turned into the world biggest sheet of glass.

      I mean, I'm all for sensationalist propoganda and fear based war-mongering, but that's some pretty futuristic fture you've got there.

    2. Re:I can still see a need... by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How far the future are you looking where "Should Iran wake up one day and decide to nuke Washington" be possible?

      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. Go knock yourself out.

    3. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device)

      A truck is a long range delivery system. I'm not saying that smuggling a fission device into the states would be trivial, but it wouldn't be the hardest thing ever accomplished either. Once in you just need to drive it to its destination. You shuouldn't need to be nearby to detonate but if you do then suicide bombers are hardly new.

    4. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a long-range delivery system (Arguably harder than making a small fission device)
      A fancy one is expensive. A boat plus a truck is not.
    5. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're suggesting that Iran might one day nuke Washington, which implies that you don't think Iran developing nuclear weapons is such a great idea, while you still protect the idea that the US is entiteled to it's nukes because they need them to protect themselves and completely waste anybody who tries to attack them. This could maybe be justified if Iran was accustom to attacking other nations, but as for the moment it's the US that's invading other countries close to Iran. So if you use your explanation and turn it around, Iran would certainly need to develop nukes as soon as possible in case the US invades Iran as well and then they would, using your words: "would not need to focus simply on making sure the attacker is completely wiped out".

      I'm not saying that Iran should develop nukes, but you're saying that any country that's attacked is well within their authority to completely destroy the other side, which means that the moment the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq either of these countries would be well within their rights to completely waste the entire US.

    6. Re:I can still see a need... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      "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"

      Not to say that I agree or disagree with what you're saying, but don't cockroaches have very high radiation resistance?

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    7. Re:I can still see a need... by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Iraq, they have loads of nukes and chemical weapons - Colin Powell showed me (and the UN) the pictures! And they can attack us in 45 minutes (Tony blair let me in on that information) - yes even though they have been knocked back into the stone age by sanctions and Desert Storm they are still a GREAT THREAT!!!!11

      Oh sorry its Iran that you right wing morons are banging on about this time isn't it, my mistake.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    8. Re:I can still see a need... by Zigurd · · Score: 1

      As you conveniently point out, Iran could lob a missile into Europe. The vast majority of European countries only protect their head of state with an armored limosine and a few guards. In most countries, legislators, provincial governors, and bureaucrats commute to work like you and me. Will our bunkered bureaucrats save us from chaos that hangs over Europe, or do these European countries just have a better sense of proportion?

    9. Re:I can still see a need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's pretty optimistic.

      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.

    10. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news...

      Or perhaps he has, but he's been keeping up with actual news and not the pitiful right-wing parody that passes for news in America, the purpose of which seems to be to be to whip people up into a frenzy when the government wants to invade somewhere and distract them with missing rich white girls when the government is getting the blame for something.

    11. Re:I can still see a need... by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      Again, perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news...

      Muahahahaa, hey guy, you really just made my day. You mean your lie-infested, one-sided, governmental news? Dude, you should really start once to read normal high-brow newspapers, instead of that sensationalist boulevard shit, only caring about high print run.

      Or better yet, buy some European newspapers, we got a quite more balanced view of the world (which btw. does not only consist of the US, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Iran!).

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    12. Re:I can still see a need... by delong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or better yet, buy some European newspapers, we got a quite more balanced view of the world (which btw. does not only consist of the US, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Iran!)

      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.

    13. Re:I can still see a need... by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that smuggling a fission device into the states would be trivial, but it wouldn't be the hardest thing ever accomplished either. Once in you just need to drive it to its destination. You shuouldn't need to be nearby to detonate but if you do then suicide bombers are hardly new.

      The non suicide option requires the driver to park the truck and get away. The suicide option simply requires the driver to get the truck as close as possible to the target.
      The former has far more risks of discovery than the latter.

    14. Re:I can still see a need... by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      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.
      Interesting. Do you actually live in Europe, or are you at least reading some of our newspapers? If not, you're totally uninformed, or you got this opinion by reading one of YOUR newspapers. Anyway, as a European citizen, I can't approve your statement, and rest assured, others won't too.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    15. Re:I can still see a need... by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that underground phone network from the 60s. The name eludes me, but "flash override" (highest priority calls) has something to do with it. Learned about it when I was learning about the technicolor rainbow boxes.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    16. Re:I can still see a need... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      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.

      So tell me: if the attacker loads his nuke into a cargo ship - simply by putting it to a standard shipping container, those things are big - and has that cargo ship make a tour in the worlds harbors, and finally blows it up in Washington's or New York's harbor, how is the US going to even know who did it ?

      No, it isn't at all given that someone who attacks the US gets wiped out. You simply have to hide either your identity or location.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:I can still see a need... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      On a daily basis, I generally read:

      New York Times
      Washington Post
      Le Monde (France)
      Liberation (France)
      Le Figaro (France)
      Clarin (Argentina)
      El Universal (Venezuela)

      Yes, I speak/read/write Spanish and French, not to mention a little Arabic (presently working on it).

      I'm sorry, you were saying?

    18. Re:I can still see a need... by delong · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Do you actually live in Europe, or are you at least reading some of our newspapers? If not, you're totally uninformed, or you got this opinion by reading one of YOUR newspapers. Anyway, as a European citizen, I can't approve your statement, and rest assured, others won't too.

      Does Le Monde, the Nation, the Telegraph, or Der Spiegel, amongst others, count? If you think that Americans can't/won't/don't access European journalism, you have fallen for the "American ignoramus" tripe. Your papers are as available to us as they are to you, my friend.

      If you think that Le Monde, Le Figaro, or the Nation do not have an open political bias, you are not reading closely. Since you imply that you are European, you obviously know that some papers are "the Establishment" papers, some are the "Communist" papers, some "the Liberal" papers, etc.

    19. Re:I can still see a need... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      The size of their first accomplishment really depends on who they buy the tech from. If they were starting from scratch I'd totally agree with you. However, if you add a dash of Soviet, Chinese, Pakistani or some other such technology and engineering, the result might suddenly be a lot closer to an ICBM with MIRV capability

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    20. Re:I can still see a need... by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      Does Le Monde, the Nation, the Telegraph, or Der Spiegel, amongst others, count?
      Le Monde is ok, I don't read the Nation, but I wouldn't exactly call Spiegel a high-brow newspaper.

      You might be interested in Die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine, or Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

      If you think that Le Monde, Le Figaro, or the Nation do not have an open political bias, you are not reading closely. Since you imply that you are European, you obviously know that some papers are "the Establishment" papers, some are the "Communist" papers, some "the Liberal" papers, etc.
      Well, of course there are newspapers which are explicitely representing certain positions or even political parties. But you must also notice that there are newspapers, although they carry opinion pieces (which are explicitely marked as such though), try to be as neutral as possible. NZZ and Die Zeit are two of those.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    21. Re:I can still see a need... by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      As I've said elsewhere, you might be interested in Die Zeit or NZZ then.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    22. Re:I can still see a need... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You mean your lie-infested, one-sided, governmental news?

      Can you please site some news stories that point out that Iran is headed by completely level-headed folks? Can you link to the "Iran isn't trying to create nuclear weapons" news stories?

      Seriously. Link to one. Even a completely silly, obviously made-up one. Anywhere. in any newspaper worldwide.

    23. Re:I can still see a need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      All of which they're going to buy, develop, test and deploy in the next ten years, without being seen doing it? Nuclear and ICBM tests in particular are pretty conspicuous.

      China, Pakistan and India don't have ICBMs with enough range. There is some concern that it might be possible to steal some nuclear material or even a working bomb from Russia but I really doubt they're going to sell anybody a working ICBM and teach them how to install, maintain and fire it. You're not talking about something you can load in a truck anymore.

    24. Re:I can still see a need... by inKubus · · Score: 1

      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.

      An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.

      --Ghandi

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    25. Re:I can still see a need... by delong · · Score: 1

      Well, of course there are newspapers which are explicitely representing certain positions or even political parties

      And they are mainstream publications. There is no such phenomenon here in the States released as a daily periodical. We don't have such a cozy relationship between State and media. You cannot find a newspaper in the States that is an open, avowed mouthpiece of the State. As a matter of fact, though the allusion is silly, the American media considers itself a self-appointed "Fifth Estate" whose job is to keep government honest. After the 60's and 70's, and most especially after the Washington Post destroyed a Presidency, they are even over-zealous in their self-appointed duties in my opinion. They believe their own arrogance.

      Hardly the "lie-infested, one-sided, governmental news". Lie-infested yes. One-sided, yes. As long as it is sensational, as long as it is a chance for some barely-passed-college-journalist to "speak truth to power", as long as it speaks ill of any Republican - YES.

    26. Re:I can still see a need... by kkoning · · Score: 1

      ChePibe is right on the money.

      WMD proliferation is a huge problem. Let's face it- nuclear weapons weapons were developed over 60 years ago, while a successful nuclear program does require substantial resources, enough information on nuclear weapons design has entered the public domain that many Slashdotters could figure out the basics in under an hour of online research. The more nations the acquire the technology, the more likely it is to be used. Not only will they fall into the hands of less and less rational governments (Read: Iran), but smaller nations, with perhaps less developed command and control systems, more opportunities for theft/loss, and perhaps most importantly, the possibility of covert delpoyment with plausible deniability. All this makes it more and more likely that nuclear weapons will be used, and you'd have to be an idiot to think that DC wouldn't be on the top of the target list for some phychotic asshole trying to start WW3.

      There are a lot of highly rated comments about how government officials are selfish for planning for this for themselves and leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves. Well, not only are they the primary targets of such an attack, but also you would much rather have the keep functioning should (God forbid) this ever happen than to evacuate, for example, me- a private citizen whom you know virtually nothing about and would be in no position to help in recovering from such a terrible disaster. Yeah, it sucks- but that doesn't make it any less true. If you're looking at the big picture, it's the more compassionate and more rational thing to do.

      Another thing is that this is exactly why the invasion of Iraq was such a stupid, brain-dead, bone-headed move. Bush likes to talk about "political capital"- he blew ours (the US's) when he launched a preemptive war when there turned out to be nothing to preempt. Now Iran has built uranium enrichment facilities (the biggest hurdle to nuclear weapons development) and we're left with our credibility in tatters and looking impotent (see current situation in Iraq).

    27. Re:I can still see a need... by AfricanImpi · · Score: 1
      That's pretty optimistic.

      Iran might be working on a nuclear weapons capability. Maybe. They don't have it yet.

      At most, they're 10 years away, though it could be something less like 4-5 years. Point is, we don't know. It's pretty certain now, both through the actions of the Iranian government and the accidental release of certain compromising documents, that Iran is actually running a covert nuclear weapons program. The problem we have is that we're not entirely sure of their enrichment capability, especially as the IAEA suspects that Iran has secret uranium enrichment plants in addition to the one discovered at Natanz, so we don't know with any degree of certainty how long it'll take them to enrich the required amount of uranium for a bomb.

      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.

      Nonsense. You're assuming that the Iranians would need to start from scratch, whereas in reality they're able to piggyback on the experience and expertise from existing nuclear programs. They also have access to far more advanced materials and components, which are naturally far smaller and lighter than the stuff they were using in 1945. So it would actually be very easy for the Iranians to create a nuclear weapon light enough to be carried by an ICBM, provided they had the requisite fissile material.

      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.

      Once again, you're assuming that Iran would need to re-invent the wheel. Guidance technology for ICBMs is no longer something unobtainable to all except a select few, especially with the advances in computing power and packaging over the past two decades. Besides, it's common knowledge that Iran's Shahab series of missiles are technologically derived from North Korea's Taepo-Dong ICBMs, and it's known that the Taepo-Dongs are accurate enough for a nuclear strike against a city.

      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.

      Well yes, so what's your point? As I've pointed out, the ICBM threat is actually very real, so it makes sense to conduct these sort of exercises which would be useful in case of an ICBM launch. Besides, at the very least these bunkers will survive such a nuclear strike (even if a set group of leaders do not), and their command and control infrastructure would be valuable to those who take over the roles of the dead.

    28. Re:I can still see a need... by dorkygeek · · Score: 1
      Sure: Atomare Tatsachen, Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons or "Baradei sieht in Iran keine unmittelbare Bedrohung" (sorry, subscribers only).

      You may also do some searches on Google Scholar.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    29. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU! If the peoples ain't afraid, we might have to stop killing sand-niggers.

    30. Re:I can still see a need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm interested to hear it would be easy for Iran to develop an ICBM that could hit Washington from Iran. I'm sure Indian and Pakistan would both be very interested in buying it from them. Not to mention the North Koreans, who you say inspired the Iranian missiles. What an engineering powerhouse Iran must be, to have surpassed their teachers so quickly.

    31. Re:I can still see a need... by DiscoDave_25 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right in that a lot of them don't pretend to be non-partisan.

      They are open and honest about this position...

      Supporting a party/agenda is OK, pretending you don't is when it becomes dangerous (especially if your audience doesn't realise).

    32. Re:I can still see a need... by AfricanImpi · · Score: 1
      Well, North Korea's Taep'o-Dong 2 already has a range of approximately 5000km with a 500kg warhead, which can be extended to approx 9000km with a lighter payload. London is approx 4500km from Tehran, and NYC is 9800km away.

      As we know that Iran's Shahab-4 and Shahab-5 ICBMs are based on a two-stage and three-stage version of the TD-2 respectively, we can safely assume that they share these ranges. Meaning that Iran probably already has the ability to strike London and all of Western Europe.

      In addition to this, Iran has purchased at least 18 BM-25 missiles from North Korea, which are a modernised version of the Russian SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missile. Though the original missiles had a range of 2500km, Jane's Defence Weekly has reported that North Korean scientists have managed to boost that to at least 4000km. Furthermore, the BM-25 could in theory be launched from a converted freighter with launch tubes and blast channels, meaning that even with these Iran has the theoretical capability to launch a nuclear missile against the US.

      In any case, even if they continue to use purely land-based ICBMs like the Shahab range, it would be naive to believe that they would be unable to increase the range to around 10 000km in the next five to ten years. The expertise to build the required rocket types are out there, mostly in the form of Russian scientists who worked on that country's ICBM program, and a fair number of those would be willing to contribute their knowledge for the right price.

      As an example of what can be done, South Africa had a (relatively low-cost) nuclear weapons and ICBM program in the 1980s until both were cancelled in 1991. At the time of cancellation however, SA had completed development of the RSA-4, an ICBM with sufficient range to hit any target on earth with a 700kg warhead. So if South Africa could do it in only 10 years, why can't Iran, considering the help they're getting?

    33. Re:I can still see a need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like a good long breakfast (with some orange juice of course) and a newspaper or two! ;)

    34. Re:I can still see a need... by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      The real problem we have here is that George W. Douchebag attacked the wrong fucking country and now were screwed. We're so tied up in Iraq we can't go after the real problem. Iran. We had Saddam contained. Iran was then, and remains now, the real threat. Luckily for us, Isreal won't sit back and let them build the bomb. It's going to throw the Middle East into turmoil, but if the West can't stop Iran with diplomacy, Isreal will do it with force.

  19. Just politics, folks! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The 2006 mid-term elections?

  20. Bury the devils while we have the chance by tengu1sd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As Leslie Fish points out in The Digwell Carol if we take the chance to bury them now, maybe we can get on with our lives. Anyone else feel like chipping in for a concrete pour to be arranged at the mouth of bunker this week?

  21. Yeah, why wasn't CmdrTaco invited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are their priorities?!?!?!

  22. Hate to rain on the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    but the USA PATRIOT Act forbids discussing this in any form.

    I am at risk myself because I told you this as discussing what the USA PATRIOT Act forbids is also forbidden.

    1. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, you guys encouraging the terrorists and making them question our resolve.

      which means you aren't supporting the troops and thus hate the cause of freedom(tm).

    2. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but we prefer to follow the US PARROT Act.

    3. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Insightful? This is a blatantly untrue, ad hominen attack on the Patriot Act. I find it very likely that the poster has not read and does not know the functions of the Patriot Act, similarly to 90% of the others who oppose it. I don't necessarily support all of it, but if one wants to raise a concern about it should be specified and real.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    4. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's irony.

      Grandparent is not trying to point out a true feature of the Patriot Act. He's poking fun at the aura of secrecy surrounding government action (and maybe at the same time making fun of unqualified criticism of the Patriot Act). Try not to take everything at face value.

    5. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Then it should be moderated "funny", not insightful.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    6. Re:Hate to rain on the party by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Like it is now, you mean?

    7. Re:Hate to rain on the party by pla · · Score: 1

      This is a blatantly untrue, ad hominen attack on the Patriot Act.

      Unless the USAPATRIOT act has somehow taken on a human avatar, you cannot physically make an "ad hominem" attack against it.

      Now you can make ad hominem attacks against its authors - Such as "Don't trust him, he helped write the USAPATRIOT act!" or "Yo mamma so stupid, she voted for the USAPATRIOT act!".

      But you can't attack "against the man", against a document.


      On a more serious note - Please, people, the USAPATRIOT act has so many real flaws - You don't need to make stuff up to properly ridicule it. Additionally - You don't get much further from patriotism than the USAPATRIOT act. So do try to refrain from referring to it by its "common" name, and write it correctly, as a meaningless feel-good acronym.

    8. Re:Hate to rain on the party by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      The Oxford American Dictionary definition of "ad hominem" is:

      (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    9. Re:Hate to rain on the party by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Why not the U SAP AT RIOT act?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    10. Re:Hate to rain on the party by pla · · Score: 1

      The Oxford American Dictionary definition of "ad hominem" is:

      While I don't care to make this a "my dictionary vs your dictionary" discussion, if you want to use a specifially Latin phrase, I think you have to accept its actual translation as the definition. IMO.



      (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.

      You could describe almost half of all nonvalidating argument types under that same definition (with most of the other half as variation on improper syllogisms).

  23. at least the patent system will live on... by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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? -- that the term has become meaningless."

    Just before the blastwave hits, as I put my head between my legs and kiss my ass goodbye, my final thought can be "maybe I'll be dead but at least the patent system will live on..."

    1. Re:at least the patent system will live on... by CptNerd · · Score: 1


      Well, if you patent nuclear holocaust beforehand, you can vaporize knowing that they all owe you royalties...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    2. Re:at least the patent system will live on... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      "maybe I'll be dead but at least the patent system will live on..."
      All they need is one guy with a rubber stamp and a cash register to keep it going - they don't even need to be literate since the test for proir art is long gone.
  24. We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by courtarro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I, for one, feel that my money could be going to much more useful places, like developing alternative fuels to oil or cures for common lethal diseses. Frankly, if these bunkers became necessary, I'd probably be pretty offended that they don't consider me valuable enough to warrant a place in one. I hope they're also reserving space for scientists, physicists, doctors, civil engineers, electrical engineers, computer engineers, etc. etc. However I have a feeling that these bunkers will be filled with politicians who will have no purpose, after arising from nuclear holocaust, but to attempt to get surviving mutant population to vote for more defense programs while they struggle to find food.

    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!

    1. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Wow an American still capable of rational long term thought who hasn't been paralyzed with fear, who'd have thunk it?

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    2. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I, for one, feel that my money could be going to much more useful places, like developing alternative fuels to oil or cures for common lethal diseses.
      Go for it.

      Meanwhile, the constitution requires the government to do a few things (and research into medical or energy technology is not mentioned). The government is working on a way to increase the probability that it can remain capable of doing those things.

    3. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by Bogtha · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Frankly, if these bunkers became necessary, I'd probably be pretty offended that they don't consider me valuable enough to warrant a place in one.

      I'd personally be offended that they don't consider you valuable enough to warrant a place in one. If there's a small-arms nuclear attack against our government centers, I wouldn't want to be without you to keep the government - and thus the economy - going.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    5. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by courtarro · · Score: 1

      I know you're being sarcastic, but think how many people across the country will feel this way. As a poor college student, I know that I'm not currently doing much to keep things running, but as long as we're thinking forward, I'd like to think that I'll be one of those people in the future. My point is that some of the most important people are not the ones who seem to be in charge, and likewise many people currently in charge won't really be that important post-nuclear holocaust.

    6. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only for people who think like them, you know.. pro-life, god fearing christians

    7. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by bpd1069 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo? Corporations run this country now, not people. The Government and politicians only pander to us at election time to perpetuate the illusion of a democracy.

      This keeps us docile and complacent.

      And the sad part is, it has worked.

      --
      --
    8. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by sshir · · Score: 1
      That isn't rational long-term thinking, it's complacency and short-term thinking. Schemes like this are simply insurance policies.

      Both things are insurance policies. And GP post's is more rational long-term than yours. You incorrectly applied home insurance which is rational (fire happens and the home is relatively expensive). Insuring your home against alien invasion on another hand - is not.

      Basically, if you need to use such bunkers on such a scale - you screwed anyway. In a lot of ways, actually.

      Let me put it in other words (to avoid "what, just wait for it?" kind of reply). Probability of such an event is so low, that lots (and LOTS!) of other scenarios (with equal or higher probability of occurring) can come into play in which these bunkers are useless.

      It's just basic "cave man" instinct - it's not rational.

    9. Re:We'll Be Prepared for the Rarest of Events by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      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. Why not? Liberals have been doing exactly that for years.

  25. This Is Insightful??!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has it really come to this? Paranoid conspiracy theory mewlings without a shred of evidence is considered "insightful" here?

    It's really sad that the black-helicopter crowd has so infiltrated slashdot and its moderators. It used to be a decent place to get some real insightful comments once in a while. Now garbage like this is the cream of the crop. Really sad.

    1. Re:This Is Insightful??!!! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      What conspiracy theory? The elections on those days are scheduled by the Constitution. Karl Rove, I know you dropped the "policy advisor" job to concentrate on politics, but really, this Anonymous whining Coward posting gig is beneath you. Why not just outsource it to your swiftboat vendors, like usual?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:This Is Insightful??!!! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the GP wasn't insightful it would be pretty funny...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:This Is Insightful??!!! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          70% Troll
          30% Underrated

      Ah, silly TrollMods, if only I could provoke Karl Rove into a predictable response on Slashdot. He could call me a jihadmunist!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  26. What about the other 5,000,000 or so? by InsurgentGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, my personal observation is that about 98% of Federal employees are dedicated and hardworking. Unfortunately the 2% that are not tend to be a) executives or b) customer-facing. Second, if we can provide essential services with 4,000 people - why are we paying for millions?

  27. Speaking of 9/11 by Dracos · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NORAD was running several drills on the morning of 9/11, amazingly, to simulate almost the exact 9/11 events. This is why so many air traffic controllers and military personnel in various tape recordings seem confused and ask for numerous confirmations that what actually happened was not an exercise.

    [/tinfoil-hat]

  28. I, for one, am prepared! by elgee · · Score: 2, Funny

    I still have my stash I prepared for the Y2K crises.

    Mmmm. I think some of this stuff needs to be updated. And all the beer I stashed is long gone.

  29. I for one welcome... by mrraven · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome my unelected shadow government over lords. Permanent marshal law? Mmmmmm donuts. I mean why hold elections for a new government or any of that silly outdated inefficient 18th century human rights crap?

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  30. umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "government survival"? If something bad enough happens that they need to run to their bunkers, they deserve to be shot when they come back out.

    1. Re:umm by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      "government survival"? If something bad enough happens that they need to run to their bunkers, they deserve to be shot when they come back out.

      I'd go one step further: they should be shot on their way in (and know they will be), that way the crisis might be averted.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  31. But of course... by trellick · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The RIAA must be able to continue to prosecute US citizens even after the dazed survivors of a cataclysmic attack emerge from the smoking ruins!

  32. "even more catastrophic" ??? by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, 9/11 wasn't a catastrophe of national or even regional concern. It was an isolated, one-off local emergency. It didn't threaten the average american, it didn't interrupt or negate the federal and regional bureaucracy's ability to operate, and it certainly wasn't a national crisis. To this day its greatest long-term effect has been the destruction of an entire country as simple retaliation

    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.

    --
    ------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
    1. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative
      9/11 was a local disaster affecting one municipality.

      Two municipalities. Let's not forget that a lot of people died at the Pentagon; a former co-worker of mine was on that plane.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To this day its greatest long-term effect has been the destruction of an entire country as simple retaliation

      We nuked a country and I overlooked it?

      Which country, pray tell, was it?

    3. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Xugumad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *pause* So, what you're saying is that the Bush administration is the national catastrophe? :)

    4. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by maeka · · Score: 1

      The events of which date have had more of an effect on your daily life?
      A- 2001-09-11
      B- 1982-09-29

      I'll argue B.

    5. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What happened on 1982 September 9? The only thing wikipedia shows is: "Ai Otsuka, Japanese singer and songwriter" was born.
      On a different page it shows that date to be the first day of the "Tylenol scare", the birtday of "Ariana Jollee, American porn actress and director", or the birthday of "Rob Smith Irish musician and singer/songwriter". None Of those have had a large inpact on my life, but perhaps the porn star had a large impact on your life?

    6. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Three. Your forgetting the crash site in PA as well.

    7. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Cheers?

    8. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you remember the days before everything had a safety seal?

    9. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by radish · · Score: 1

      You mean the days before I moved to the US? Yes. Now what happened on that date?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    10. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by radish · · Score: 1

      In case anyone else is trying to figure out what of any interest happened on Sep 29 1982, I assume the OP is referring to the Tylenol Murders. First I've heard about it too.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    11. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To this day its greatest long-term effect has been the destruction of an entire country as simple retaliation

      Is there any greater reason to destroy an opposing county than 'simple retaliation'? For every one of 'us' that are killed, we will kill 1000 of 'them'. A powerful deterrent to countries who think about doing us harm or harboring terrorists, no?

    12. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the Capitol had been hit as apparently intended, shutting down the national legislature and large parts of the executive located downtown?

      "9/11" was meant to be bigger, but thankfully turned out closer to what you describe.

    13. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan

    14. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Worldwide in immediate impact.

      Citizens of over 80 countries died in the attacks.

    15. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by Murphy+Murph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes he was, and I agree with him. More real changes to my lifestyle have happened as a result of those deaths than from Islamic terrorists.

      --
      I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    16. Re:"even more catastrophic" ??? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      9/11 wasn't a catastrophe of national or even regional concern

      How many flights do you suppose were coming and going from Texas, Oregon, Florida, California, etc., 12 hours later? None? Exactly. How many jobs were lost within months of the event because of the dramatic shift in economic activity? Hundreds of thousands? Exactly. Where thousands of people actually died that morning is hardly the only issue that impacted people across the entire country.

      it didn't interrupt or negate the federal and regional bureaucracy's ability to operate

      Spent a lot of time that day in DC, did you? If you don't live in the area (I do), don't comment on how or whether workers in DC were disrupted. They were. Enormously.

      To this day its greatest long-term effect has been the destruction of an entire country as simple retaliation

      You mean, of course, the removal of the Taliban thug-ocracy that had the Afghani people in a stranglehold, and was deliberately providing a sanctuary for the people that actually planned, financed, and ordered the attacks? The country wasn't destroyed, the medieval-minded, mysoginistic twits that were trying to turn back the local clock a few centuries were deposed. And the women that used to get dragged off to what used to be the soccer field in the middle of town and shot for daring to teach their daughters to read or for taking on work to feed their family are now running schools, holding jobs, and voting. If you think that's "destroyed," and would prefer that it all gets handed back to the Taliban because they're such swell guys, just say so, and justify it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  33. Re: nuance by Jerf · · Score: 1

    And nuance is something slashdot appears to be lacking these days.

    Nuance is for people who aren't already absolutely, positively certain that they are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees in the slightest way is stupid. Also evil. Possibly eats babies.

  34. Essential services, such as.. by mustafap · · Score: 1

    >- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted in an emergency."

    yea, like DRM and IP. I wonder if the drill is sponsered by anyone...

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  35. Yeah, but would they go? by Foerstner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looking back at the Cold War-era bunkers, several (civillian) VIP's noted that, although they had been informed of the facilities and the contingencies for their use, they never would have actually gone into them.

    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?

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:Yeah, but would they go? by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      An excellent question, to which the best answer is a "maybe".

      Roads? Heh, if you've ever driven in the DC area, you know that's just not a possibility. Airspace, however, should be much more open given the post 9/11 measures.

      This plan is about more than bunkers though - it also involves posting civilian backups away from the capital that are poised to take over should D.C. get nuked. Given the concentration of senior personnel in D.C. it would certainly be impossible to get all - or even most - out in a 30 minute period (assuming they would have that long). But the government should certainly try its best to get all of its elected officials and most senior staff out as quickly as possible, including the SecState, SecDef, and other cabinet level positions.

      But, moving beyond cabinet positions and elected officials, one would also need to consider the need to keep basic government bureaucracy running, such as the Patent Office, Budget Office, GAO, and other important functions of government that the people would still need after a small, limited nuclear exchange. This plan doesn't focus on evacuating these individuals but on creating civilian backups ready to take over in case of an attack. The U.S. would still need to be able to function even with D.C. gone. Would there be bumps as these new officials came on? You betcha - big ones. But they'd still be needed in the long run is my argument.

    2. Re:Yeah, but would they go? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But, moving beyond cabinet positions and elected officials, one would also need to consider the need to keep basic government bureaucracy running, such as the Patent Office, Budget Office, GAO, and other important functions of government that the people would still need after a small, limited nuclear exchange.

      The Patent Office? Oh yeah, that's the one I'm worried about.

    3. Re:Yeah, but would they go? by boarsai · · Score: 1

      To avoid wide-spread panic and the possible "I don't want to leave my family" syndrome, perhaps they'd just treat it like a "training drill"... Everyone willingly toddles on off to the bunker for a fun diversion to their dull everyday lives. Only to discover it wasn't a drill, it was the real thing and they just left their families to suffer fall out whilst they were flicking paper clips around in their underground office. *shrug* Would also stop the few who'd undoubtedly try to sneak in relatives too.

  36. Thank god by DerWulf · · Score: 1

    ... seriously, at least we will be safe in the knowledge that government WILL go on when disaster strikes. Go on being a complete and utter failure that is. And for the cost of only a few trillions. Bargain I say!

    On a related note, picturing a civilization descentant completely from government workers is quite amusing. What will leeches do without hosts? Man-on-Man cani-action, thats what! At least the TV programming will be entertaining, as long as it lasts.

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
    1. Re:Thank god by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      The supposed purpose of a government is to protect and take care of the population. I don't think this really goes very far towards that "goal". Instead of gathering government workers they should be getting ahold of skilled professionals, scientists, etc.

  37. Just what i wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a bunker to to protect a government which will spy on its own people. yea!

  38. What a perfect opportunity by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If you were a corrupt, failing administration what a perfect cover to launch some type of coup. Speaking hypothetically, of course. Say you were a neo-conservative right wing type, I'm sure you could find a pretext for sweeping aside Congressional oversight and an "activist" judiciary. But when to pull it off? When most government officials were safely out of harms way in "secret" locations. In case any of you liberal types didn't like the idea of a neo-conservative monarchy.

    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.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:What a perfect opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      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.

      Of course not, no reasonable person could ever think that. Only wacko, leftwing paranoid moonbats think that delusionally. It's the reason they are such losers, so they keep losing elections time after time after time.

      Meanwhile we in the reality-based community know better.

    2. Re:What a perfect opportunity by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      The coup already happened. The Democrats and the Republicans are the same party. If one party were to blatently take over, people would be outraged. But if one party pretends to be two parties, or the two parties agree to work together, people get so caught up in partisian politics that they aren't going to question the system as a whole. The Democrats tend to focus on repressive socialist economic politicies, and Republican on beligerant nationalistic military/police policies, and the compromise is national socialism.

      So the coup DID happen... but don't complain because it is the party you support in charge!

  39. Not a troll what actually happned by mrraven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
    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 ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

    The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

    ___

    On the Net:

    National Reconnaissance Office: http://www.nro.gov/

    Central Intelligence Agency ( news - web sites): http://www.cia.gov/

    National Law Enforcement and Security Institute: http://www.nlsi.net/ "

    Although his link is from "prison planet" the original article is from AP.

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
    1. Re:Not a troll what actually happned by Marsmensch · · Score: 1

      A brief run on google show the text of your article in varios "conspiracy theory" type sites, but nothing shows up on AP or other news sources quoting AP. I'm not saying the story is made up, only that it doesn't look good.

      Could you maybe provide us with some link to the original source (AP) or another media outlet which used AP's story, or some evidence that such news sources have been "sanitized"?

      --
      Slashdot: news from nerds.
    2. Re:Not a troll what actually happned by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      Actually, this does not seem like the kind of excersize the story article mentions, more like a very limited event at one location, not some huge nationwide excersize.

      I think consipiracy theorists are really good at reading more into a story than really is there.

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    3. Re:Not a troll what actually happned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here is a reference from Aug 22, 2002 that at least confirms that the AP ran the above copied story on Aug 21. This came from a search on LexisNexis.

      Source:News & Business > Combined Sources > Wire Service Stories
      Terms: "small corporate jet would crash" and date geq (06/04/2001)

      NRO Had Planned Plane Crash Exercise For Morning Of 9/11. The Bulletin's Frontrunner August 22, 2002 Thursday

      Copyright 2002 Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc.
      The Bulletin's Frontrunner

      August 22, 2002 Thursday

      SECTION: Terrorism News

      LENGTH: 268 words

      HEADLINE: NRO Had Planned Plane Crash Exercise For Morning Of 9/11.

      BODY:
      The AP (8/21, Lumpkin) reports that in "what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one US 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, Va.-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 four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport." Agency officials "came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold." But 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." Haubold said, "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility. As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise." Haubold added that "terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months." The AP adds, "Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- 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."

      LOAD-DATE: August 22, 2002

    4. Re:Not a troll what actually happned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    5. Re:Not a troll what actually happned by mrraven · · Score: 1

      Thanks for doing the Lexis Nexus search anonymous. Is that still spendy?

      --
      Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  40. Who should be saved? by ultramrw21 · · Score: 1

    If there is a massive terrorist attack and many innocent people are killed these are the last people that should be protected in some uber-bunker. Why? because these are some of the few people in this country who are not innocent and could have stopped an attack. Shouldnt we be putting our best and brightest (pretty much all the /.ers) in something like this? Last time i checked the politicians are at the bottom of that list.

    1. Re:Who should be saved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the slashbots are our best and brightest? I mean they might be better than average, but you have a damn inflated opinion of yourself.

    2. Re:Who should be saved? by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      yeah, i agree these government officals are the very ones that pissed off the rest of the world with their draconian policies enough to want to attack the USA in the first place...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    3. Re:Who should be saved? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Shouldnt we be putting our best and brightest (pretty much all the /.ers)

      Heh, good one.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    4. Re:Who should be saved? by BBobberson · · Score: 1

      And what about the other slightly-less-than-one-half of the voters? They're guilty for other people's idiocy as well?

      --
      12 steps is too long. My ideal plan is: 1) Quit 2) Relapse 3) ??? 4) Profit!
  41. Hey ... Wait a damn minute here... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Weren't government agencies practicing for the exact same situation as 9/11 just prior to it happening?

    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.

    1. Re:Hey ... Wait a damn minute here... by bpd1069 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And they just completed Ardent Sentry, a drill where 4 simultaneous catastrophes occur in the US/North America... May 10-16.

      Ardent Sentry
      And the Command and Control Structure of the JTF-CS

      The JTF-CS was the ones running the Live Fly exercises on 9/11/2001.

      --
      --
  42. The only thing to survive the US government is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the US government. It's nice to see that the US government is making sure that it can survive itself. Nothing else seems to have a chance against them. I don't know what they'll have to destroy if they ever have to put this plan into effect.

    Maybe they should just put nuclear bombs in every major city and configure them to go off if the government hasn't been around for a while. Doing so would be functionally equivelant to "Back to the Bunker." It's really just a question of what costs less. Oh wait, this is the US government, whatever costs more.

    What a bunch of fucking cunts.

  43. conspiracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The only conspiracy here is insiders in government hijacking the elections with their pals in the blackbox voting businesses. This (or similar moves) is called a coup d'etat when it happens in other nations. Here, the order followers just keep following orders, despite the fact of numerous lies being exposed, such as the actual stated reason to go to a semi major war over. They obviously don't care enough to consider what the heck they are doing, or want to go along with the coup. If you can't see these events have happened, oh well, consider some google searches and educate thyself. If you think it doesn't effect you, oh well again, too bad you got the ostrich with it's head in the sand syndrome. It effects everyone on the planet what the fatcat government goons do here, you don't even have to be a subject for their rules.

      The only black helicopters are the ones the government owns, in fact, one of them crashed the other day carrying the "nightstalkers" and some spec ops guys. Most didn't make it, one guy lived throgh it. They apparently hit a TV tower guide wire.

    Oh, BTW, we are all informed now that the government itself employs thousands of "cyber warrior" coup supporters to manufacture fake news-a-ganda, and to post on forums and blogs, among other things, it is no longer a "secret". If you are one of them, or some civvie coup supporter, you know what? Eat shit you sniveling fascist bastard.

    1. Re:conspiracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we are all informed now that the government itself employs thousands of "cyber warrior" coup supporters to manufacture fake news"

      It's called Foxnews.

  44. whatever. by araczynski · · Score: 0

    gotta make sure the status quo is maintained, god forbid we ever get a clean start again and try to make a government this time for the PEOPLE...

    --
    sigs suck
    1. Re:whatever. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      No need to be so pessimistic; we can take advantage of this. Send 'em into the bunkers, then weld the doors shut.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  45. if the US developed... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...an actual credible bona fide anti missile defense that really worked, the other major nuclear powers (china and russia) would be sorely tempted to launch a first strike before the new system was widely deployed. If they waited, it would place them in a position of being defenseless against an attack, without even a good chance of a good sized retaliatory stike. MAD only works when all the sides are at rough parity in other words.

    1. Re:if the US developed... by Shihar · · Score: 1

      ...an actual credible bona fide anti missile defense that really worked, the other major nuclear powers (china and russia) would be sorely tempted to launch a first strike before the new system was widely deployed.

      This is a silly argument. China and Russia would not first strike the US if it developed a workable missile defense system. There is no such thing as a nuclear "first strike" against the US (or Russia or China for that matter). If you launch a few hundred missiles, the other guy is going to see you do it and launch their own. Even if Russia or China could teleport nukes onto US soil, that wouldn't save them from being wiped out by US allies and US subs. No one is going to first strike anyone.

      The real danger is the US developing a missile defense system is that Russia and China will kick into an arms race with the US to develop missiles that can penetrate the missile defense system and develop their own missile shield. Arms races are expensive and bad for diplomacy. Russia and China would not commit suicide and launch a first strike against the US to prevent them from developing a nuke shield, but they WOULD be pissed that they have to start dumping even more money into nuke R&D. The real question is not if China and Russia will nuke the US for trying to develop a defense systems against ballistic nukes, but if it is worth the billions of dollars it would take to build such a system and the souring of relations that it would produce for a few extra years of safety before improved defenses were developed?

    2. Re:if the US developed... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      but if it is worth the billions of dollars it would take to build such a system and the souring of relations that it would produce for a few extra years of safety before improved defenses were developed?

      On the bright side the increased defense spending and the resulting arms race would create many science and engineering related jobs which can only be filled by Americans. That could be just the sort of thing that we need to get our butts out of the math and science slump in this country.

    3. Re:if the US developed... by delong · · Score: 1

      The real danger is the US developing a missile defense system is that Russia and China will kick into an arms race with the US to develop missiles that can penetrate the missile defense system and develop their own missile shield

      Good for them. The missile shield isn't designed with them in mind. And if anemic Russia and inefficient China want to get into a spending race with the US and repeat the 80's, more power to them. The US government can outspend both combined for a much smaller proportion of national GDP than they.

    4. Re:if the US developed... by tftp · · Score: 1

      Russia, instead of "outspending" the USA, developed a warhead that evades the interceptors. The link was written before 2004; the warhead had been tested already. This is a low-cost, distributed response to ABM.

    5. Re:if the US developed... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This is a silly argument. China and Russia would not first strike the US if it developed a workable missile defense system. There is no such thing as a nuclear "first strike" against the US (or Russia or China for that matter). If you launch a few hundred missiles, the other guy is going to see you do it and launch their own. Even if Russia or China could teleport nukes onto US soil, that wouldn't save them from being wiped out by US allies and US subs. No one is going to first strike anyone.

      Think of it from Russian and Chinese leaders point of view. Do China and Russia think that the US might attack them at some point in the future ? If they do, they might well decide to strike as long as they still can. Sure, they'll get beaten to a pulp too - but at the same time, they'll also beat the US to a pulp, so it cannot threaten them while they rebuild. After all, if you know that you're going to get seriously injured, doesn't it make sense to make sure that your enemy is not in a position to take advantage of it ?

      If the US develops a working missile shield, then Russia and China face the choice between attacking before it can be deployed and accepting the losses, or waiting until its developed and being reduced to insignificance since the US can then destroy them any time it chooses without them being able to retaliate. Lose your power or take your enemy down with you and possibly keep at least some of your power - which one do you think Chinese dicatorship or Russian not-quite-dictatorship will choose ?

      And I kinda hope that US allies would be smart enough to stay out of a nuclear war instead of spreading the conflict and making the fallout even worse. Political ideology is not worth anyones life, no matter how much political leaders may disagree.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:if the US developed... by delong · · Score: 1

      Russia, instead of "outspending" the USA, developed a warhead that evades the interceptors [missilethreat.com]. The link was written before 2004; the warhead had been tested already. This is a low-cost, distributed response to ABM

      Absolutely. Bravo, Russia.

      This misses the point - we are not in an arms race with Russia and China, and even if we were we'd out-research them. We will never field enough interceptors to significantly effect Russia's deterent. China only has a few ICBMs (less than 100, IIRC), and the ABM systems we are deploying won't effect their deterent either. It isn't meant to.

    7. Re:if the US developed... by Shihar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Think of it from Russian and Chinese leaders point of view.

      I think that YOU need to think of it from their point of view. A nuclear always ends in both a national and personal loss. It is a national loss in that your civilization will be destroyed. Forget rebuilding, if the US drops even a tenth of the nukes they have on you, that is more then enough to drop a nuke on every single population center and still have a few left over to spare. If the US launches its entire arsenal, that is enough to blanket your nation in nukes. The places that are not destroyed will be left radioactive. Your civilization is done. Further, YOU are done. Even if you manage to secure a position in a nice cozy government bunker, you are now damned to live in a wasted and blasted nation. Your central government will be destroyed, and so even if you do emerge unscathed, you certainly will not be a ruler.

      Further, you don't even need to consider the Chinese or Russia perspective because just examining the US perspective is more then enough to see that the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike against a nation you are at peace with is utterly stupid. What in the hell would the US gain from striking at China or Russia at any point in the future, even if they could not respond? We might plant bombs in the US and blow them up, as if you bomb China you are essentially bombing your own factories. China and Russia are tied into the global economy to such an extent that cutting them off is like cutting of a limb. Even if the US felt like suffering through the economic loss of China and Russia (which it isn't), the retaliation that all other nations would inflict on the US in terms of economic sanctions would ruin whatever little economy remains. The US is NOT self sufficient and almost certainly would be destroyed if such a thing were to happen.

      Look, your entire argument in inane. If you truly believe that the leaders of Russia and China would forfeit their lives and the lives of all of their country men in a pissing contest, you need to go back and rethink your understanding of the world.

      Would China and Russia be pissed if the US developed an anti-ballistic missile system? Absolutely. We would almost certainly have to pay a steep political price and certainly would pay a steep economic price. Would they throw in the towel and invite 10,000 American nuclear weapons to their backyard despite the fact that both nations have relatively good relations with the US? Hell no.

      There are plenty of good reasons to be good against an anti-ballistic missile system that you don't need to make reasons up.

    8. Re:if the US developed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are an idiot. Nuclear wars do not result in your nation being "seriously injured". They result in the absolute destruction of your civilization and central government, not to mention a massive portion of population. No one in their right mind would get into an all out nuke war, period. No nation run by even vaguely rational leaders would get into a nuke war with the US, even if the US was about to put up a perfect shield invulnerability. Any idiot can see that it is better to work diplomatically and risk getting nuked but not being able to strike back, than it is to be assured that you get nuked, cause the collapse of your civilization, and die.

      Go get an education, or at least an ounce of common sense, before spouting off your absolutely idiotic brain dead opinion. If we anyone wants to know what a complete fucking retard would do with a few thousands nukes, we will come asking for your idiot analysis.

    9. Re:if the US developed... by Shihar · · Score: 1

      The parents point was that no one is trying to stop Russia or China. Even if the US made its multi-billion dollar defense system, it could never stop a full nuclear attack from Russia or even China. The real temptation in a missile defense system isn't to block China or Russia, but to block places like North Korea and Iran. If your system can shoot a dozen nukes out of the air, you have a pretty fair defense against a place like North Korea or Iran where a crackjob leader can rise to power overnight and start throwing nukes.

      That said, the real price is going to be with soured relations with Russia and China and the billions such a program would demand. Nationalist in both nations would use the defense system as a method of drumming up support for their own political gains by casting the US being out to get them.

      If one could snap their fingers and make a perfect missile defense system, it might be tempting to say to hell with what the rest of the world thinks. On the other hand, if you can snap your fingers and make a defense system that only knocks down half of what shoots at you, you really need to ask yourself if you were just better off investing in diplomacy and other things. A defense system that can't stop a dozen missiles is basically just a way to cut your losses if you do get into a nuke war, it isn't a real deterent any more. One nuke is one nuke too many to land on any city.

    10. Re:if the US developed... by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 1

      dude, i modded up your insightful robot-helping-soldiers comment, then later i saw that someone modded it down as flamebait. i couldn't see how someone thought it was flamebait, so i looked at your posting history (well, a few comments that had been labled flamebait), and it looks like you have someone following you around modding you down for no reason besides someone's personal vendetta. i've seen it happen before. i really don't know how to prevent abuse of /.'s mod system. oh well, just wanted to say don't let them bring you down.

      --
      i disable sigs
  46. Essential government functions by Trouvist · · Score: 1

    I doubt that 99% of the current government's 'essential functions' will be taken down into the holes. Let's see what might get left behind:

    1) RIAA/MPAA lawsuits
    2) USPTO
    3) Speed limits
    4) Taxes
    5) Regulation of the economy
    6) The Department of Homeland Security
    7) The NSA's collection of everyone's phone and data transmissions
    8) etc.

    Lately it seems that 99% of the government bloat and "protection" would get left behind and it would be reduced to what the Constitution orgininally intended. Have a nice day.

  47. are you sure by plbg32 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    its benn said that this is not an excercise, that its a cover for a goverment take over concisting of....... ..............THIS POSTING DELETED BE YOUR FREINDLY NSA OVERSEER

  48. Re:Maybe this isn't such a bad thing by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

    Note to those who currently think they are in "power": WE the people, give you your rights and power, you do not give them to us. ...you might want to consider re-reading your Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence.

    While the rest of the post may've been a bit tinfoil-hat-ish, parent is right. Offtopic? Sure, a little. Troll? No way in hell. Bad mod.

  49. If I was a rogue nation. by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

    I'd be watching the mock evacuation to see where each group goes and then add the locations to "Nuke the hell out of" list. although its possible the places has been publically known for ages.

  50. Five years, my brain hurts a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they started planning this a few months before 9/11? Conspiracy!

  51. Chaos by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    I believe the biggest real threat from either the 9/11 attacks or the French riots is the ability of these actions to unsermine the confidence of people on their government and the encouragement of folks to commit crimes. Like it or not, civility is not the natural state of man. A goodly chunk of the population would surely steal to their heart's content if they knew they would never be caught and punished.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Chaos by basingwerk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      > A goodly chunk of the population would surely
      > steal to their heart's content if they knew they
      > would never be caught and punished.

      Some civilisations are stronger than that. During the Blitz, which lasted 8 months, London, Liverpool and other British cities lost around 50K lives, and a million houses - that was a catastrophe! Discipline did not break down, the British went on to defeat Rommel in north Africa and eventually triumphed over Hitler and his henchmen in Europe. Criminality during the war was rife, of course, but general standards remained in place. We tend to be fearful about our society, mostly due to sensational rubbish in the media, in my opinion.

      --
      I stole this .sig
    2. Re:Chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, total chaos can be expected from barbarians who invade other countries to steal their oil.

  52. 'the people' by students · · Score: 1

    'the people' in the Declaration of Independence originally meant white male land owners. The morality of the 1770's wasn't so great either. The people who wrote the Declaration were part of that elite - and they were mostly interested in protecting their buisnesses from taxes.

    1. Re:'the people' by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you have to look by comparing the times for our time and their time.

      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.

    2. Re:'the people' by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1
      White land owners have been 'the people' since before medieval times. This was not an American innovation. The American twist was that nearly any white man with some guts and a gun could become a land-owner, if he was willing to chase off the indians. This was felt to be much more egalitarian than the European model, in which all the land was already accounted for.

      Unless you were an indian, of course. They had a slightly different view on freedom. Still do, for the most part.

    3. Re:'the people' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out who owned the land in England in the early 1700's. It was mostly The Crown and the Church of England with a few nobles owning most of the rest. Most of the wealthy landlords were renting from the owners and then sub-renting to the peasants. Much of that same system was setup in the US with the large land grants but it rapidly fell apart.

  53. That's stupid... by mentaldingo · · Score: 0

    ... they're leaving the important people that actually keep the country running OUT of the bunker?

    What will they do if they come back out of the bunker after a nuclear strike? There'd be no industry, and a complete break down of civilisation. Katrina springs to mind. Maybe with all those government-funded lawyers they could sue some filesharers and live off that.

    We can do without politicians and bureaucrats (there's plenty more where they came from), but entrepreneurs and businesses are vital to keeping every day life sane.

  54. Hey, it worked for Australia by loqi · · Score: 1

    Just coincidence they're such a strong US supporter?

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    1. Re:Hey, it worked for Australia by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      The Australians have used a key metric to judge their leaders in the past, and I refuse to support any politicians who haven't held world records for beer drinking, thank you very much.

  55. And so the people lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I see from these types of plans is not hope that our government will survive a disaster but rather dread that our government will survive any attempt by the people to stop it. When the government becomes so corrupt it turns on its people the people have no choice and a duty to turn on its government. When that government goes into hiding and strikes at its own people from afar (as it does now to other countries) the people will be helpless to stop it.

    This shadow government is supposed to keep the machine rolling when a major catastrophe strikes--how do you kill a beast that has already been decapitated?

  56. Yeah, but by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    you're thinking about the "uh oh, the worlds gonna end in an hour scenerio". More likely than Iran trying to hit us with an updated Long March is a more protracted disaster - biological, chemical or even serious civil disturbance (ie, Shrub gets elected for a third term).

    This sort of contingency planning might be effective for these sorts of disasters. No plan is going to work for every kind of disturbance and no plan is likely to work very well for any kind of major disturbance (think Katrina).

    You gotta start somewhere. Where's my box of plutonium pellets?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Yeah, but by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      "or even serious civil disturbance (ie, Shrub gets elected for a third term)."

      I'm betting with my buddies on the next prez. I've got my money on George W. Bush. The only problem is, if I win, the joke's on me!

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
  57. The REAL reason for all that secrecy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So people don't find out where those bunkers are and weld them shut for good!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  58. sexual repression overload found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "drill my ass!"

    Uh, sure?

    "oh come on..."

    "They go off in their little holes..."

  59. Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks... by gmezero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that have occured since & including 911, have also coinsided with a massive government/military training drills (911 and london)... and the since the U.S. is building up a strike force for what appears to be a July attack on Iran... the conspiracy side of me is going "Hmmm...." in an ominous tone. ...do we need to be digging out our grand fathers bomb shelters for a "camping trip" with the family? Sigh...

  60. date anyone ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for those with an interest/awareness .. of the NWO/iluminati's/zionists .. interest/emphasis of the numerology of dates ..

    13 days .. after 06/06/06

    very interesting given the recent terrorist scar in canada under stephen harper's watch (bush's zionist canadian rightwing buddy)

    thanks to modern education(mass brain washing) and the mass media the sheeple never saw it coming .. and most of them will thinks it's for the best anyway .. to keep their worthless asses safe from the terrorists ..

    just one of the more interesting possibilities ..

    http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/fortress1.html

    senate .. ah too brutus ..

  61. Woah! The Enclave! by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Enclave overlords! May they terrorize the country from their oil rig until such time that all mutants are wiped out - or alternatively, until the descendend of the vault dweller arrives! Whatever happens first!

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    1. Re:Woah! The Enclave! by FloodSpectre · · Score: 1

      Good to know I wasn't the only one thinking this. Well, at least we get radioactive beer and warm, centuries-old cola in the post-apoc.

  62. Nightmare for Random Gman #1278 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1278: Is that who I think it is?
    #1278 begins to peer down the corridor as a human like shape walks towards him.

    #1278 turns and begins to run in horror.

    Figure begins to laugh loudly.

    A door slams in front of #1278, sealing his fate.

    The figure approaches swiftly.

    Dick Chenney: You fool. It would break all our top National Security to let you leave now! Once you find the Dick, you can never leave!

  63. Case in point - lack of nuance by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    The lack of nuance on Slashdot once again.

    Not to mention a complete lack of knowledge about the world around them.

    The sad part is that the parent will probably be modded insightful. Oh well. So continues the slide to "SlashKos".

  64. Loose Change asks good questions by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1

    Suggestions to people to view it and make their own decisions should not me moderated as trolls.

    1. Re:Loose Change asks good questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the original AC of this one, I agree.

  65. If storage space is limited by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    You back up the files you’d least like to do without after the event. Not your spyware.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  66. I know how to pay others to create new alloys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh don't worry, I'm sure the libertaria-nuts all have their own bunkers, but let's hope they don't forget the inexhaustible labour force of robots.

  67. Fallout 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like somebody played Fallout (or Fallout 2) too much.

  68. Flight 93 was headed for Washington by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Whether it was meant for the Capitol or for the White House, it almost succeeded. If the terrorists had kept the passengers away from the AirFones, it would have succeeded.

    That trick, I hope, can't work again. But if a clever enemy thinks up an equallly damaging attack, then it does make sense to plan for keeping our command and control intact.

    1. Re:Flight 93 was headed for Washington by delong · · Score: 1


      That trick, I hope, can't work again. But if a clever enemy thinks up an equallly damaging attack, then it does make sense to plan for keeping our command and control intact


      What is very instructive is that there was no mention about the Toronto 17 that were arrested yesterday with 3x the explosives used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Even though the perps were caught using Internet surveillance.

      News for Nerds, as long as it reinforces my pre-conceived, pre-received beliefs.

      Slide to SlashKos? Slashdot hit bottom a long time ago and kept digging.

  69. The illegal alien amnesty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be the most catestrophic event the US has ever encountered. Try and hide in a bunker after that!

  70. What to take with you: *two* towels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The plans even spell out what evacuees should take with them (recommended items: a combination lock, a flashlight, two towels and a small box of washing powder)."

    All that?

    How about 1 towel and a book with "Don't Panic!" on the cover?

    At least they're right about the importance of a towel, but I can't figure out what the combination lock is for.

    1. Re:What to take with you: *two* towels? by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      "The plans even spell out what evacuees should take with them (recommended items: a combination lock, a flashlight, two towels and a small box of washing powder)." All that? How about 1 towel and a book with "Don't Panic!" on the cover? At least they're right about the importance of a towel, but I can't figure out what the combination lock is for.

      A padlock wrapped in a towel would make a formidable weapon indeed. Very handy for dealing with those "Dawn of The Dead" zombies who may be around after the bomb goes off.

      For greater stopping power, upgrade to a pillow case containing cans of soda. :^)
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085210/

  71. It's good to know by bobamu · · Score: 1

    that during a disaster a large proportion of the individuals that had great part in the mess that requires them to go into a bunker are going to be nice and safe, thus allowing the mere remains of society to get on with the remainder of their lives (as long as that may be).

    I wonder how many folks in a real nightmare scenario would say "screw it" and stay with their families, what's the contingency rules? would they be "ordered" to do their job or is it assumed they will do it anyway because of summary consequences?

  72. Re:Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks. by unitron · · Score: 1
    Anybody know where Rudy Guliani is going to be that day?

    I'm not totally in jest.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  73. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Provide an alternative to fear.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accept your fate. Besides, isn't it Lord's will who lives and who dies, and when?

  74. Re:Maybe this isn't such a bad thing by FloodSpectre · · Score: 1

    I 100% agree, and I just ran out of modpoints yesterday...

  75. Quickly ... by Tripster · · Score: 1

    ... someone get the welding torches ready! This is our chance! :)

  76. Mars Attacks... by Sagara+Sozou · · Score: 1

    President: "I'd just like the nation to know that they still have two of the branches of government..."

    --
    Those poor bastards, they have us surrounded. Now we can fire at them in all directions!
  77. Re:Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the U.S. is building up a strike force for what appears to be a July attack on Iran...

    Woo-hoo! Dollar-fifty-gas, here we come! Call the Dodge dealer and tell him that I want to order something with a Hemi in it! :^)

  78. Yes because you see it's utterly important... by presarioD · · Score: 1

    ... when a nucular (far more potent than nuclear) attack strikes the country, wiping out 90% of the population, it's mucho importante as I was saying, for the remaining 10% to be able uninterruptedly to file tax return forms, be issued ID cards, and in general carry on with the usual way of life (there has to be more reasons why goverments exist that escape me right now)...

    --
    Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
  79. This begs the question by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1

    Exactly what is an "essential" government function?

    1. Re:This begs the question by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Where do you people goto school?

    2. Re:This begs the question by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      123 Spaghetti Lane?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  80. Sweet! by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Funny
    "And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills."

    No where in there does it say anything about attractiveness to females! 10 women for each man and you don't even have to attractive! Where do I sign up?! Nuclear war now!

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  81. State-of-the-art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    /., and no-one comments (that I've seen) on the technology aspect? So the country has gone to hand in a heckbasket, and the government is relying on pagers and videoconferences? Anyone know anything about a secure, hardened alternate government infrastructure out there waiting for such a scenario?

    (Interesting: the two capchas I've gotten so far posting to this thread have been "harbored" and "feared" - how do it know?)

    1. Re:State-of-the-art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the agencies just have a limited data center somewhere else. 3 major agencies do not have alternate sites, They are just going to use thier existing systems. THis is because they have moved them out of downtown. THis means that the equiptment is at the "alterenate site" already.

      Last year (for one of the COOP tests) one of the agencies (accually the contractors running the COOP test) called me in the middle of the night because their alternate e-mail server would not come up and then their BLackberries would not work, THe e-mail problem was that they had not properly configured the server. THe blackberry problem was that they had designed their firewall to allow users to VPN in and a connection to HQ in Washington. They did not allow access to the internet. Well they were upset when I told them that the Blacberry serv need to send messages to Canada over the internet for Blackberries to work.

      Lots of money and time have created a system that does not work.

  82. The "terrorists" don't scare me... by mrraven · · Score: 1

    I'm not afraid of a few scattered "terrorists" with box cutters and fertilizer bombs. I am afraid of my government whose commander and chief over nuclear weapons, jets, and a million man army army said the constitution is a "godamn piece of paper"

    "GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

    "I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

    "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

    "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

    http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/arti cle_7779.shtml

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  83. Leaving the Supreme Court behind by billstewart · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Sounds like they were only concerned about preserving the Executive Branch, rather than protecting American citizens by making sure the Supreme Court's still around.

    Civil Defense planning for large-scale nuclear war had faded out long before the Cold War ended, but it was always pretty much a joke; the dried food in the bomb shelters has mostly faded out, and in spite of Reagan-era bureaucrats saying you should dig a 3-foot hole and cover it with a door, there wasn't much that could be done. But terrorist attacks aren't likely to hit the whole country - they'd necessarily be limited in scope, and Washington and NYC are the obvious targets, which perhaps a couple of small random actions elsewhere for fun.

    DC basically has government workers, Beltway Bandits, museums, and black people. So the government gets its high-level workers out of town, the Beltway Bandits can do their own planning or telecommute, museums are too heavy to move, and George Bush doesn't care about black people.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  84. What?? by hokeyru · · Score: 1

    20 milion people live in the New York metro area. Most of us know people who died. Thousands of people were stranded, across the country, when flights were grounded. Global markets teetered. NATO invoked the 5th article, for the first time in history. Armies were mobilized. Wars were begun. The fate of much of the world for the following decade hinged on that morning. Our national character has, for better or worse, changed.

    9/11 was the definitive 'watershed' moment. It's rather ugly of you to downplay it.

  85. You missed the cynicism.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest the parent poster was not arguing the idea of planning for contingencies, but like Katrina, they did a bad/sloppy/ineffectual/poor/disasterous job while they were even in their office, a place they are comfortable with, a place where their best laid plans did not exist or were fatally broken; let alone during a real emergency, ergo, we are all screwed beforehand, so what is the point of this exercise.

    Shut them down, I say!

  86. But considering the record of poor planning... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    The one bunker that needs them will have their spares shipped a few hundred miles away...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  87. Re:Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks by fbjon · · Score: 1

    Heh, quite ominous just right after having watched this BBC documentary.

    --
    True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  88. Oooo! by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    I'll grab the power armor if you grab the plasma rifles!

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  89. Does this mean that... by Walter+Carver · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    the Bush administration is preparing another 9/11 "Perl Harbor"?

    1. Re:Does this mean that... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I have the strangest feeling that asn't what Larry was thinking about...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Does this mean that... by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Not a flamebait. "Black humor" yes.

  90. Are you sure? by expro · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but the terrorists aren't using Nuclear Weapons.

    I thought the battle plans against non-nuclear Iraq include them, specifically inserted by terrorists like Bush and Rumsfeld over the objections of the professional military that had been trained to think of them as last-ditch defensive weapons.

    Until Iran goes online, they don't have access to the materials, so they'll be using Biological and Chemical weapons.

    You don't think our Pakistani "friends" have already spread them far and wide, to a much greater degree than Iran would be willing to share them with unstable elements?

  91. Trust in gridlock by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    Huh ? 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 ?

    Yeah - but let's see those fuckers try to get *anywhere* on 66 from DC to the Alleghenies (in VA) or up 70/68 to the mountains in MD. Good fucking luck, fellas.

    So take heart that good old fashioned DC gridlock will fuck them just as much as the rest of us. By the time they get to those bunkers they'll be glowing.

    1. Re:Trust in gridlock by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Well, there isnt any danger of nuclear war anymore. And in any case they will be flying with helicopters.

  92. Actually... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding me? European newspapers don't even try to pretend to be objective and non-partisan.

    That's why I like them.

    U.S. papers do just that - pretend. European papers are generally open about their bias from the start. If only American papers would shed their false cloak of objective reporting I'd put more stock in them.

    1. Re:Actually... by delong · · Score: 1


      U.S. papers do just that - pretend. European papers are generally open about their bias from the start. If only American papers would shed their false cloak of objective reporting I'd put more stock in them.


      I agree. The "objective journalism" cloak is a sham. US journalism is overwhelmingly liberal in its politics. It is just hilarious when someone on Slashdot inevitably tries to pull the European snobbery bit, as if European journalists and editors are so much less influenced by their own personal beliefs. Quite the contrary, they revel in their biases and are open in their affiliations.

      Fox News gets lambasted here regularly. Yet they are open about their perpective. You know when you watch Fox that you are getting the "conservative" viewpoint. When you read the networks or CNN, or read the NYT, you are getting the liberal view, masquarading as objective news. That is a sham.

  93. Essential governemnt functions? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    Essential. Er... let's see. Road building. And... and... bridges and tunnels, yeah... oh, and... uh... [blank look]

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  94. Put people in bunkers and blow them? by marcas1 · · Score: 1

    What if the drill was to put people in safe bunkers (like WTC basement?) and let them be a target for .. (do you prefer China or Iran as suspects) ?

    ' Seems that USA govnt is preparing for WWIII. Somethings smells rotten on planet earth.

    Give me a towel, I need a Vogon spaceship...

  95. The U.S. isn't ready by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. isn't getting ready for nuclear holocaust any more...

    The US population, it seems, isn't ready for any kind of serious event. Read the rest of the posts in this topic for an example.

    Rather than trying to prevent a serious event or planning to deal with the consequences, the public view seems to be one of denial, fantasy, and conspiracy theories. Nothing bad can happen (denial). Diplomancy, disarmament, and environmental awareness will keep us safe (fantasy). And it's all about Haliburton anyway (conspiracy theories).

    And it's expressed and reinforced by making fun of people who are just trying to be prepared. Bravo.

    It's apparently going to take a few more attacks over several years for Americans to finish the process of growing up. I'm glad I don't live near any likely targets.

  96. Head for the bunkers... by mikael · · Score: 1

    How do you simulate the experience of driving through blazing, radiated, panic-stricken streets to emergency bunker sites miles away?


    Try driving home at rush-hour on the night before a Summer bank holiday weekend.

    Or even on the following day when everyone is in their camper vans trying to head for the trees.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  97. You've been duped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ï see the Administration has convinced you Iran is evil and possess Nuclear capabilities against Europe.

    You've been duped yet again.. They did it with Iraq, and now they're doing it with Iran. Funny how you can fabricate "evidences" to support a world-view which Bush has had all along...

  98. Hollow Earth by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    That is wear the real tunnels go to. They use 'secret bunkers' as a cover. Bush has spent great deals of money digging new tunnels to join his reptilian brothers in the center of Terra. He has to because the reptilians are forbidden from using the monorails running from the enterence near the pole/finland/russia.

  99. Synchronity's where it's at by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    It's called Synchronity, coined by Carl G. Jung, and describes these so-called "coincidences", that happens from time to time in our lives. One day for example, you encounter a single word 5-6 times, just by "chance". Search for Jung and Synchronity finds more information like this.

  100. Where is "religious fundementalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    Given the religious fundamentalism shown by US leadership [...]

    Would you care to back that up with some quotes? Quotes from high-ranking government officials, please — displaying not just their being religious, but being fundamentalists. Put up or shut up, so to speak, please.

    Thank you...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Where is "religious fundementalism" in US govt? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Google "bush god speaks through me".

      If you're that lazy, here's an article.

      I have a feeling that IHBT though; either that or you're just not paying fucking attention. Oh well.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Where is "religious fundementalism" in US govt? by feronti · · Score: 1

      You really should've chosen a more reputable article. That one looks just as crazy as the people you're arguing against. Why is it that so many liberals can't seem to avoid making themselves look as foolish as the neocons?

  101. Thinking of the Children by Frightening · · Score: 1

    First things first:

    Sept 11 was catastrophic for the people inside the buildings..you know, the people who fell hundreds of meters to their death, the people who were crushed under the concrete, the people who were vaporized by the flames..

    It was not a terrible time for the person who sat on his comfy chair in a primary school and continued to read Little Red Riding Hood after he got the news. It was more like a 'difficult time', and we all know how they handled that don't we.

    Next:

    Will somebody please think of the goddam children?

  102. You forgot to mention... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    It's always our fault. Period. We all deserve to die because we have somehow offended group A or angered group B.

    The self-hatred of the west is amazing. We excuse away everything as our fault. It's as if we were made up of a group of battered women, constantly making excuses for their husbands.

    1. Re:You forgot to mention... by prurientknave · · Score: 1

      Are you a 101st fighting keyboardist too? Because you DO sound like a dumbass and not the regular ignorant brand of dumbass, but the bona fide, my-teacher-was-the-village-idiot level of dumbass.

    2. Re:You forgot to mention... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, I'm a Political Science student with a focus on International Relations and National Security Policy, preparing for the GRE so I can get a Master's degree from an APSIA school with a Security Policy Studies focus.

      Although the ad hominem was fun, I find it amusing that those on the left side of the spectrum here at /. are so quick to mod me down without actually attempting to refute the main points of the argument (with few exceptions).

      Sadly this seems to be the state of the left these days - a group positioning itself as a permanent opposition party. No new ideas. No thinking. No platform, even. Just contradiction. Simple complaining and contradiction.

      I'm on the right side of the spectrum, but I've certainly voted for Democrats and even voted for a third party presidential candidate in Florida in 2000. I'm not a strict partisan by any stretch. But the Democrats simply aren't putting up any ideas, any platform, anything. Just complaints. Lots and lots of complaints. About anything and everything. Complaints are not a platform. They do not tell me what you want to do. They do not tell me what your ideas are.

      In 2004, the DNC essentially ran on a platform of "we're not the Republicans". Yes, we know that. We all noticed that big "D" next to your names. Did they have an Iraq policy? A Homeland Defense policy? They claimed to, but none were feasible. None made any sense. All were too vague or contradictory.

      I'd love to bring in a true opposition party. I'd love to see the Democrats step up and offer alternatives. One-party systems generally lead to atrophy, corruption, etc. We're seeing some of that right now. But I'm not willing to replace a party in power with another who has no set platform, no cohesive message, and whose constituents seem to be incapable of acknowledging the fact that the country is facing several serious threats and must adapt to the present state of Fourth Generation Warfare or suffer the consequences.

      2006, sadly, appears to be more of the same. No platform. Lots of complaints about the economy - which is doing quite well and experiencing very low levels of unemployment. No real Iraq policy still. If we let them in power, WHAT WILL THEY DO? Do they even know?

      I don't support the idea of a one-party system lasting forever. These things move in cycles, and another party should move up as its competitor becomes atrophied. A free-market of ideas should exist, and everyone will benefit from it. The problem is that there only seems to be one seller worth considering at the moment. The other alternative seems to be a party that wants our money first before they even show us what they're buying. The RNC is certainly becoming more foggy and unsure, but I still have some idea as to what they will do. Until the DNC gets its act together and actually puts up a platform that deals with reality (as opposed to its present so-called "reality based" nonsense), I will be grudgingly handing my vote to the other side.

    3. Re:You forgot to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how asinine. "Yeah, I know this bus driver just drove us off a cliff, but who knows what the next guy will do? Better stick with what we know... DOESN'T WORK?!"

      if you're the product of a american university education these days, i'm scared for the future of our country.

    4. Re:You forgot to mention... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Yet the DNC has adopted the position of the screaming 6 year old at the back of the bus, screaming "my mom can drive better than you!" and denying the existence of any cliffs all the while.

      As far as what we know not working, you don't actually SAY why it doesn't work. No specific complaints. No arguments. Just, "things are BAD, can't you SEE!" What, specifically is the problem? The dropping unemployment rate and increasing GDP? The lack of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? The present situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the border certainly aren't peachy, but what do the Democrats actually propose to do about them? All I see is, "Bush lied, people died!" nonsense that doesn't actually cut to the matter at hand - we're there now, so what are we going to do?

      You are the problem with the DNC, my good man. inarticulate complaints. Begging the question by assuming I have precisely the same view of how things are so bad without specifying what those things are or, more importantly, what you plan to do about them. If the DNC wants to step into power, it needs to DO these things. It needs to built a platform worth standing on. I said it above and I'll say it again - I would vote for a Democratic candidate for president if they gave me a platform that seemed feasible and not more of this ad hominem nonsense and the simple comeback that anyone who disagrees with him/her is "stupid". Great way to earn votes, there.

    5. Re:You forgot to mention... by prurientknave · · Score: 1

      "It's always our fault. Period. We all deserve to die because we have somehow offended group A or angered group B.
      The self-hatred of the west is amazing. We excuse away everything as our fault. It's as if we were made up of a group of battered women, constantly making excuses for their husbands."


      This was an argument? Do you at least understand why people mutter under their breath and laugh at political science graduates?

      As someone who seems proud to have spent 4 (or more?) years studying pol. sci. Why don't you establish what your ideas are for appropriate policy? Your discussion so far is just as bad as any uninformed fool on the street. You have no ideas, and you want someone to come up with a different idea for you so that you can then proceed to criticize it because it's not the same as those of whichever group to whom you've pledged your allegiance. That is there is no way you can even consider a liberal argument if you believe in a totally fictional set of axioms in your model of the world. What was the point of the degree again? Fools are already fed propaganda free of charge.

      The liberal's self hatred comes from the realization that what the nation proclaims itself to be is radically different from what it actually is. This in turn makes it no better than any other brutish nation on earth. At this point you're going 'oooh nooo. do we rape and kill thousands? aha! i've caught you now!' Allow me to explain. So long as we have the monopoly on power, those close to it (the american people) are safe and those on the periphery of our empire suffer the brunt of this injustice, because of the administrators we appoint to manage our capital assets. If you are a bible thumper, this is no different from Rome appointing a favored brutal king named herod, to manage israel. Sure, on the propaganda papyrus he's the king of the jews, but what choice did they really have in supporting his leadership?. He was dropped into place at a Roman whim. And he will do anything to pacify the jews for roman business interests in the region. So yes, they were disgusted both with herod and the architects of his power, the romans.

      The time is fast coming when we will no longer have the monopoly on power and energy in this world and our empire will shrink moving the periphery close to home. What then? Wouldn't you want to reform a batterer before he starts failing in life and comes home to take it out on the family? Do you want to be there when that happens?

      So yes, it may seem incomprehensible to you right now, but the liberal policy is to reform the excesses of the battering aristocracy in america before our certain foreign failure. At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?) and brutal dictatorships will have to be met here at home. As for foreign affairs, the time for discussion was before jumping into the pit. Liberals advocated in every war that america has had for isolation from foreign affairs and against bloody expansionism for the profit of a few rich families. As long as we've had technological superiority we've enjoyed the fruits of our conquest. But that lead is now disappearing and we have to face all our victims on a battlefield, where they are not motivated solely by a profit motive but bloody revenge. Both parties know that getting out of the foreign policy mess is now impossible. All, the liberals can expect is some attempt at reform so when retribution comes it will be less severe. However, the republicans are curious about the profitable opportunities that may be lost by an early exit and maybe the gamble might keep america's demise at bay a little longer (I'd give it a +5 yrs). It's an experiment the poor will send their children to prove and I doubt they'd be interested in doing it if it were only to buy them a few short years.

      Ultimately, an early exit or a late one will have little effect on the overall foreign policy picture. Competition is getting stiffer and our monopoly on force is shrinkin

    6. Re:You forgot to mention... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      As someone who seems proud to have spent 4 (or more?) years studying pol. sci. Why don't you establish what your ideas are for appropriate policy? Your discussion so far is just as bad as any uninformed fool on the street. You have no ideas, and you want someone to come up with a different idea for you so that you can then proceed to criticize it because it's not the same as those of whichever group to whom you've pledged your allegiance. That is there is no way you can even consider a liberal argument if you believe in a totally fictional set of axioms in your model of the world. What was the point of the degree again? Fools are already fed propaganda free of charge.

      Well, one point was to pick out baseless ad hominem attacks... but hey, let's continue...

      The liberal's self hatred comes from the realization that what the nation proclaims itself to be is radically different from what it actually is. This in turn makes it no better than any other brutish nation on earth. At this point you're going 'oooh nooo. do we rape and kill thousands? aha! i've caught you now!' Allow me to explain.

      Oh yes, do please explain to me!

      So long as we have the monopoly on power, those close to it (the american people) are safe and those on the periphery of our empire suffer the brunt of this injustice,

      Great use of the word "empire" there. Really, it obviously shows us what your opinions are.

      So, you believe America is in charge of an empire. Interesting. Which countries, precisely, does this include? How, precisely, are these countries suffering the "brunt of this injustice"? I'm not saying the U.S. has always dealt "justly" with the rest of the world - the U.S. is a self-interested actor in a world of self-interested actors. For someone who likes to tear down others for a lack of ideas, you fail to do anything to actually back yours up.

      because of the administrators we appoint to manage our capital assets.

      Hmm... a believer in Marxist/"Globalist" IR theory, perhaps?

      If you are a bible thumper, this is no different from Rome appointing a favored brutal king named herod, to manage israel. Sure, on the propaganda papyrus he's the king of the jews, but what choice did they really have in supporting his leadership?. He was dropped into place at a Roman whim. And he will do anything to pacify the jews for roman business interests in the region. So yes, they were disgusted both with herod and the architects of his power, the romans.

      Oooh... "Bible Thumper". No loaded language there. No siree bob. You mean the U.S. would *gasp* support leaders who support its world view? SHOCKING! Why, NO other country in the WORLD would do such a thing!

      The time is fast coming when we will no longer have the monopoly on power and energy in this world and our empire will shrink moving the periphery close to home. What then? Wouldn't you want to reform a batterer before he starts failing in life and comes home to take it out on the family? Do you want to be there when that happens?

      Oooh... core vs. periphery. He IS a Marxist/Globalist of the Wallerstein persuasion!

      Top it off with an analogy that doesn't fit and we just keep on a rolling...

      So yes, it may seem incomprehensible to you right now, but the liberal policy is to reform the excesses of the battering aristocracy in america before our certain foreign failure.

      A fait accompli, perhaps?

      At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)

      So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...

      and brutal dictatorships will have to be met here at home. As for foreign affairs, the time for discussion was before jumping into the pit. Liberals advocated in every war that america has had for isolation from foreign affairs and against bloody expansionism for the profit of a few rich families.

      You disappoint me by not stating "Hallib

    7. Re:You forgot to mention... by prurientknave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not a political science major. (Science? I guess the term is used loosely.) I have no idea who your witty asides are referring to or what their political persuasions are, or even the names or intersections of of their various persuasions.

      I don't think I'm a marxist. Atleast I don't recall mentioning anything about collectivising anything but hey if straw man arguments are the way you swing so be it.

      Of the responses I could decipher
      a)If you don't know the list of nations under our thumb then you've wasted money on a worthless education.
      b)You do make a valid point about america being a self interested actor that routinely , overthrows popularly elected govts in favor of strong man dictators that stay in line with regard to our economic interests. If you don't think this has anything to do with (a) then obviously we're operating under totally different rulesets for understanding realiyt.
      c)you brought up the image of the america the batterer and the liberal apologists. I explored the metaphor for you to see why the liberals are worried. Again if you don't understand it you have a strange way of perceiving reality.
      d)At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)
      So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...

      The republicans have been found time and time again of running prostitution rings and sweat shops abroad as hospitality suites for the well to do. My question was what happens to these appetites when they don't have foreigners to feed on? What happens to american women and children when these monsters come home to roost? How you twisted that to slander me is another leap of mushy pol. sci. thinking that your type is famous for.
      e)Oh how do these other nations compare to our amazing power? The SCO (shanghai cooperation organization) combining russia and china are determined to stamp out our influence and bases in the region. Without our bases in the region we become less and less able to monopolize the oil supplies in the region. Once our dominance of the oil is gone, what reason does anyone have to export to us at the current rate? We can only push them to slave labor while they need oil backed in dollars. Which remains backed only because of our control of the shipping lanes in the region. With their recent moves in the region (new pipelines etc) they aim to secure their own access to oil. Which reduces any necessity for trade with us. India remains a key contender in the region. Sure, they don't have the ability to reach into america, but making our oil supplies insecure is a trick they too can join in. It seems their recent accords with the SCO seems to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for a US plan to use them as a china counterweight, regardless of the measely bones we toss them every so often.
      f)The atrocities in iran occurred during a US backed regime quite similar to the iraq script, we supplied the means for the overthrow of a popular govt to a more brutal, though more favorable despot. This puppet was then overthrown and his band of traitors executed by the popular insurgency which then became the present govt. Oh of course atrocities happened but the USA and britain funded and made it happen. Whoops.
      g)As to your 'argument' of the caveat. Let me ask you this. Is it your position that criminals not be brought to justice and compensation made? Sure one can argue that this would be unduly difficult for the criminal, since he's gotten used to having the things he stole etc. but is it just? If you don't think it's just then you understand why their people hate us. Sure you're right, from a realistic stand point they're in no position to bring the dominant power to justice. But given the chance they will do everything to hasten our downfall. h) the ones who work two jobs to make ends meet aren't the ones writing policy or even being presented with a truthful accounting of our actions both past and present at home and abroad. they're being robbed blind w

    8. Re:You forgot to mention... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      I just had to read so I could get a good laugh... thanks as always.

      I'm not a political science major. (Science? I guess the term is used loosely.) I have no idea who your witty asides are referring to or what their political persuasions are, or even the names or intersections of of their various persuasions.

      Yes, it is obvious you attack what you don't understand. Typical.

      I don't think I'm a marxist. Atleast I don't recall mentioning anything about collectivising anything but hey if straw man arguments are the way you swing so be it.

      You believe in traditional Marxist international relations theory, with a focus on core/periphery issues, class warfare, and on top of that the traditional gloom and doom for the future and absolute future failure of capitalism (or, say, the demise of America in 5 years...). If that's not a traditional Marxist/Globalist, I have no idea what is.

      So, you're a Marxist. There you have it.

      Of the responses I could decipher

      a)If you don't know the list of nations under our thumb then you've wasted money on a worthless education.


      Actually, the point is this - if you can't back up your arguments with something, don't make them. It's like saying, "political science is STUPID!" and then saying, "well, I don't know anything about political science". It's stupid.

      b)You do make a valid point about america being a self interested actor that routinely , overthrows popularly elected govts in favor of strong man dictators that stay in line with regard to our economic interests. If you don't think this has anything to do with (a) then obviously we're operating under totally different rulesets for understanding realiyt.

      While it may be difficult to understand, nations want to stay on top and have a world order that fits their desires. You are no different - you want to see the demise of America so your preferred countries can step into power.

      c)you brought up the image of the america the batterer and the liberal apologists. I explored the metaphor for you to see why the liberals are worried. Again if you don't understand it you have a strange way of perceiving reality.

      Perhaps this is once again along the lines of "american indian philosophical". What you posted here isn't English. If English is not your native language, please repost in your native language so I can understand you - I speak/read/write Spanish and French and some Arabic. Try again.

      d)At which point their appetite for the fruits of sweat shops, young prostitutes (how young will they go?)
      So, you're either a liberal in support of foreign policy or you're a pedophile...
      The republicans have been found time and time again of running prostitution rings and sweat shops abroad as hospitality suites for the well to do. My question was what happens to these appetites when they don't have foreigners to feed on? What happens to american women and children when these monsters come home to roost? How you twisted that to slander me is another leap of mushy pol. sci. thinking that your type is famous for.


      You admit you don't know anything about my type, then claim we're "famous" for certain things?

      Your original post made it quite clear, my good man. This is called false choice dilemma - either you're with us, or you're a pedophile, which will it be! It's possible to be a non-liberal AND a non-pedophile. Have you considered that possibility? I, for example, am not a liberal and have never sought out sex with anyone other than my wife, who was over the age of 18 when we met.

      e)Oh how do these other nations compare to our amazing power? The SCO (shanghai cooperation organization) combining russia and china are determined to stamp out our influence and bases in the region. Without our bases in the region we become less and less able to monopolize the oil supplies in the region.

      The U.S. GDP is around 12 Trillion dollars. China's comes in at 1.5 trillion or so, India under

    9. Re:You forgot to mention... by prurientknave · · Score: 1

      Well I was a little drunk, and it was late at night. My writing skills suffered =)

      Aha! but after all those useless lines of rhetoric you've confirmed that america does do nasty things abroad for its self interest, while in your original post you claim you had no idea why some were always apologetic, because we had done nothing to gain such resentment. ;) You contradict yourself and I win!
       
        As for GDP calculations tell me what it is we export from our own shores outside of 'security' also known as a global 'protection racket'. Many of the resources that are refined come from elsewhere, whole products show up from other countries only to branded in the states to be the re-exported or sold at grossly inflated rates. The margins on coercion on the original manufacturer are so great that it actually makes business sense to do this! And then there's of course the sale of military systems. Which then end up being operated by our troops while they're stationed on foreign soil. I guess this counts as an export right? Or does this fall into the racketeering portion of our exports? And then there's the ever popular construction and abandonment of military bases on foreign soil, you have to 'export' for that too. Can't use local concrete, then add a markup w000. We've just exported a million dollar toilet. You should really examine these numbers before you hurl them with confidence.
       
      I've travelled outside of the great white empire long enough to see the other side. So spare me the pithy tales of the wisdom you've gained by visiting our european cousins and our somewhat pacified southern neighbors.

      p.s. poke around the newspaper some south american country just nationalized something and some other middle eastern country is threatening to disrupt the supply of something else.

  103. So... by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    How would you propose the U.S. respond to a nuclear attack that kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people?

  104. The "A" Ark Never Left... by FFFish · · Score: 1

    Any chance all these middle managers and politicos are being loaded onto a spaceship, with a course set to crashland on another planet?

    I mean, I want to keep my hairdresser and telephone sanitizer dude and all that. It's the politicos I'm sick of having around...

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  105. 9/11 was NOT catastrophic by Britz · · Score: 1

    The panic that followed it was. The paranoia is. It gets used for all kinds of shit, but is still paranoia. Please adivce your fellow citizen that 9/11 (while being pretty symbolic) was not an attack on America. It was simply a terrorist attack. Those do happen quite often. Not with the same grave results, but for on a much more frequent schedule for example in Israel.

    Watching what has happened to the US I think the terrorists have achieved a lot of things. And that shouldn't have happened, because terrorists shouldn't achieve anything IMHO. Best would have been if airport security would have gone up a little and the cockpits would have gotten seals that no one can a) shoot b) talk through. But a lot of stuff has happened that was explained by the attacks that actually doesn't have anything to do with them.

    I have come to loathe everyting related to 9/11. Absolutely anything.

    1. Re:9/11 was NOT catastrophic by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      9/11 (while being pretty symbolic) was not an attack on America

      Right! They like America, and didn't want anyone to draw any conclusions about their feelings for the country as a whole. No. They just hated the people on the planes, in the World Trade Center, and in the Pentagon. The rhetoric from the people who planned the attack, describing it specifically as a blow against the country and against the west in general, was obviously just confused. They should really check with you before they talk again, just in case they once again inadvertantly let slip another "death to America," since they obviously don't mean that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  106. Were saving the wrong people by mjh2901 · · Score: 1

    The problem the government is plannin on saving beurocrats and politicions. No one with any of the actual skills that would be required to save society. I keep thinking of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy and the ship filled with middle management and telephone cleaners.

    1. Re:Were saving the wrong people by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      You mean breading ability?

      I think that in case of big disaster and the ones in the bunker are the last civilized persons around, anyone over 45 is a waste of bunker space even if he is the brighest in a critical field.

  107. This is the flaw of Central Planning... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    Kill the head, and everything dies. Or take over the head.

    If our entire economy and society wasn't structured around one central all-powerful government institution... then it wouldn't be nessicary to carry out expensive, retarded exercises like this. Keep infrastructure extremly decentralized, extremly diverse and non-standardized, and the strategy of one big dramatic attack wouldn't make sense.

    And as a side benifit, facism would be damn near impossible because there would be no way one small group of people could take control of all the numerous and completly diverse centers of power.

    1. Re:This is the flaw of Central Planning... by Morrigu · · Score: 1

      TJ? Madison? Franklin? Is that you?

      I thought all the Founding Fathers were busy spinning in their graves right about now.

      --
      "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
  108. Just One Key Function Will Be Missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole pratice drill fails on key aspect of Government... Who to tax so they can continue to spend butt loads of money. Governments don't make money, by their nature. Without us working class stiffs, earning real money, the government will soon grind to a halt. How many government employees does it take to plant a "potatoe" plant? Then again if a real attack of this scale happens, it only takes a few people to push the buttons to end it all, and I will be a corpse in the street so who cares....

  109. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    I asked for quote, and you gave me a link to some uber-partisan Bush-basher. Is that really all you got?

    That quote is not of a "fundamentalist" -- a man of convictions, yes, but nothing you are trying to read into it. Sorry, try again.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  110. Worst Case Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Imageine this horrid picture:

    All the politicians evacuate to their bunkers, and a nuclear holocaust actually happens. Everyone in the world dies except the politicians. Then, many years later, the entire world is populated completely with the children of the politicians.

    AHHHHH!

    Anything but that.

    Either the entire race should be exterminated, or nobody should die at all, just don't leave THE POLITICIANS!

    1. Re:Worst Case Scenario by v3xt0r · · Score: 0

      heh, yea, that's my worst fear! =/

      --
      the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  111. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    Why is it that so many liberals can't seem to avoid making themselves look as foolish as the neocons?
    Neo-Conservatism is not about religion at all. It certainly has nothing remotely "religiously fundamentalist" about it.

    These people are highly fundamentalist, for example, but they are Democrats and thus very far from the current US leadership...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  112. New Slashdot GUI by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    I see they've migrated to the new ugly-ass faggy Slashdot GUI. Anyone know how to fix?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  113. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Hang on, so you're saying you deny Bush said that God speaks through him?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  114. Followed by Python Harbor on 10/12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're also planning to port this Harbor app to Eiffel or Ocaml but it's a bit more complicated...

  115. Q: How many people, did you say? by TACNailed · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A: There are 4000 people running this country.

  116. that whooshing noise by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    [sound of that post sailing over heads of the mods]

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:that whooshing noise by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Nope, I can't hear it. But ... I can just about make out a contrail.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  117. oh by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    You're talking about how they're really there to calm the passengers before catastrophe strikes?

    Kinda like whatever's this week's breathless Survival Idol news. Yeah.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:oh by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      When oxygen mask pops up in front of you, you put it first on yourself, then on your child.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:oh by Wizord · · Score: 1

      Well, after all it makes some sense. I think it's better to put your mask on before falling asleep because of oxygen deprivation; then, you can put your childrens mask. It doesn't work very well the other way around.

      --
      Regards, Wizord.
    3. Re:oh by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what I am talking about when the subj is the reaction of the government:

      Without government in critical situation like this, there is chaos, so the government first saves itself, then tries to save remaining citizen.

      Government is not a person, for which altruism looks good.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  118. Fallout by Riley's+Rants · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think the world situation is starting to sound uncannily like the Fallout games? Government builds underground bunkers (Vaults), begins drills for them. Hell, in the Fallout games, what happened before World War III and the end of the world was the annexation of Canada, US invades Mexico for oil, Europe and Middle East feud over oil, China fights USA for Alaska... It's scary that videogames made nearly 10 years ago tell a story so eerily similar to what is happening today.

  119. yeah by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    We had them design and build it.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:yeah by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  120. I know, I know!! by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
    How would you propose the U.S. respond to a nuclear attack that kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people?

    They liberate Iraq?

    *badum shing* Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal!

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  121. State-of-the-art technology by aelvin · · Score: 1
    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, ...

    ... all of which will fail immediately during any actual emergency, meaning that the US government will be perfectly prepared to continue during any catastrophic event which causes absolutely nothing to go wrong.

    I don't know about you all, but my cell phone service stops working when there's bad traffic because it's snowing. During the winter. When the weather forecast predicted snow.

    Telephone sanitizers, indeed.

  122. Even more catastrophic by jandersen · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    .. an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The attack on the World Trading Centre was bad, no doubt, but 'catastrophic'? Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophe, the tsunami was one, global warming is becoming one, and the Bush administration is worse than one; I wouldn't, however, call the terror attacks a 'catastrophe'. I thought the Americans were supposed to be 'thick skinned' and 'resilient', but since those attacks you have panicked and run around like decapitated chickens, allowing a moron like Bush and his fascist cronies to run wild over you.

    I think you guys should get rid of them - people like Bush, Ashcroft, Chenie and Rice are the main reason why America has problems in the world.

    1. Re:Even more catastrophic by Oswald · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure Rice deserves to be lumped in with the other three assholes.

      Anyway, that's not the point. The point is, what you're saying is right and important and much, much more likely to be heard and assimilated if you'll deny yourself the satisfaction of these little tantrums. Americans are panicked, but we don't feel panicked; we feel angry. Anger is the second emotion; it is an emotional response to the original, unpleasant emotional response. We have to help the bleating mass of Americans understand that they need to put aside their anger so they can deal with their fears in a constructive way (which would naturally include a foreign policy designed to reduce our danger, not just increase other people's).

      Name-calling ("moron," "fascist") may not be the most constructive approach.

  123. hats off to Sathington Willoughby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paranoia is a disease onto itself,
      and may I add,
      the person standing next to you
      may not be who they appear to be,
      so take precautions.

  124. Thank Ivy Exclusion Prestige for the low quality. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    If you're the product of an American university education these days, I'm scared for the future of our country.
    Somehow that rings clear for a lot of our Ivory Tower administration (and those who have been given the administration's blessing), which has less than a handful of people that went to places with open admissions and more than their share of Ivy level incompetence. When you have a good deal of people from an exclusive institution or two, you're going to get a bunch of them put through. The results are what we have today in our government on both sides.

      Roberts, the Yalito, "Shoe Store Assault by Proxy" Rice, Bolton(), Bush, and others(I wonder if his bunker is at Yale) all seem to not reflect the intention to have exclusion generate quality classes. The first two make Miers look clean by current decisions - she's probably one of the few non Ivies that made it as far as she did - and proved it during her nomination that if you're not from a highly exclusive university, you're not going to get SCOTUS even if you are more competent than the Ivy/Ivory Tower candidate.

    If this is the beginning generation of a decline in Ivy quality, they might as well just open admissions and be on with it. It's not like they could dig themselves any deeper by doing it. Heck, the entirety of the Midwest that wanted to study law there would make it look clean at Yale, MIT (Ivory Tower but not Ivy) would actually generate high quality domestic talent, and Harvard wouldnt have as many offshorer business majors.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  125. Re:Uhm... given that both major terrorist attacks. by mrdaveb · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I wouldn't describe the London bombs as one of only 2 major recent attacks. You know, there was that bombing in Bali that killed hundreds. And I'm sure some other terrible events I've forgotten (probably in Iraq)

    --
    Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
  126. poor world! by Gridpoet · · Score: 0

    So what they are saying is all that will be left after a giant "world-destroying" disaster is liars, thieves and bureaucrats?

    i think i'm kind of glad i get to be vaporized...

    --

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!

  127. Toronto 17 by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

    I hadn't heard about this ('cause I spent yesterday building a play structure, not surfin' the 'net), so thank you for the information. However, nothing I read in 3 articles found using Google indicated anything about Internet surveillance. Could you please provide a reference?

    1. Re:Toronto 17 by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      Thanks, this article is much more informative than anything else I saw.

  128. You are the funniest person on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have a cigar :)

  129. testing 710 area code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be worse. FEMA could "practice" Operation SCATANA. LOL

    Well, the article got a few little facts wrong, but it was pretty good. It is just a re-write of http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,660700 ,00.html, but this article has more details http://www.mojones.com/news/feature/1994/01/fema.h tml. Here is a less biased article http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd0 1schwartz

    FEMA will also be conducting tests of GETS 710-627-4387 access codes and coordinating with ham radio shortwave volunteers. (Do not call that number or the FBI will knock on your door) I hope they test NAWAS.

    Raven Rock and Mount Weather will not be the only US underground areas busy during the drill. Olney, Maryland, will be busy also.

    But, I would be worried if the Russians also have a June 19 drill at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals.

    The National Guards and port authorities will also be coordinating efforts.

    Odd, I can't find the code name for this June 19 drill and it is not mentioned on the FEMA calendar.

    By the way, Iran is not planning on performing a traditional nuking of Washington DC. Iran is planning on performing an EMP attack that will wipe out almost all electronics in the US.

    Such disaster preparations are important not just for nuclear attacks, but for events such as pandemic and asteroids. Rumor says that someone at NASA has reopened Project Orion, for lifting the US equivalent to the Tsar Bomba. Bye bye asteroid.

    1. Re:testing 710 area code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope the don't test Global Guardian. Yikes. Look what happend last time.

  130. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    Hang on, so you're saying you deny Bush said that God speaks through him?
    I deny that his saying it is a sign of religious fundamentalism. We know, Bush is religious — so are many Americans. But a fundamentalist, as in:
    1. fundamentalism -- (the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth)
    he is not.

    Or so I think, and you failed to give an example, when politely requested...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  131. 9/11 Exercises by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "During the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US was holding multiple annual and one-time war games with at least one resembling the actual attacks."
    Link

    "On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building"
    Link

    For a full-on paranoid Google spree, try "9/11 + exercises" ...
    Link

    If your head hasn't already exploded or gone into hibernation, you might also inquire into the standing-down of air defense systems.

    --
    -kgj
  132. The day will come that there wont be an US anymore by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    and that's a fact. Someday it will be gone. They know that too and
    after whatever catastrophe hits, rolls over the land and slaughters
    most of the population, they expect to come back to the surface,
    armed to the teeth to rule over the survivors.

    I know where they have a special bunker here in the area and I know a
    lot of chlorinated public swimming pools where they have those metal
    bottles of chlorine gas :-)

  133. There... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    It was not a terrible time for the person who sat on his comfy chair in a primary school and continued to read My Pet Goat after he got the news.

    ...fixed it for ya!

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  134. Vaults by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    I hope they remember to bring an extra water chip.

  135. Bunkers In Suburbs by captainClassLoader · · Score: 1
    The article says:
    "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.


    Why put classified bunker-type facilities in suburbia? My guess is, during the Cold War, those facilities were rural and far removed from the city, and easy to keep out of the public eye. Fifty years of DC area population growth has moved the suburbs out to those facilities now.
    --
    "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
  136. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    "Put up or shut up" is a strange way of being polite.

    He has also said that he is the great decider, and has hinted that he hopes to be in power when the holocaust arrives. Yes, I consider that fairly fundamental: he believes the literal word of Revelations and intends to help see it to fruition.

    To find a middle ground, I will agree that he only uses religion to further his purposes. There is no evidence that he actually believes it, so you're probably correct to state that he is not a religious fundamentalist; he just plays one on TV.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  137. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    "Put up or shut up" is a strange way of being polite.
    It was "Put up or shut up, so to speak". And I even thanked you (in advance).
    he hopes to be in power when the holocaust arrives
    When what arrives?!
    he believes the literal word of Revelations and intends to help see it to fruition
    You'll need to elabore more on this (and on the "great decider" bit)... Oh, wait, no need, you already admitted your mistake:
    you're probably correct to state that he is not a religious fundamentalist;
    In other words, there is NO "religious fundamentalism" in the current US leadership. Of course, there is not. Too bad certain unscrupulous participants in a debate throw such accusations, requiring 3-4 follow-up postings to force them to withdraw their bogus comments... Please, don't be one of them again. Thank you.
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  138. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by Wizord · · Score: 1

    Applied to politics, fundamentalism means a social model based on strict religion, whose civil laws are based on religious norms, principles or dogmas. Islamic fundamentalism could include a reduced set of civil liberties for women, corporal penalties, sex regulation and jihad. Christian fundamentalism on the other side could include ... oh wait!

    Looking at all those new bills introduced in the last years, I can't but conclude that fundamentalism is at raise in the US.

    --
    Regards, Wizord.
  139. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    "Lack of evidence of 100%" does not equal "the evidence shows 0%."

    But anyway, thank you for correcting my gross abuse of the language. I will never again abuse the language in this way, and I fully agree with you that neither your first nor your most recent "thank you" was dripping with sarcasm.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  140. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    your most recent "thank you" was dripping with sarcasm.
    It was — and remains — polite sarcasm.
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  141. Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt? by mi · · Score: 1
    Applied to politics, fundamentalism means [...]

    Changing the definitions of the terms to suit your views is unacceptable in a debate.

    Islamic fundamentalism could include a reduced set of civil liberties for women, corporal penalties, sex regulation and jihad.

    The argument for it is, usually: "because Koran says so," — thus perfectly within the WordNet's definition of fundamentalism as "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth". See, no need to invent your own...

    Looking at all those new bills introduced in the last years, I can't but conclude that fundamentalism is at raise in the US.

    At the very beginning of this thread I asked for an example or two. Why can't you offer any, I wonder? Again: what do Bush and/or other high-ranking US officials advocate by appealing to some scripture's words? Awaiting...

    Merci bcp.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  142. Flamebait Stalker by Shihar · · Score: 1

    Thanks for pointing it out. I had noticed it already that someone is wandering around labeling my stuff as flamebait even when it clearly is not. The poor smuck is just wasting his mod points though. I have excellent karma that isn't going to budge so much as an inch no matter how many mod points they throw at me. My real positive karma scores vastly outnumber the handful of mod points that my little adoring fan has to flamebait me with.

    If anything I am kind of flattered that someone finds my posts so insightful that they are willing to stalk my posts and desperately try and mod them down in an attempt to keep people from reading them. People don't censor meaningless drivel; they censor stuff that has meaning and impact. I'll take earning a flamebait stalker as a badge of pride that someone finds my posts interesting enough keep tabs on everything I post.

    1. Re:Flamebait Stalker by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 1

      like you said, they can't have too many mod points. hell, i only get them like every two weeks or so, and i even tried to mod the robot post up again, but it wouldn't let me mod it twice. i wonder how many people are being modded down for no reason.

      personally, i don't mod someone down if i disagree with them. if i keep coming across highly modded comments from the same person, and that person has a completely different philosophy or political view, and i get tired of reading the same thing in every article, i just foe them so i can filter them on MY preferences, but that way i don't censor them.

      --
      i disable sigs