Slashdot Mirror


Cheyenne Mountain Shutting Down

WilliamSChips writes "The United States military has announced that they are shutting down the facility at Cheyenne Mountain, home to the high-tech NORAD which tracks every object in the sky. NORAD's operations will be moved to the nearby Peterson Air Force base. The mountain facility is being placed on standby in case they need it again." From the article: "The Cheyenne Mountain center, at the eastern foot of the Rockies near the base of Pikes Peak, was constructed underground in the mid-1960s. Fearing nuclear attacks at the time, the United States built sites such as the Cheyenne Mountain complex. The Navy prepared a floating White House aboard the communications cruiser USS Northampton, in case the president needed to be evacuated from U.S. soil. Another protective bunker was created near White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., for members of Congress."

293 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    The stargate program is being expanded...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by NoxNoctis · · Score: 2, Funny

      All the research projects and archives from Area 51 are being moved the SGC. Sadly, this means the Air Force had to evict all the NORAD desk jockies. No, I'm not implying they just push paper; they push buttons too :-)

      --
      "You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
    2. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by NoxNoctis · · Score: 1

      Pardon my slaughtering of the English language, I forgot a "to" in my previous response.

      --
      "You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
    3. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

      Na, its being outsourced. Apparently Afghanistan has some cheap and currently vacant mountain complexes and staff with low salary expectations.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    4. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew where they're building all those Daedalus class ships...

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    5. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by kristopher · · Score: 1

      Broom closet my ass!

    6. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Broom closet my ass!

            I'm sure that's a clever allusion to a movie or something. War Games? But, damn, that combination of words is just disturbing.

    7. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by lengau · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a recent documentary, one of the producers of Stargate said that, in the real Cheyenne mountain, there's a door with a sign that says "Stargate Command", but that it's actually just a broom closet.

      --
      I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
    8. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by TCE-BFG · · Score: 1

      I knew we couldn't trust Woolsey. It would appear that the IOA have finally gotten their way: The Stargate program is moving to China! Still, I suppose that's better than letting Bush call the shots. Despite the obvious benefit of him looking a bit Asgardish around the ears.

    9. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Stiletto · · Score: 1, Funny


      OK, I'll bite. WTF is star gate? There have already been about 50 posts about it to this thread. Is it some kind of new Internet meme that I've never heard of?

    10. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Informative

      The president in Stargate Canon is Henry Hayes, not George W. Bush, thank Oma.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    11. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stargate SG-1 s a science fiction show aired on the sci-fi channel. It's in it's 8th season now I believe. The stargate is supposedly this big ring looking thing that allows people to open a wormhole to another stargate, there are a lot of stargates places all over the galaxy.

      It turns out that there are also stargates all over the universe but that requires a lot of power and a weird ass way to dial to the other stargate. They find a way to do that and they create stargate Atlantis which is it's own show now.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    12. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Traiklin · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's onto season 10 now.

      Everything else is correct though.

    13. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

    14. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by SpectreHiro · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew where they're building all those Daedalus class ships...

      Have you checked in space?

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    15. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by NATP · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Sci-Fi channel series is based on the movie (1994) of the same name -- described here in Iternet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111282/

    16. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Anubis_Ascended · · Score: 1
    17. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Lalo+Martins · · Score: 1

      I came to /. just to see the stargate jokes... it's great not to be disappointed for once ;-)

    18. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glad to be of service. (I'm the submitter. I originally had "But the real question is: What will happen to the SGC?" but Zonk edited it out.)

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    19. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      The REAL reason they're emptying out Cheyenne is because Dick Cheney needs a Western vacation home. ..Not that he has a fetish for living underground, or wears a plastic skin over his scales, or secretly eats rodents, or nuthin. -- What? Alien-human hybrids are a state secret? OMG - now you tell me - I clicked 'Submit' already. For the love of god - give me back my copy of "How to Serve Man". I promise not to make any more trouble.

    20. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, even their broom closets are cool !!

    21. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by ph0rk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nothing. It doesn't exist. You never heard of any stargate program or the SGC.

      Move along.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    22. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Either that or they've got a serious "foothold" situation.

      --
      -- Alastair
    23. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      SG-1, actually. Some wag posted a "Stargate Command" sign on a door in the Mountain. The door leads to a broom closet.


      I don't know why, but I take great comfort in the fact that these guys have a sense of humor.
    24. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it always bugged me that the TV series put the Stargate in Cheyene Mountain. If I remember the movie right, it was in an abandoned missle silo in North Dakota. Which made a lot more sense storywise — why locate such a secret operation in a base where thousands of people work? But of course, to make Vancouver look like Colorado Springs, you just have to avoid getting the Fraser River in the background. Lot harder to make it look like Grand Forks.

    25. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Actually, in the movie the Stargate was moved into Creek Mountain, Colorado. And they put the SGC beneath NORAD because it puts distance between it and the surface, and because it already has a lot of important things, like power and a secure link to the President.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    26. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      And of course any Goa'uld who get past the guards are conveniently close to the NORAD command center. Just in case they want to drop by and say hello.

      An encrypted line can be installed anywhere. And why does the Stargate have to be "far from the surface"?

    27. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The TV series is the cover for the real SGC
      (if anyone discovers the real SGC and tries
      to expose it, the military just points to
      the TV series and claims the person is
      delusional). No one watches SG-1, it is
      on cable.....

    28. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by feronti · · Score: 1

      Because the fail-safe in the case of a foothold scenario is a nuclear bomb. If the bad guys manage to take control of significant portions of the SGC, they set off a nuke. The nuke collapses significant portions of the mountain onto both the bad guys and the gate. Finishes off the bad guys in the base, and buries the gate so they can't send more.

    29. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      NSA? I think you mean NID. Or Senator Kinsey.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    30. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I don't see why being able to monitor the airspace around North America would really be that important to a Goa'uld, it would just be a longer path to the six billion potential Tau'ri slaves, and any Goa'uld able to invade the SGC would be able to get most of NORAD's monitoring capabilities by putting a mothership around Earth orbit. And being very far down is important because, as sibling poster pointed out, we use a really big bomb for SGC self-destruct.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    31. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by fm6 · · Score: 1

      And destroys a key military command post. Wouldn't a n abandoned salt mine make more sense?

    32. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, either the Goa'uld are just paying a courtesy call, in which case they'll want to slaughter as many key Tau'ri military leaders as they can manage. Or else, they're the pathfinders for a planetary invasion, in which case they'll certainly want to take over NORAD first thing, since most of their troops would be coming in by Flying Pyramid.

      But never mind Goa'uld psychology. If I were the CO of NORAD, and somebody told me there was a portal just below my command post through which very nasty aliens were constantly attempting to travel, I'd have very strong views about its immediate relocation.

    33. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      NORAD doesn't have any key military members. A post somewhere else in the thread mentions that it's got maybe a few dozen people in the War Room and it's led by a one-star general. All your key Tau'ri leaders won't be in or near NORAD unless it's part of an evacuation to the Alpha Site or some sort of press tour, and if we're invaded it won't be the latter. Although I thought of another reason NORAD should be close to the SGC. The SGC needs to be the first to know if there are Goa'uld ships out there and it would be good for them to edit the giant pyramids out of the images

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    34. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by afidel · · Score: 1

      Because suddenly having large numbers of military personell and hardware start entering a formerly abandoned mine stirs up all sorts of questions even from normal people whereas expanding operations at an existing site only tends to arouse suspicion is a keen observer working for a strong opponent. Oh and you can piggyback on existing infrastructure and expenditures to make your black budget dollars stretch farther =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    35. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Criterion · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't read through all the replies to your post, but what I did look through all missed a vital piece of information pertaining to your query, you've been told what Stargate is (and it's popularity being just shy of Star Trek/Star Wars levels, coming up on the 200th episode), but you've not been told it's relevence to this article, which is that SGC (Stargate Command) is located in Cheyenne Mountain.

      --
      We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
    36. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by flacco · · Score: 1

      they're making room for the rich people.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    37. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Lies! Lies I say! They can definately fit more then 7 people in that room. In fact, I clearly see approximately 15 members of the Denver Nuggets Dancers inside of one of our top-security military bases!

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    38. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Of course it doesn't. The Stargate program doesn't exist; neither does Stargate Command. You're probably thinking of that short-lived sci-fi series, Wormhole X-Treme!.

    39. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by coaxial · · Score: 1
    40. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Catmeat · · Score: 1

      Nonsense!

      They're finally pulling the plug on WOPR. Although they'll be doing so very carefully!

    41. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Not that we'd mind George Bush being in another sort of cannon.

    42. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by DogAlmity · · Score: 1
      they push buttons too
      "Chevron one encoded!"
    43. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      If I were the CO of NORAD, and somebody told me there was a portal just below my command post through which very nasty aliens were constantly attempting to travel, I'd have very strong views about its immediate relocation.

      Of course, since (as the other poster pointed out) the CO at NORAD isn't that high on the totem pole, if he kept bitching about it the obvious solution would be to relocate NORAD. Hmmmm...

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    44. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Except, in the original movie they use something Creek Mountain. I don't remember the "something" though.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    45. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Sure, just a 'broom closet'. Just like the entrance to the Wildfire Project.

    46. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's OK to nuke a Brigadier General. So fuck him.

      On the other hand, the NORAD commander is a always a four-star officer. (The current dude is an full admiral.) He doesn't have his offices at Cheyene Mountain, but I don't imagine he'd be happy about his main ops center being at risk.

      Don't bother replying, this conversation has gotten way past silly.

    47. Re:It's obvious why they're *really* doing this by dburr · · Score: 1

      Great, just what we need. Underpaid, incompetent people defending the world. Game over man. Guess I better go find a copy of the Book of Origin and start studying.

      Of course, maybe that has already happened, only with the Ori taking the forms of the current US government and Religious Right leaders as disguises...

      --
      Yomigaeru Aiyan Geek!!!
  2. Auction! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's put it up for auction! This would be a really cool geek house. It would be even better than living in an old missile silo!

    1. Re:Auction! by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      I believe Diabolik already has a deposit down.

    2. Re:Auction! by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Let's put it up for auction! This would be a really cool geek house. It would be even better than living in an old missile silo!

      That's all we need is for eveyone here to be mad at Bill Gates for being able to afford buying and remodeling it.

  3. Santa by RealSurreal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they're taking the Santa tracking equipment with them!

    1. Re:Santa by creysoft · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the government's Satan tracking equipment is located in a separate and very secret location. We all know Satan is behind the terrorists, and we need to keep a close eye on him.

      Huh... Santa? Wait, what?

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    2. Re:Santa by jdbartlett · · Score: 4, Informative
      Never ye fear:
      "Cheyenne Mountain is not going away," Keating told reporters Friday. "There will be a small number of people that will remain at Cheyenne Mountain to maintain the facility in the event we need to stand up for either a real world threat or for exercises. Day-to-day NORAD-North Com operations will occur from Peterson Air Force Base."
    3. Re:Santa by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1
      "Cheyenne Mountain is not going away," Keating told reporters Friday.
      I'd imagine that it'd be rather large and inconvenient to move. Barring the availability of any etherial crystals, anyway.
    4. Re:Santa by trawg · · Score: 1

      Haha, "real world threat" made me laugh. That's what I thought they'd been telling us terrorism was for the last few years.

  4. Oblig SG-1 by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Stargate command is humanities first and last line of defense against the Goa'uld^H^H^HOri threat.

    Ahh. Who am I kidding. The show ended in the eighth season. The last two episodes caped it perfectly. It was time to decommission. Adios.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Oblig SG-1 by Shinaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, everything was nicely rounded off end of season 8. But I guess they'll not stop it until it's no longer profitable.

      --
      -- :>
    2. Re:Oblig SG-1 by diablomonic · · Score: 1

      shouldnt they go public before they stop making episodes? I mean, shouldnt stargate land earthlings know there is a stargate? other wise, humanity has got nowhere, I mean, even the crappy little backwater planets with a few man-apes on them know what the chapa-ai(sp?) is, but not the majority of the tari (sp2?).....

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
    3. Re:Oblig SG-1 by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      The spellings you're looking for are "Chappa'ai" and "Tau'ri". It seems the Goa'uld are big on apostrophes.

    4. Re:Oblig SG-1 by hazem · · Score: 1

      It seems the Goa'uld are big on apostrophes.

      Nah... English simply lacks a written letter for the glottal stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottal_stop

      Arabic has such a consonnant, but I suppose that makes sense if the Goa'uld were so active in North Africa in the early dawn of man...

    5. Re:Oblig SG-1 by SpectreHiro · · Score: 3, Funny

      It seems the Goa'uld are big on apostrophes.

      And darn near every other alien race in sci-fi (and fantasy). Nothing says alien like an apostrophe... Perhaps because most Americans' are so unfamiliar with them.

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    6. Re:Oblig SG-1 by SpectreHiro · · Score: 2, Informative

      The apostrophe after "Americans" is now doubly hilarious.

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    7. Re:Oblig SG-1 by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Funny

      It seems the Goa'uld are big on apostrophes

      Those people who stick an apostrophe on every word that ends with "s" are probably Goa'uld sympathizers. Better kill them just be sure.

    8. Re:Oblig SG-1 by Kaemaril · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you mean Goa'uld sympathizers'

      :)

      (No, not really)

    9. Re:Oblig SG-1 by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Not me, I s'ympathize with the other ones.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  5. Quote from General Moe by jdbartlett · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Let's go burn down the observatory so this never happens again!"

  6. Stargate by damiena · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where are they going to move the Stargate to then?

    1. Re:Stargate by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? We signed a treaty with the Ashen.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    2. Re:Stargate by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      They are going to randomly hide it in doorways and laugh at the look on the face of some random schmock who got teleported to Proxima Centauri.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Stargate by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      no where they are just need more room for the SGC and this just to keep more people from even knowing about what is realy going on at Cheyenne Mountain.

    4. Re:Stargate by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Where are they going to move the Stargate to then?

      They have to write this into the Stargate plot somehow. Otherwise the Stargate program then would be fiction. Oh, wait.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:Stargate by SpectreHiro · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know... Stargate SG-1 : Reality :: Wormhole X-Treme : Stargate SG-1

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    6. Re:Stargate by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, if we signed a treaty with the Aschen there would be a story about it on Slashdot. Twice.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  7. Telephone number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will WOPR have the same phone number if it's moved too?

    1. Re:Telephone number by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering all the up mods on the stargate stuff, I am surprised that nobody seems to get this one.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  8. Auction? by JimXugle · · Score: 1, Funny

    Will they auction off the contents? I've always wanted a stargate or *gasp* even better... a Puddle jumper!

    But Wait... where does this leave Atlantis?

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
    1. Re:Auction? by Anubis_Ascended · · Score: 1

      "Will they auction off the contents? I've always wanted a stargate or *gasp* even better... a Puddle jumper!" I'd take one of those 50cal machine guns they have in the Gate Room, or maybe the Iris, myself :-).

    2. Re:Auction? by soren42 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I've always wanted a stargate or *gasp* even better... a Puddle jumper!

      Ummm... excuse me, they're called "Gateships". You know, a "ship" that goes through the "gate".

      (I can't believe I just burned karma on an obscure Rodney McKay reference...)
      --

      "Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
    3. Re:Auction? by JimXugle · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thanks... I'll take that into concideration.

      (wasn't that obscure)

      --
      -jX

      Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
    4. Re:Auction? by mclipsco · · Score: 1

      I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

      --
      Take off every 'SIG'!!
    5. Re:Auction? by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      But Wait... where does this leave Atlantis?

      I'm sorry the gate address you've dialed is no longer in service. Please check the gate address and dial again.

    6. Re:Auction? by pionzypher · · Score: 1

      Hey, I thought it was clever.

      --
      I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
  9. Anyone want to have a LAN party by jmccay · · Score: 1

    I bet that would make a good house. I wonder how long before the US sells this former base.

    --
    At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    1. Re:Anyone want to have a LAN party by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Better than a house, why doesnsold't Google buy it for their primary data center and lab were it to be auctioned off?

      (Yeah, I know, the base is not actually being docomissioned and sold, but it'd be the perfect data center were that the case)

      Can you imagine the attraction of such a center? Totally impervious to war, as resistant to acts of God as one can get, plenty of shielding from RFI, climate controlled, etc. etc. plus I'm sure they have massively redundant power and data connections (it'd kinda suck if NORAD relied on a single electrical service and data demarc for their needs). There probably isn't a better data center building design anywhere. The missile silos would probably come in at a very distant second. If a hosting company or search engine/hosting company gets their hands on that complex, you can pretty much guarantee they'd capture the enterprise hosting, remote backup, and ASP market, and would gladly pay a premium for guaranteeable-ZERO downtime. The company could also get into storage of valuable, irreplaceable items such as ancient artifacts, art, gems, etc. because who the heck could break into that complex? I'd be surprised if even a bunker-buster could make its way into Cheyenne.

      If I were in control of one of those huge IT companies (MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc.) I'd have made sure that the company bought one or more of the decomissioned missile silos and were Cheyenne to be auctioned off the company would bid on it. An infrastructure like that has a ton of potential. One can dream though.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Anyone want to have a LAN party by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      they're moving out so they can sell it to Halburton to run as a political prison.. .duh.

    3. Re:Anyone want to have a LAN party by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'd probably be fired if you suggested something like that. And for good reason.

      Websites aren't nearly important enough to warrant the huge expense of operating in an underground mountain bunker. What's the point? If there were a nuclear war or some other gigantic disaster, there would be so many other outages and problems, not being able to access a website would be the last of people's concerns. That's assuming there'd even be electricity and computers left to access the web. And you'd save so much money just building a regular data center, you could afford to build another one when things settled down again.

      Cool thing to do? Yes. Good idea for a business? No.

    4. Re:Anyone want to have a LAN party by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Totally impervious to war, as resistant to acts of God as one can get

      I'm sure hosting your website from inside a mountain would be wonderful - your webservers would be totally impervious to an EMP.... sadly your upstream peers would not be so fortunate so whilest your webserver would stay up it would have no connection to the rest of the world...

  10. Would you like to play a game? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe now we can take time out to port Linux to the WOPR. How about a nice game of GnuChess?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Would you like to play a game? by Svenne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean Global Thermognuclear War?

      --

      Slagborr
    2. Re:Would you like to play a game? by Ashe+Tyrael · · Score: 1

      Greetings Professor Falken.

      --
      "How fine you look when dressed in rage."
    3. Re:Would you like to play a game? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Same thing.

    4. Re:Would you like to play a game? by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Would you like to play a game?

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    5. Re:Would you like to play a game? by Malakusen · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?

      --
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
  11. Sounds like fun by KU_Fletch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't be a bad job to be one of the handful of people maintaining the facility. You've got your own underground world that you only have to shave with a dozen othre people. Install some fun tubes, slides, and ball pits, and you've got yourself a cool clubhouse.

    --
    It's not stupid. It's advanced.
    1. Re:Sounds like fun by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      "Sure, commander Keating, we won't throw no parties while you're out!"

    2. Re:Sounds like fun by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe so, but the people who work at Cheyenne are not 12.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:Sounds like fun by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yeah I hate having to shave with lots of other people, especially when they think it's funny to nudge you and you end up walking around with a bleeding face... you might be protected from a nuclear bomb, but razors still cut ya!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Sounds like fun by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Maybe so, but the people who work at Cheyenne are not 12.
      Having served in the USAF and met a number of people who had been stationed there, I can say with some authority that NORAD troops are (as a rule) entirely devoid of a sense of humor. It is my firm opinion that they have it surgically removed when they report for duty there.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    5. Re:Sounds like fun by kimvette · · Score: 1
      Having served in the USAF and met a number of people who had been stationed there, I can say with some authority that NORAD troops are (as a rule) entirely devoid of a sense of humor.


      Thank God for that, otherwise some assclown would be faking alerts and wreaking havoc internationally,

      Aside from the "Stargate Command" sign on a broom closet, I presume? Obviously they have some semblance of humor on the base? Or, is the show Stargate SG1 actually a coverup of the real thing? (Wormhole Xtreme = best Stargate episode ever. :D)
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:Sounds like fun by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      (Wormhole Xtreme = best Stargate episode ever. :D)
      I assume you've heard about what episode 200's going to be about?
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    7. Re:Sounds like fun by will_die · · Score: 1

      While the slides are out they do have alot of playstation 2s in the place.
      Each room has a television or more if larger room in it that hanges from the ceiling. Behind the TV, on the hanger, is enough room to put a playstation and keep it hidden. Worked great for thoses offices with younger workers that had night shifts.
      For a while thier did go around examine each TV to make sure all where caught after a commander walked into the an office one late night and found the office playing games.

  12. OT: Canadians? by nefar · · Score: 1

    What is the Canadian military doing inside the complex? As a European I simply can't understand that part.

    1. Re:OT: Canadians? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      NORAD is a multinational organization. I mean seriously it was built to detect russian attacks. Why not align with Canada. That way we can place missle tracking equipment in their borders. And its not like we expect a sneak attack from the Canadian..... /Oh how little do they know....

    2. Re:OT: Canadians? by Cpoff · · Score: 1

      The main reason is because NORAD encompasses attacks from north of Canada (by Russia initially) over the arctic... So they have monitoring equipment and radars placed in Canada.

      Thus Canadians are an important part of NORAD.

    3. Re:OT: Canadians? by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same reason the US military is in the UK. NORAD is like NATO. It s a multi-national organization. The US and Canada joined together to defend North American from attack from the USSR and China.
      I have run into flight crews from the UK, Australia, and Norway at US bases. There are many military personal from other countries including countries in Europe in the US all the time. UK subs pick up their Trident Missiles from a joint US UK stockpile at base in the US. They are then fitted with UK made warheads.
      You didn't really believe all that propaganda that military cooperation between the US in other countries was totally one sided did you?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:OT: Canadians? by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      To elaborate further (since it's common in Europe to use America and USA as synonyms): USA North America.

    5. Re:OT: Canadians? by pontifier · · Score: 1

      ...if the Soviet Union was going to launch a nuclear attack on North America, it was likely going to travel over the North Pole. So the Americans had to build radar stations in the Canadian North...

      So THAT's why the're so good at tracking Santa. I think Santa is just a nickname for something big, red, and carrying a present. Ask me now if I believe in Santa or not.

      --
      -John Fenley
    6. Re:OT: Canadians? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As stated: NORAD == *North American* Aerospace Defense

      Canada was involved from the beginning. As a matter of fact there is a Canadian counterpart to Cheyenne Mountain near North Bay, Ontario. It is buried about 200 metres into the solid granite of the Canadian Shield bedrock which makes up the geology of the area. There are American military personnel permanently working there, just as Canadian military work in Cheyenne Mountain.

      The likely attack of Soviet bombers or missiles is over the pole. This was especially true during the late 1950's (when NORAD was formed), and probably continued to be the direction of most threat during the cold war. So most of the radar stations watching for this are in Canada. The famous early version was the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) of radar stations.

      SCARY FACT!!!: Canada once had NUCLEAR TIPPED BOMARC ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES to be used against Soviet bombers in the event of war. They were a purchased in part to move them further north (so that when they exploded after firing at Soviet bombers, it would be in the Arctic instead of say, over Winnipeg, Calgary or Edmonton if they were fired from the U.S.A.) and as an additional replacement for the ignorant John Diefenbaker's incompetent handling of Canada's defense when he canceled the Avro Arrow (a very advanced intercepter fighter whose speed was projected to eventually top Mach 3 and had the first fly-by-wire avionics).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    7. Re:OT: Canadians? by Megane · · Score: 1

      What is the Canadian military doing inside the complex? As a European I simply can't understand that part.

      They were just bringing down some poutine, back bacon, and beer for a poker party, so just take off, eh?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:OT: Canadians? by MrNougat · · Score: 1
      UK subs pick up their Trident Missiles from a joint US UK stockpile at base in the US.


      You're telling me that the US and UK have Trident missiles on TIMESHARE?? I wonder how many weekends in St. Maartens that would get you.
      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    9. Re:OT: Canadians? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Read a book on history if you can't undertand it. Canada was also a potential target for a hypothetical USSR atack, and also Canada was on the route of soviet ICBMs headed to USA. Consider also that the US is the most important commercial partner for Canada and you'll be able to understand why is so important for Canada and US to cooperate on airspace control. Please note that while Russia and China are not plausible threats by now, they could become in short time in the event of drastical political changes in those two countries. Just figure out what a massive famine brought by some natural accident could have as an effect in internal russian politics, with all those hardliners eager to get back to power and you will see what I mean. I think that this is the reason the base is not being decomissioned. It's wise to have it in nearly operational state. It may sound paranoid. But if I came to you in 1985 and told you that by the 1990's there wouldn't be a USSR anylonger, probably you would laugh at my face. So, as long as we don't have crystal balls to predict the future, and while there are ICBMs around, I prefer to play safe.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    10. Re:OT: Canadians? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 2

      And, BTW, I am a Brazilian, and while US politics are not always good for my country, I am glad to live in world where the US won the cold-war, instead of the USSR. In the diplomatic world, we need to be pragmatic and I think that's what those canadian leaders being now. Even if they don't agree with all of american external politics, they are smart enough to see that an alliance with the US is good for them.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    11. Re:OT: Canadians? by tootlemonde · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The US and Canada joined together to defend North American from attack from the USSR and China.

      On 9/11 all air traffic in the U.S. and Canada was grounded simultaneously. The next day the Prime Minister of Canada was asked by a reporter how soon flights in Canada would resume. He answered simply, "I don't know. The air space belongs to Norad."

      Under joint North American defense treaties, Canadian military officers participated in the second Gulf War even though the same Prime Minister had explicitly refused to join the coalition. At the time, the U.S. ambassador to Canada observed that more Canadians participated in the war than 90% of the countries that formally supported it.

      There was even a treaty signed recently that allows U.S. and Canadian forces to cross into each other's countries without any formal invitation under certain emergency conditions.

      It appears that behind the public posturing about sovereignty and national identity, the defense of North America takes priority over everything. Some people will find that fact comforting and others find it alarming.

    12. Re:OT: Canadians? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      We're still trying to get that flying saucer thing to work.

    13. Re:OT: Canadians? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      What part of "North American" eluded your intellect?

      "As a European..." Christ. I hope most eurotrash is brighter than you.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    14. Re:OT: Canadians? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The missile tracking equipment is not on the border. It is waay up north. After all, the point of detecting a missile is to give enough time for the anti-missile defence missiles to leave the nest.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:OT: Canadians? by El+Torico · · Score: 1
      Indeed.


      Did Teal'c just post?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    16. Re:OT: Canadians? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      "in their borders" != "on the border" That is all.

    17. Re:OT: Canadians? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Would make sense to "timeshare" these weapons. You don't need mass quantities of these things; you just need to keep them on stand-by by allied forces. You know how many subs are in all the worlds' oceans right? Do you really want ALL of them armed with tactical nukes? If a few end up being needed, that's one thing. However, I want Earth to still remain hospitable to human life long after such confrontations...God forbid.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    18. Re:OT: Canadians? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      My buddy's uncle worked on the development of nuclear tipped AA missiles.

      They weren't as big a deal as you'd think, they certainly weren't designed to blow up the cities they were trying to protect. The key fact is that airplane wings are great at resisting stress going upwards (i.e. in the direction of lift), but very bad at downwards, and so you could explode a large missile above them and rip the wings off incoming bombers without having to be too accurate.

    19. Re:OT: Canadians? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I still wouldn't want a nuclear bomb going off above my town. What's the point of a 1960's erra household funding NORAD with their taxes to 'protect me' when I could be killed by friendly fire. In this case 'fire' is the most appropriate metaphor. :-) The radiation would also be a great hazard. From what I understand, most people involved in the project in the thought it a crazy idea anyway.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    20. Re:OT: Canadians? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      It appears that behind the public posturing about sovereignty and national identity, the defense of North America takes priority over everything. Some people will find that fact comforting and others find it alarming.

      We are both just afraid of the British coming back! Of course, we were never taking chances with the USSR or anyone else as well. ;)

    21. Re:OT: Canadians? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      That all depends on the type of nuclear weapon that is placed on the missile. A uranium or plutonium based fission weapon would leave radioactive fallout, whereas hydrogen based fusion weapons or neutron weapons would not (hydrogen based fusion produces helium, which is an inert gas). I don't think neutron weapons would be a good fit for this application.

      In any case, the weapon used would likely be a very small tactical nuke, and at such an altitude, the comparatively small amount of fallout would be distibuted over a large area with only a marginal increase in the radioactivity that is normally present in the soil (unstable uranium is just about everywhere in trace amounts).

    22. Re:OT: Canadians? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually Tridents are not tactical nukes. They are strategic weapons.
      They way the system works is that the missiles are returned to a central depot for repairs, updating, and overhauls.
      They are not like bullets where they are made and just sit until they are fired. They have to be tested and worked on. So after x amount of time the UK removes the warheads from the missiles and then haul the missiles back to the US. They then get a new set of missiles and take them back to the UK to have the war heads installed.
      The first couple of generations of UK nuclear subs used American S5W reactors.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:OT: Canadians? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      According to the engineer who built the things, the radiation levels would be acceptable, and the explosion wouldn't damage (or even set on fire) the town below it.

  13. Shutdown due to cost increases... by Cpoff · · Score: 1

    "Since Sept. 11, 2001, the Defense Department has spent about $700 million to upgrade early-warning systems at the Cheyenne Mountain center. A report this month by the Government Accountability Office said the upgrade has been "fraught with cost increases, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls." But a few paragraphs down you read: ' "A missile attack from China or Russia is very unlikely," Keating said, according to a transcript of a recent interview with the Denver Post.' I dont know about all of you, but it makes me wonder why their is such a "necessity" to spend billions upon a "missle defence" program, when the two countries who would pose the most serious threat of such an attack (I mean from a technological/monetary standpoint. Sure other countries would gladly launch ICBM's etc, into the US, but -can- they?) can be labelled as unlikely to launch such an attack...

    1. Re:Shutdown due to cost increases... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Possibly this equipment is intended to be mobile (thus the reason for the expense) and moved around sorta like the Patriot system we have now. And the mountain is just where its being designed at. Otherwise I'd hate to see that money go into a program thats currently being scraped.

    2. Re:Shutdown due to cost increases... by RetroRichie · · Score: 1

      Haven't you figured out yet that the missle defense program isn't for the mainland US but rather for our strategic asiprations in the Middle East?

    3. Re:Shutdown due to cost increases... by kimvette · · Score: 1
      dont know about all of you, but it makes me wonder why their is such a "necessity" to spend billions upon a "missle defence" program, when the two countries who would pose the most serious threat of such an attack (I mean from a technological/monetary standpoint. Sure other countries would gladly launch ICBM's etc, into the US, but -can- they?)


      One of them ter'rists could git their hands on one of them ICBMs you know!! ;)

      Seriously though, it's a tiny part of "what if" the commies in China and Russia do try to attack is, and a very large part of making sure that military contractors who provide vital campaign contributions to politicians keep busy earning their keep.
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:Shutdown due to cost increases... by Cpoff · · Score: 1

      Exactly... thats the point I was kind of trying to get at. The exponential amount of funds spent on the missle system were a complete waste of tax payer money, but let the big military contractors sleep better at night.

      I guess the same could be said for basically the entire military situation in the United States right now, all hail the new Plutocracy.

    5. Re:Shutdown due to cost increases... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      $700 million is quite small compared to the cost to rebuild San Francisco.

      On the up side, if someone levelled San Francisco with an ICBM, it would get rid of all those damned hills. Imagine how much longer brake pads would last in New San Francisco!

      --saint

  14. Oh, crap. by T-Ranger · · Score: 5, Funny

    It looks like Ill have to find a new place to play bridge, poker, checkers, tic-tac-toe, chess, and global thermonuclear war.

    1. Re:Oh, crap. by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Let me save you the trouble: "CPE1704TKS"

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    2. Re:Oh, crap. by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      How the world has evolved... back then, you had to hack into a government supercomputer and nearly cause a world war to play those games. Now, we just have to go to newgrounds.com!

    3. Re:Oh, crap. by rk · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's sadder: That you knew this well enough to write it, or that I recognized it immediately.

    4. Re:Oh, crap. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well, there you have it. That's sadder.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Oh, crap. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      He probably copy-pasted it from Wikipedia.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  15. SkyNet online by tprox · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're clearing it out so when Skynet goes online, John Connor will have somewhere to go and lead the rest of us to victory.

    1. Re:SkyNet online by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1
    2. Re:SkyNet online by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      But only in mountain view...

      http://wifi.google.com/gsa/faq.html

    3. Re:SkyNet online by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Considering that he goes with a girl there, that will make cheyenne mountain the most expensive motel ever created.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    4. Re:SkyNet online by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      I believe Skynet has been online for some time now....

    5. Re:SkyNet online by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Not to mention the first time in history anyone in Cheyenne Mountain ever got laid.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  16. Shhh! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean "deep space telemetry" program.

  17. Maybe a stupid question by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, if I was a hostile nation that could sneak one suitcase bomb into the US, couldn't I just set it off near the AFB they're moving NORAD to before launching my missles?

    I'd kill all the NORAD personnel, and even if they were others it'd take them a few hours to get the mountain up and running. By then the missles will have already flown.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:Maybe a stupid question by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Agents will arrive shortly to discuss such possibilities.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    2. Re:Maybe a stupid question by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      So, if I was a hostile nation that could sneak one suitcase bomb into the US, couldn't I just set it off near the AFB they're moving NORAD to before launching my missles?

      The monitoring capablities are reproduced elsewhere.

    3. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I've been hearing about these "suitcase bombs" for about 15 years now. But I've never seen any actual evidence they exist. Have you?

      Also, you said it could be set off "near" the AFB. How near? A small nuclear blast set off at ground level has limited destructive potential. Similar to a very large non-nuclear blast.

    4. Re:Maybe a stupid question by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they're not setting up shop in portable trailers around the AFB. Presumably they're building a new underground facility there.

    5. Re:Maybe a stupid question by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      Neither terrorists nor feds are nerds and as such don't read Slashdot.

      I hope.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    6. Re:Maybe a stupid question by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      Neither terrorists nor feds are nerds and as such don't read Slashdot.

      I hope.

      Perhaps you've heard of the NSA? Have you heard about Security Enhanced Linux? What about these security guidelines published by the NSA for various operating systems ranging from Windows to OS X?

      I hate to break it to you but there are a lot of nerds in various branches of the US government and I'm sure many of them read slashdot.

      I feel bad for you pal. I really do.

      Disclaimer: I do not work for the US government or the "government" of any of its allies.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    7. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Rod,+Hot · · Score: 1
      I have not personally seen one, however, they exist. The United States (and Soviet Union) and I presume the other long time nuclear powers, have had "Suitcase" or backpack man-portable bombs for a while now. During the cold war there were several specific points in Europe where these were to be placed during a Warsaw Pact invasion. The warheads would detonate and crater/destroy key roads and mountain passes.

      Man portable nuclear devices were/are about. There are also nuclear ARTILLERY rounds as well. To make one of those man-portable all you have to do is rig the detonation device to a manual timer or suicide button and throw that in your car or backpack.

      You could arguable do the exact same with the warheads designed to go on an ICBM. It doesn't take much to make it man or "car" portable. As for the blast radius, it would be enough to seriously devestate most Air Force bases, and most Army posts as well. You use google maps to find the closest point to the building(s) you want to destroy, drive beside the fence line and detonate.

      I just erased a paragraph that I wrote on how to actually get the bomb INSIDE the base you want to detonate it in... it is very easy to do, and trivial to figure out, but since I am in the military, it might be a bad idea if I were to spell it out for someone who was going to actually do it. Suffice to say it is easy for you, or anyone else to get on to 99.5% of all US military bases for the purposes of destroying things.

      Sweet dreams.

    8. Re:Maybe a stupid question by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      So, if I was a hostile nation that could sneak one suitcase bomb into the US, couldn't I just set it off near the AFB they're moving NORAD to before launching my missles?

      You could - if you lived in a world where Glorious Leaders were in the habit of letting their nukes get outside of their close control. Equally, the world must be one where Glorious Leaders posess nukes with the actual intent of using them. Niether feature is characteristic of our world however.
       
      In the real world GLs keep their nukes under close control - and don't let them wander about. (There's a reason why every serious nuclear weapons state is also chasing after ballistic and cruise missile technology.)
       
      Equally, in the real world, GLs understand that exploding a nuke is a line that cannot be crossed back - missiles can threaten and deter, but suitcase nukes cannot.
       
       
      I'd kill all the NORAD personnel, and even if they were others it'd take them a few hours to get the mountain up and running. By then the missles will have already flown.

      So what? NORAD isn't the only command and control point for our strategic forces - and even if retribution was delayed a few hours, it's coming sure as sunrise.
    9. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I looked it up. This more-or-less confirms my skepticism. They sort-of exist, but not in the TV news "we're all going to die" way.

      They can destroy a 2-block area. Again, that's similar to what I thought, though a little larger.

      Big deal. A chemical attack would be much easier and more devastating. People get all weak-kneed when they hear about nuclear weapons. They're just big explosions.

    10. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Man portable nuclear devices were/are about. There are also nuclear ARTILLERY rounds as well. To make one of those man-portable all you have to do is rig the detonation device to a manual timer or suicide button and throw that in your car or backpack.
      See, it's comments like that that let people know you're going by hearsay rather than actual evidence. The 155mm nuclear artillery shell weighed 855 pounds and was 4.5 feet long. If you have a guy that can carry a backpack with that in it, you don't NEED a nuke-- just send that big bastard in with a club to SMASH the base like Gojira!

      I just erased a paragraph that I wrote on how to actually get the bomb INSIDE the base you want to detonate it in... it is very easy to do, and trivial to figure out, but since I am in the military, it might be a bad idea if I were to spell it out for someone who was going to actually do it. Suffice to say it is easy for you, or anyone else to get on to 99.5% of all US military bases for the purposes of destroying things.
      Please. You sound like a fresh E-2 who's taken all his security training completely seriously. As if any of that is actually secret knowledge! Generally it's as easy as cramming into a cab in Class A's with a bunch of other guys rolling in from a bar. The SP's guarding the gate on a saturday night won't think twice about letting you in if you're young, in uniform, and looking either drunk or asleep. Likewise, it's obviously easy to get in if you're a cab driver with a military passenger. I could go on, but I don't feel the need to reproduce information that is obvious after a couple day's observation.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      So? That gives you, at best, a matter of hours (and quite possibly even less time) before they piece together what happened, and dozens of SLBMs come raining down upon whatever continent your hostile nation happened to be a former resident of.

    12. Re:Maybe a stupid question by Rod,+Hot · · Score: 1
      For the Artillery Shell, that is why I said to make it CAR portable as well.

      As for the comment on how to get a device onto post, you would want to blend in, and class A's (depending on the post) is the *LAST* uniform you would want. You would stick out too much. As for taking my security training seriously, I guess so, being an MP for the last decade or so will do that to you I guess. And the funniest part of your comment is that your last sentence basically agrees with what I stated, that it was trivial to figure out how to get a device onto a post, but left it as an exercise for the reader.

    13. Re:Maybe a stupid question by RESPAWN · · Score: 1
      See, it's comments like that that let people know you're going by hearsay rather than actual evidence. The 155mm nuclear artillery shell weighed 855 pounds and was 4.5 feet long. If you have a guy that can carry a backpack with that in it, you don't NEED a nuke-- just send that big bastard in with a club to SMASH the base like Gojira!


      Actually, according to this site: http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HT M, the XM-388 projectile weighed only 76 pounds, was 30 inches long, and 11 inches in diameter at its widest point. The warhead itself weighed only 51 pounds. I hate to say it, but a reasonably fit man could probably carry that around, although it would be a little unweildy.

      What you are most likely referring to above is the entire XM-29 155-milimeter recoilless rifle and XM-388 projectile combination. The XM-29 "rifle" is only necessary if you're actually attempting to launch the projectile. (Although I'm still not sure about the 855 pounds part because I believe the entire weapons system was designed to be operated by a three man crew.)

      Here's another link: http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html

      Although it is interesting that you mention "Gojira" as the weapons system was apparently "used" in King Kong vs. Godzilla.

      Lastly, according to one of those sites, the yield of one of those bombs is a paltry .01 kilotons or about two to four times the size of the Oklahoma City bombing. While that's not an insignificant blast yield, I would like to think that the military keeps their "New NORAD" far enough away from the fences and properly shielded enough that such a blast wouldn't have much effect.
      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    14. Re:Maybe a stupid question by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1
      I notice you left open the possibility that you work for the government of a non-ally. :-)

      Disclaimer: I do not work for any government or government agency. My views expressed on slashdot are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer. My employer complies fully with any request for information according to the laws of Canada governing the sector I'm employed in.

      Is that clear enough for you? :)

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  18. I call by Edward+Teach · · Score: 1

    DIBBS on it! Mine, mine, mine. What a party shack that would be. Man, no noise complaints with that big assed door they have.

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

    1. Re:I call by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're going to have to fight Dick Cheney for it. Word is that he's already moved his undisclosed location there, and he'll shoot any trespassers in the face.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:I call by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      And once he's shot you in the face, he'll parade you on TV and make you apologise to him (!!)

      Jon Stewart was right - DC is one scary-as-hell dude.

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    3. Re:I call by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      I bet that we will hear the news that Cheyenne Mountain has been renamed to Cheney Mountain soon then ;)

    4. Re:I call by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? The renaming will be top secret! If you hear about it, you can be sure that Dick Cheney will be personally trying to track down the leaker. Probably after the leaker has been caught, in his private game reserve at Cheyenne (er, Cheney) Mountain.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:I call by dcam · · Score: 1

      He shoots friends in the face. I don't want know what he does to trespassers.

      --
      meh
  19. Noooooooo by themuffinking · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nooo! Wherever will we shoot our 1980's cult films now?!

    1. Re:Noooooooo by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      How about the 1980s?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  20. I'm so confused.... by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My fearless leader.....Dick Cheney....keeps telling me how we are in imminent danger of some rogue state, North Korea, Iraq, Iran or terrorist group, lobbing a nuke at us. On the one hand we have the whole "mushroom cloud" syndrome, and now the Pentagon tells me our penultimate bunker isn't really needed any more to defend our command and control center from a "mushroom cloud". Cheyenne Mountain actually wasn't worth much during the cold war when our main adversary had multi megaton nukes. It actually might stand up to the kiloton class nukes rogue states and terrorist groups are most likely to get. So we move command and control to a place where it will be relatively easy to destroy and decapitate one of the most critical command and control centers we have. And we do it AFTER we spend $700 million in a failed attempt to upgrade the one we are closing down. You really have to wonder if the people in charge really are completely incompetent to manage their own affairs let alone those of a superpower.

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:I'm so confused.... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >Cheyenne Mountain actually wasn't worth much during the cold war when our main adversary had multi megaton nukes.

      Thousands of feet of rock can make a difference. I vaguely remember reading that the complex was rated for a 5 megaton direct hit, though without field testing or a base of experience on civil engineering for use near fireballs they should have had limited confidence. Multiple strikes would be another issue, one that would have transferred commaad to specialized aircraft, which we used to keep in the sky 24x7 until a few years ago.

    2. Re:I'm so confused.... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      IRAN not Iraq unless you meant when Saddam was in power. If things continue on the present path I'd say Iran will have small nukes in 5 yrs, maybe less.

    3. Re:I'm so confused.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      IRAN not Iraq unless you meant when Saddam was in power. If things continue on the present path I'd say Iran will have small nukes in 5 yrs, maybe less.

      Of course. Fantastic typo on my part! Good thing I don't work at the State Department! :P

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:I'm so confused.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Oh, btw, "Iraq" and "Iran" are two very different countries. You .. mixed them up.

      No, that was a typo. Obviously Iran is the one busy building nukes.

      Oh my god you're clueless. You're actively cheering on the closest thing to a repeat of the nazi craze of the 30's - the current US fascist administration - and you BELIEVE all the crap as well.

      What the hell are you talking about? I was responding to the guy that says that since we used two nukes to shut down the war with Japan without any further (and much worse) loss of life than otherwise would have occurred, that somehow the world has more to fear (in terms of nuclear attack) from the US.

      You seem to be unable to process a bit of rhetorical sarcasm, so I'll explain: I pointed out that if he's right (that taking past actions as some sort of context-less predictor of future events), that we should therefore fear a new round of Japanese aggression and all of the atrocities that they committed leading up to WWII. Do you really think that my citing what happened is "cheering on" some Nazi-like process? The only Nazi-like, fascist storm brewing is the one coming out of Iran, as seen in their strategic, financial, and logistical support of crazies like Hezbollah, and their encouragement to wipe Israel off the map. So, again, what the hell are you talking about?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:I'm so confused.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the only real current threat to world peace - the Fascist States of America. The similarities with Nazi Germany in the 30's is spot on.

      (You're still clueless btw, but I guess you use Fox News as your single news source on world affairs)


      No, I talk to my friends that travel in the middle east, pour through news as reported by the BBC, Reuters, or even spun-up stuff like that from Al Jazeera. It really doesn't matter which sources you watch: that doesn't change the actual facts. Which, of course, you're not addressing. You are exhibiting one of the funniest bits of recurring rhetorical weakness that keeps showing up in this venue: rather than actually illustrating real information, you just say "Fox News! Fox News! Fox News!" like some sort of mantra that's supposed to relieve you of any need to back up what you say. The irony is delicious: in order to try to try to make someone sound uniformed, you jump right into an uninformed and just silly sounding posture that shows how desparate you are to avoid talking about anything of substance.

      But I suppose I should have taken your use of the cliched "it's spot on" phrase to be a clue that you're hoping your use a slightly non-standard bit of sage-sounding observation-speak to, again, spare you from needing to say in what way (if at all) something is true. 1930's Germany? The parallels are in your mind because it reinforces whatever political axe you're grinding. As soon as you realize that mumbling "Nazis! Fox News! Nazis! Fox News!" isn't an incantation that actually counts as debate or information, you'll see that you're the actual example of the intellectual weakness you're hoping to identify in your opponents. Get a grip.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:I'm so confused.... by parcifal · · Score: 1

      Well maybe they are not really moving it, just saying so? Classic misdirection...

    7. Re:I'm so confused.... by Convergence · · Score: 1

      And how much do foreign states have to fear from the US, for the most part, unless most of their foreign trade is counterfeit US currency [North Korea], threatening an ally with being 'wiped off of the map' [Iran], kidnapping our diplomats for a year [Iran], being a haven for terrorists [Afganistan], threatening our national interests [Iraq, oil, for the first gulf war]. Seems to me that each of these states has done more than a little interfering with the US and its interests.

      And if we round out the other major wars done by the US, there's Iraq convincing us that you have WMD (even though he didn't, he wanted others to believe he did) [Iraq, second gulf war], or being subject to a humanitarian disaster [Haiti, Somalia], and the drug war [Panama]. Some of these are a little bit harder to defend.

      So far, it seems you're 0/3 right. What biased media did you get your view of the US from?

    8. Re:I'm so confused.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      1) Which do you want? As confused as you say THEY are, you're sending just as mixed messages. There are two 'factoids' being presented here by the administration. First, that there is danger from rogue states, and second, that we're shutting down Cheyenne Mtn due to the lack of needful risk. Yes, you can complain that they are contradictory (if that's your bag) but no matter what side of the political fence you're on, at least 50% of those factoids MUST be positive for you, no? I really can't see how neither would satisfy SOMEONE.

      2) Actually, your point about the worthlessness of Cheyenne Mtn is entirely off the mark. It was supremely well designed as a command HQ for the early nuclear era. Could it withstand a direct multi megaton nuclear strike? No, obviously not. But the odds of it being hit dead-on were infinitesimal. Soviet missiles are/were known to have CEP's orders of magnitude larger than American missiles. That's precisely why the Soviets built bigger and bigger warheads - there was some likelihood that they'd entirely miss even CITY-sized targets. So Cheyenne Mtn was built to withstand a relatively nearby near-miss...an entirely more likely event. And it would have done so rather admirably, or so we believe.
      From Wiki:
      "The underground Combat Operations Center (COC) was originally intended to provide 70% probability of continuing to function if a five-megaton nuclear weapon detonated three miles (5 km) away, but was ultimately built to withstand a multimegaton blast within 1.5 nautical miles."

      --
      -Styopa
    9. Re:I'm so confused.... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      well I'm Canadain, so maybe I have this wrong, but it was my understanding that the USA greatest nuklear defence is the fact that there is a great big ass ocean between them and any of their enemies. That was what go them so pissed about the whole cuba being commies sort of thing, gave them first strike capability. As to most of the "threats" out there such as N. Korea, Iraq, Iran, and whatever middle east contry it is this week, unless they load their nukes on a bus, and take a ferry to the US, it just ain't gonna happen. They might have nukes, but as yet no way to deliver them that sort of distance. Look at the N. Korean missle test the did several weeks ago. Big failure. Though I hear they are calling a huge victory/success in the governmnet run publications of that country.

    10. Re:I'm so confused.... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      How about these? Defend those.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  21. Why not rent it ? by thrill12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am sure some narcistic, evil doctor would be very interested in acquiring a cave of his own (raises pink) muhahaha !

    Or, on a more serious note, we could just make a nice secure colocation facility there, beats Sealand or something like Virtu (and there are more like that)...

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  22. Skynet home by niittyniemi · · Score: 1

    According to wikipedia, it was the home of Skynet.

    In the Terminator series of movies, Cheyenne Mountain is where the mainframe of the rogue AI SkyNet is located.

    Just as well it's closing.

    --
    The Machine stops.
  23. Usefullness? by d2_m_viant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me as if this facility has outlived it's usefulness anyways. It's not so much a "secret" facility that few people know about, rather it's security comes basically from the fact that it's in a mountain. If some country wanted to attack us, all it would take would be to rain a couple nukes down on that mountain and it's out of commission. I'd like to see the work that this facility handles be moved to a top-secret location, it's simply too important to be common knowledge anymore. In actuality, it's probably one of the top 10 targets in a first-strike against the US -- and I think slapping it into some office building at an airbase is strategically irresponsible.

    1. Re:Usefullness? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      I doubt that the system will lack redundancy. They'd be TOTAL fools to rely on a single AFB, even with hundreds or thousands of antiaircraft missiles and anti-missile missiles readily available. All it takes is a single nuke to go off within a few miles for the EMP burst to render all communications and data infrustructure useless.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:Usefullness? by Majin+Bubu · · Score: 1

      There are ways to shield equipment from EMP, you know... Most military commo lines are built to that purpose. And fiber optics lines are immune to EMP anyway.

      --
      Ander

      @=

    3. Re:Usefullness? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      For closed isolated systems you can have very effective shielding against EMP, but do you think that they spent what it takes to shield every component on that AFB from EMP? I'd hope it's a yes, but I'm doubtful.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:Usefullness? by inviolet · · Score: 1
      It seems to me as if this facility has outlived it's usefulness anyways. It's not so much a "secret" facility that few people know about, rather it's security comes basically from the fact that it's in a mountain. If some country wanted to attack us, all it would take would be to rain a couple nukes down on that mountain and it's out of commission. I'd like to see the work that this facility handles be moved to a top-secret location, it's simply too important to be common knowledge anymore.

      Why do you assume that such has not already been done?

      What if Cheyenne Mountain was *never* the real facility? Perhaps its job was just to attract incoming warheads to its own very remote location?

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    5. Re:Usefullness? by iq+in+binary · · Score: 1

      You are quite badly underestimating the cunning and wit of those responsible for this move. This stinks of strategy here. What better way to ensure to survival of one of your most robust and important defensive capabilities than to make people believe it's somewhere it isn't?

      50 bucks says it's either staying right where it is, or Norad is being moved to a location that is NOT Edmonton AFB.

      --
      Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last ;)
  24. All you need is faith by jdbartlett · · Score: 2

    Na, all you need is faith the size of a mustard seed.

  25. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by kimvette · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=cheyenne%20mountain& ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla :en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wl

    Not a whole lot to see.

    (Please don't waste mod points modding this up informative, all I did was post a URL to google maps.)

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  26. It's not near Pike's Peak by Blind_Io_42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cheyanne Mountain is in Colorado Springs near Ft. Carson. and about an one hour and fourty minutes away from Pike's Peak (by car).

    --
    No one of consequence
    1. Re:It's not near Pike's Peak by stubear · · Score: 1

      The only reason Pikes Peak is so far away by car is because you have to drive to the north side to get to the peak access road. As someone who worked at Cheyenne Mtn AFB from 90-93 I can say that it's reasonable to state that it's close to Pikes peak. I also believe, though I may be mistaken, that Cheyenne Mountain AFB is outside Colorado Springs city limits.

    2. Re:It's not near Pike's Peak by jcarkeys · · Score: 1

      Cheyenne Mountain is less than 13 miles from Pike's Peak as the crow flies, which is hardly very far at all.

  27. Wow, it only took about 17 years by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    for them to realize the cold war is over. Pretty damn speedy for the military actually...

  28. Re:Goodbye by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    BLASPHEMY. Teal is an Alien dammit.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  29. The biggest question by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    Yes yes, military business and nuclear weapons are all well and good, but answer me this: Will they still be tracking Santa?

    1. Re:The biggest question by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      My guess is that they're moving opperations to Santa's compound on the North Poll. Nobody (other then those closely tracking Santa's movements) knows where he is, so it's a pretty good place to hide a military instilation.

      Meanwhile, Santa is being relocated to an office building in Colorado Springs.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:The biggest question by segfaultcoredump · · Score: 1

      Uh, I hate to tell you, but there is a place called the North Pole on the north side of Pikes Peak, which is only a 12 miles (summit to summit) from Cheyenne Mountain. Their website is http://www.santas-colo.com/

      It would make a great place to hide a military compound. They could use the roller coaster as a hidden entry to the underground caverns :-)

  30. Slashdot doesn't like set theory by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

    Sorry, that was supposed to read USA (isin) North America using the proper HTML entity name, but evidently Slashdot can't handle high school math.

    1. Re:Slashdot doesn't like set theory by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Evidently some Slashdot posters can't handle the concept of the preview button.

    2. Re:Slashdot doesn't like set theory by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Evidently some Slashdot posters can't handle the concept of the submit button, and therefore feel it should be removed.

  31. Err... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    If I recall the History Channel correctly, it would take more than a couple nukes to reach the facility...

  32. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 4, Informative
    They probably have another "secret" base to do this work from.

    You seem to be talking about Schriever Air Force Base. Interestingly, this is also pretty close by. According to TFA, one of the reasons for the move is the commute between Peterson and Cheyenne Mountain. From Peterson to Cheyenne Mountain is a fairly ugly drive directly through Colorado Springs (the end of that route isn't quite right, but Mapquest doesn't seem to know exactly where the entrance to NORAD is. By contrast, from Peterson to Schriever is almost entirely through open country with minimal traffic.

    You can probably find some good satellite photos on Google.

    You hardly need satellite photos. I'd guess some people living near the Broadmoor can probably see traffic in and out of the mountain with nothing more than binoculars or maybe a small telescope at most. OTOH, there's not really much to see -- almost everything is underground, and about all you can see from the outside is the entrance to a tunnel into the mountain. About all you'd see from a satellite photo would be a road that disappears into the side of a mountain with a LOT of antennas on top (though a lot of them belong to the local radio stations, TV stations, Sprint Broadband, etc.)

    --
    The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
  33. That could be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The disposal of one of our local bunkers made the papers a while ago. The bunker would be useless in a nuclear war. On the other hand, it would provide a real problem for the local police if it got into the hands of the Hell's Angels or someone like that. The bottom line was that there was no way the bunker was going to end up in private hands.

  34. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by atokata · · Score: 1

    Sure would've sucked to live in nearby, non-buried, wood and drywall Colorado Springs, in the event that the USSR *did* try dropping a nuke on Cheyenne Mtn there.

  35. Re:So much protection... by kimvette · · Score: 1

    What need have we of NORAD now that governments have surveillance cameras throughout certain cities in the US, and wiretap pretty much everyone now? The populace is being monitored closely, and it's only a very tiny step to control. So what threat is there, really? It's more important that potential terrorist activities can take place to keep a majority of the people who do bother to vote to vote "correctly" out of fear of an inconsequential attack. Major threats such as an economic depression is less of a worry, because it may actually beneficial to powermongers' goals because then pretty much everyone will become dependent upon the political elite just to survive, and will at that point hand over ALL constitutionally-protected freedoms in exchange for a little bread.

    Yeah, I know, it's a conspiracy theory, but after all that's gone on since September 11, 2001, it does not seems so far-fetched any more. I used to read stuff like William Cooper for a lark, but now having re-read Behold a Pale Horse, MaJestyTwelve, Gary H. Kah's work, and some other books on those subjects, 1984 looks tame in comparison to how reality is seeming to parallel those "whacko conspiracy theories."

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  36. The Congressional Bunker... by poppen_fresh · · Score: 1

    The bunker in White Sulphur Springs has the "pos" Green Brier resort above it, and you can take tours of the facility.

  37. Re:Where will Samantha Carter be posted next? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 4, Funny

    Samantha Carter: Was I naked?(in McKay's hallucination)
    Rodney McKay: Partially.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  38. No reason to be confused by ChePibe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Cheyenne was built for a massive nuclear exchange between powers - when one could rely on most of the U.S. being wiped off the earth and the U.S. needed to maintain the capability to strike back in that event as a deterrent.

    Present threats - including those that you describe - do not have that capability. They have the ability to destroy a handful of cities at most, and a response is ensured through other means, without having to rely on this particular base any longer.

    The threat has changed - the U.S. is adapting to threats armed with only a handful of nukes rather than enough to kill us all.

    1. Re:No reason to be confused by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Present threats - including those that you describe - do not have that capability."

      Actually Russia still has that capability, its somewhat smaller than it was but its still there. One wonders why people pretend its not still there when it is. Russia is making such a killing on their oil and gas reserves I imagine its unlikely they will bother with a nuclear war, but hey a coup and a wacko get the keys, or relations continue to sour, anything could happen.

      Relations with Russia are in fact not very good. The U.S. has been treating Russia like dirt since the U.S.S.R collapsed. Gary Kasparov, chess grand master and now Democracy advocates, makes the interesting observation that Putin may be cheering on the chaos in the Middle East because everything that inflates oil and gas prices is a windfall for Russia.

      All in all you have to wonder about the wisdom of replacing America's penultimate bunker and command and control facility with an extremely vulnerable office building that could easily be attacked with conventional weapons, a truck bomb or chemical or biological weapons. Cheyenne Mountain was, if nothing else, good for PR and intimidation value.

      One question would be where the ABM system is controlled from. If its NORAD, and your worried the ABM system might work, then you take out NORAD first and then open the door for the ICBM's from North Korea.

      All in all it just seems like a silly move to make especially after you've just sunk $700 million in to Cheyenne Mountain.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:No reason to be confused by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


        But who are we to question the wisdom of the beancunters?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:No reason to be confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      but hey a coup and a wacko get the keys
      I thought this had already happened? Oh wait, you said "Russia".
    4. Re:No reason to be confused by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      an extremely vulnerable office building that could easily be attacked

      Yeah, I'm sure that the new facility will have no layered defense, heavily-armed guards or remote monitoring whatsoever, so suicide bombers can just drive right in.

    5. Re:No reason to be confused by kabocox · · Score: 1

      All in all you have to wonder about the wisdom of replacing America's penultimate bunker and command and control facility with an extremely vulnerable office building that could easily be attacked with conventional weapons, a truck bomb or chemical or biological weapons. Cheyenne Mountain was, if nothing else, good for PR and intimidation value.

      One question would be where the ABM system is controlled from. If its NORAD, and your worried the ABM system might work, then you take out NORAD first and then open the door for the ICBM's from North Korea.

      All in all it just seems like a silly move to make especially after you've just sunk $700 million in to Cheyenne Mountain.


      Um, what if they aren't "moving it" to where they say that they are moving to? What if the DOD has version 4 of the internet and is ready for its entire system to go down/be bombed at random points and still keep on ticking? (I don't believe that one, but it would be nice.) Honestly, I tend to think that we need to have monthly cyber warfare drills to test out our entire government systems. I think that the next major war that the US gets in with a first world nation will be an economic/cyberwar rather than straight military war. Will our systems be able to make it through a real cyberwar?

  39. Title? by kippers · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or is the phrase "Mountain Shutting Down" from the title strange?

    It's just that I don't see a huge lot of Mountains shutting down - volcanoes maybe...

    1. Re:Title? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I probably should have added a "Facility" in there... although when the Cheyenne Mountain facility was being built it almost collapsed so it might shut down...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  40. it's all explained now... by wonkobeeblebrox · · Score: 1

    > The Navy prepared a floating White House aboard the communications cruiser USS Northampton

    So _that's_ where Cheney's "undisclosed location" is...

  41. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Probably either incomplete data or an Air Force base with visible things that would be some sort of security risk.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  42. Behind it all... by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

    I'd love to know what's important enough, and requires the kind of privicy Cheyenne mountain provides, to take Norad's place.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  43. Who's gonna buy it now? by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    Will they auction off the contents? I've always wanted a stargate or *gasp* even better... a Puddle jumper!

    Nope. They'll sell it off to somebody.

    There are plenty of old missile silos that were purchased by folks. Can you imagine if this were purchased by any big company. say, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, SCO, or Google?

    Can you imagine what they would do?

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Who's gonna buy it now? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Brings a whole new meaning to "Where do you want to go today?"
      Or perhaps they could have a BETA Google Stargate Network. (Considering all the troubles the SGC has had with their special dialing program--Red Sky comes to mind--calling it beta wouldn't be too far off...)

      But in seriousness, what I would really want if I were the C?O of a company is Asgard beaming technology--just think of how it would reduce shipping costs. Of course, the terrorists would also want it--it's pretty much the perfect deployment system for a nuclear weapon.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  44. Well, it's obvious, isn't it... by robert.elliott.smith · · Score: 2, Funny

    GWB has been won over as a Prior of the Ori.

  45. So in the case of national emergency... by slaughterhause · · Score: 1
    The Navy prepared a floating White House aboard the communications cruiser USS Northampton, in case the president needed to be evacuated from U.S. soil. Another protective bunker was created near White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., for members of Congress.
    The president gets evacuated to a floating White House on a communications cruiser, and Congress gets evacuated to West Virginia.

    This is where the whole "Commander in Chief" thing really comes in handy. "Ok, Navy, I'm going to need a heavily armored and mobile communications center in case of emergency. Congressfolks -- ah, you all are on your own".
  46. Re:Goodbye by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, teal is a color. Teal'c is an alien.

  47. Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by jonathansizz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yep. No doubt about it; it's closing down alright *wink*

    It's now out of action - nothing going on in there anymore *smirk*

    Things sure will be different now that Cheyenne Mountain is ceasing all operations *nudge*

    1. Re:Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by ElephanTS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that's funny but I think it's true. There can only really be 2 reasons this is happening (based on my knowledge of miltary planning ahem)

      1. As you said, it's a bluff

      2. They've got something much much better built now and are going to it.

      The administration is busy commissioning more nuke weapons and Russia is becoming more threatening by the day. WW3 is near to breaking out all over the ME. No way are the military winding anything down.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    2. Re:Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      It is possible that the facility has outlived its infrastructure. Even a government building needs a lot of work after 50 years to meet with change.

      I would expect it to be either an upgrade underway, or a new facility is already online somewhere else with more robust capabilities...

    3. Re:Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by Kuroji · · Score: 1

      You realize, of course, that Cheyenne was about the biggest target on the radar for anyone with multi-megaton nukes - i.e. in the event of a global holocaust you're going to see about a hundred falling on it and wiping it out. Nukes were once considered for the very task of wiping mountains out, after all. Though they reconsidered that due to most people not wanting their new homes to glow in the dark.

      So clearly they've got a facility a mile or two underground that nobody's going to disclose. Doing it from Peterson AFB is clearly just a cover -- that or one of the access points is inside the base. I expect there are plenty of other ones. Just look at the complexes they built for Atlas missiles, it's entirely probable that they did something just like it deeper beneath the surface.

    4. Re:Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      All they would really need to achieve the status of "much better" is a bunker that is far, far underground, whose location is not public knowledge around the world. Cheyenne Mountain isn't exactly a secret. Seems to me that's its weak point, no matter how fortified it is.

    5. Re:Yes. It's Certainly Closing ;) by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      You are making the mistake of applying logic to the current administration's decision making process. Military bases across the country are being shut down; Cheyenne Mountain is merely part of a wider trend. Do not suppose that this closure means that a covert base will take up the slack: if you applied this logic to the Republicans cutting of NYC's anti-terrorism funding, you might suppose that the feds were spending it on something better, something that would protect NYC. Alas, this is where that money went. To "protect" a popcorn factory in the middle of nowhere. The neo-cons want WW3 because they think it means Jesus will come back and judge the living and the dead. Now, we don't need NORAD to be safe & secure under a mountain for that, do we? Jesus will judge it wherever it is.

  48. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    From places like, oh, say, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo you don't even need binoculars. I was there last weekend. It's a lovely place.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  49. Er, guys... by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    Sorry to reply to my own post, but I was sort of disconcerted that someone has moderated me "informative". LMFAO.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Er, guys... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've had the same thing happen to me. I wonder if it's the same moderator...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Er, guys... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      That is one of the funniest things I have seen on /. I wonder if that moderator was thinking, "Yeah, that'll work; that's a good idea!"

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  50. No shock here by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    I looked at the tag "Stargate" and the Stargate reference in the dept heading and looked at the summary.

    "Damn kids!" I thought to myself...and I am not that old.
    If I had the points today I would have modded it up myself.

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  51. Would you like to play a game? by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 1

    I've never watched this Stargate that they're all blabbing about.

    I've seen WarGames many times, and that's the visual I get when I think of Cheyenne Mountain.

    --
    My mom says I'm cool.
  52. Alien Apostrophe by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

    Well, it is an odd character that comes from above.

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  53. Interesting... why now? by ursabear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    #>mput *.moviehumor
    #>put "Shall... we... play... a... game...?"?
    #>y
    #>Sorry Dave, can't do that right now...

    But seriously... why would the government/military choose to put it on "warm standby" just now? Is it just budgetary?

    Sometimes shutting down stuff saves money, yes... but sometimes the costs aren't readable in print on a budget page...

  54. when a broom costs $20,000 by bobamu · · Score: 1

    they had better be damn cool and have fricken laser beams coming out of them

  55. The cause? by Sartak · · Score: 1

    I hear that those damn Loonies have been hurtling down boulders every couple of minutes since 2076...

    1. Re:The cause? by tcc3 · · Score: 1

      Props on the Heinlein reference. Everone else went for the easy Stargate joke.

    2. Re:The cause? by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      Awesome reference :)

    3. Re:The cause? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      At least they were kind enough to let us know what they were going to hit before they started throwing rocks.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  56. OK, No Mention of the USS Wright??? by Wingsy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There were two ships, the Northhampton and the Wright. One was always at sea while the other was in port. I was on the USS Wright for a couple of years and it was a pretty cool place to be if you had to be somewhere in the Navy. During our 2-week cruise we would sail to some vacation resort (St. Thomas, St. Croix, Nova Scotia, Bermuda, etc) and tie up for a week. That was our "cruise". See, it carried so many top brass that us peons had it pretty good too - THEY didn't want to paddle around for 2 weeks at a time, so we always put in at some really nice port along the eastern seaboard. Captain was even nice enough to let us bring our motorcycles along. Like at San Juan, we had to report in at 8AM for a roll call, then we got on our bikes and toured the island until the next morning. The ship though, was something else. It was a converted aircraft carrier with a humongous antenna farm on the flight deck. The entire rear section of the ship was a powerful VLF transmitter, with vacuum tubes taller than I am. Each stage of the transmitter was in its own compartment (like the "Pi Network Room" sign on the door). They had this helicopter with twin interlocking blades (no tail rotor) that hauled a cable to 10,000 feet for the VLF antenna - the most powerful VLF transmitter in the world at that time (talking about ERP). All the pilot did was take off and land, as it was flown from the ship most of the time it was airborne. Most of the ship was off limits to everyone I knew, and all I did was calibrate & repair electronic test equipment. Ever see the bow of a carrier underwater? Like they say, it's an adventure. :)

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    1. Re:OK, No Mention of the USS Wright??? by payndz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wiki on the USS Wright

      That's really cool - one of those things that you think are a bit Clancy-ish, and are then geeked out by when you find that they really existed (like the hover platforms from MGS3). The question is, of course: what replaced CC-2 and CLC-1? Any techno-thriller fan would demand some kind of super-secret nuclear-powered megaship constantly circling the globe without ever turning into port, with packs of bad guys just waiting for the ideal moment to strike and take it over...

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    2. Re:OK, No Mention of the USS Wright??? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      The Wright (CC-2) has been decomissioned for thirty years.
       
       
      There were two ships, the Northhampton and the Wright. One was always at sea while the other was in port.
      Northhampton and Wright were emergency command posts for LANTFLT and only stood alert duty (I.E. always one at sea) for occasional and brief periods. Niether ever served in a (nuclear) strategic C&C role.
       
      They Navy tried mightily across the whole decade of the 60's to get a seaborne equivalent of the NORAD/ABNCP - even going so far as to consider modifying Triton to adress the vulnerabilities of the surface ships. They didn't suceeed in getting a piece of the pie until the 1990's when the TACAMO aircraft took over the ABNCP role.
    3. Re:OK, No Mention of the USS Wright??? by slashhax0r · · Score: 1

      Very cool stuff. Apparently the Wright was decommisioned in 1970 sold for scrap in 1980. wow.. a pi network room. .cool stuff to think about for a radio geek like me.

    4. Re:OK, No Mention of the USS Wright??? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      That's really cool - one of those things that you think are a bit Clancy-ish, and are then geeked out by when you find that they really existed (like the hover platforms from MGS3).

      Methinks you read too much into the article. Wright and Northampton were cramped and overcrowded ships that never really worked well in their intended roles. (Mostly because communications were spotty and bandwith extremely limited.)
       
       
      The question is, of course: what replaced CC-2 and CLC-1?

      Nothing.
       
      In the end, there was no real need for huge command ships controlling huge fleets spread across the ocean - because we didn't have the huge fleets, and CVBG's carried their own command staffs. (Not that there was any money to build these ships that we didn't need anyhow.) Insofar as the nuclear command and control structure goes (which Wright and Northampton never were part of), ships turned out to be way too expensive when compared with the ABNCP and TACAMO squadrons.
       
       
      Any techno-thriller fan would demand some kind of super-secret nuclear-powered megaship constantly circling the globe without ever turning into port, with packs of bad guys just waiting for the ideal moment to strike and take it over...

       
      Despite what was implied by the grandparent - Wright and Northampton never were nuclear command centers.
  57. Re:The country can't take much more of this ... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 2, Funny
    Hell, I think he needs to be evacuated from the friggin' planet
    Hopefully to somewhere 1) frequently culled by Wraith 2) where he would be used as slavery by a Goa'uld until he dies or 3) under the oppression of the Ori--oh wait, GWB would probably like the Ori.
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  58. Re:So much protection... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    because if there ever is a major thermonuclear conflict you need to have a functioning chain-of-command, so that there will be someone capable of saying "stop". Matter of fact, in an all-out war between two or more nuclear superpowers the last thing you want to do is knock of the enemy's leadership early in the game: if they have no way of surrendering (meaning: ordering their missile commanders to stand down) things can go from terrible to terminal.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  59. Conclusion. by flex941 · · Score: 1

    No more short trips to the Pegasus galaxy I guess. Seems I have to rethink my next holiday destination.

  60. Re:It's not sarcasm? Whoa... by Harodotus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Um, I actually thought the question about "what is the Stargate?" was sarcasm.

    Looking at the responses, I'm actually supprised that wasn't the case.

    I'll throw in my sarcastic explanation of Stargate anyways:
    Stargate is where the writers thought, "Hey lets grab the aging McGuyver, give him machine guns and have him fight Aliens throughout the Galaxy. We can team him up with a buxom science babe (doing a military version of the sexy librarian thing), a Stoic warrior guy like Worf (but with fewer head ridges) and a Indiana Jones type academic guy (but more know-it-all). The whole thing can be done with an ancient Egyptian theme with cool pyramids and crystals and stuff. We can make it all work by using a lesser known gaming system like Tri-Tac's Fringeworthy Roleplaying game. We can do a film, maybe even a series or two, with lots of explosions and special effects stuff, it'll be really cool".

    --
    Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
  61. What they actually mean is.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now everyone and their dog knows exactly where it is, they've built a new one somewhere that's actually secret.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:What they actually mean is.. by SirTalon42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Cheyenne Mountain complex was never secret. They didn't use security through obscurity, they used security by freaking mountain shield.

    2. Re:What they actually mean is.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Well yes...
      I live in the UK and a decommissioned nuclear bunker near me has been opened as a museum. As you drive through the countryside towards it you come across a big sign that reads 'Secret Nuclear Bunker - Turn left'. Always makes me chuckle.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    3. Re:What they actually mean is.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The Cheyenne Mountain complex was never secret. They didn't use security through obscurity, they used security by freaking mountain shield.

      Maybe one of those blue sky DARPA DOD projects has allowed them to upgrade to big freaking force shield.

  62. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Bog forbid that those responsible for our nation's nuclear armament be forced to drive too far.

      Guess the price of gasoline is hitting everyone.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  63. I got to go in there... by Scott+Ransom · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...in the 90's when I was an exchange cadet at the US Air Force Academy. They gave us a tour of the place -- it really was quite amazing.

    The coolest thing was seeing all the "buildings" in there (yes, it is like a big open cave with buildings inside) mounted on massive steel springs. Also cool was seeing that the main access shaft goes (IIRC) completely through the mountain. The internal rooms are built behind a massive blast door or two (i.e. huge bank-vault-style doors) off to the side of the tunnel. That is to let a blast wave pass right through the mountain supposedly and not just bash against the blast doors.

    The most disappointing thing was finding out that the War Room was nothing like in the movies -- it is a tiny room about the size of a normal living room stuffed with computers (no "big board" or giant screens). There are only about 6-10 people working in there at any one time (lead by a one-star general/admiral).

  64. Crap! by qzulla · · Score: 1

    There goes The Big Board.

    qz

  65. yay for long-term thinking by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ' "A missile attack from China or Russia is very unlikely," Keating said,
    Now that is long-range thinking. I'm sure that neither China nor Russia are the least bit piqued over the U.S. being described repeatedly as "the last superpower." Fortunately for us, the international pecking-order never ever changes, so no one has anything to gain by attacking us. Granted, it's not as if we're disassembling all the defenses, but I'm a little puzzled by the idea that two allies, especially allies who don't really like us, will remain allies for all time. There must have been a pinky-swear I didn't hear about.
  66. I wonder if by POds · · Score: 1

    Stargate SG-1 will follow suit

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  67. the internet killed NORAD by heroine · · Score: 1

    With highly redundant networks, the
    destruction of one command center isn't as important as it was when
    information was limited to one location. Also there may be a new super
    secret command center no-one knows about.

  68. Bunkers etc. do cause a problem for law enforcers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not a cop so I don't know all the ins and outs of the situation. I do know that law enforcement has a problem with fortified houses and bunkers. They're illegal in lots of places. The first time this came to my attention was when the cops tried to raid such a house. It was part of a complex of row houses and the cops ended up burning down the whole block (by accident) trying to arrest the inhabitants.

    The link below is to a debate in the Canadian house of parlament where the issue is discussed.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/37/1/just/meeting s/evidence/justev16-e.htm

  69. The WOPR exists too. by NightFlier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An actual piece of equipment was issued the asset tag WOPR-{numbers}....

    It's a transformer located in a alcove in a back corridor.

    I've seen it and some wag reprinted the asset tag with 24point type.

    I was stationed in NORAD in the mid '80s, so it may no longer exist.

  70. Almost right... by alienmole · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think you mean Global ThermoGNU/clear War.

  71. Perhaps... by ChePibe · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But you're forgetting about the principle of sunk cost.

    Hypothetically, if we've spent $700 million to upgrade a facility in the past, this is no reason to spend much more to maintain that facility in the future when cheaper alternatives exist now. I can imagine that keeping Cheyenne properly stocked is an expensive proposal when compared with the new plan. If a cheaper proposal exists that suffices present needs, then it should reasonably be used.

    In any case, Cheyenne is not entirely deactivated, just temporarily moth-balled against future needs. We can't get back the $700 million already spent on upgrades, so why should we continue to pay more into the future simply because we've made an investment?

    I'd agree that Russia is not completely out of the picture, however the odds of a Russian missile launch now are much lower when compared with other threats. In any case, one could reasonbly assume that a political development of the type you describe would occur with enough time to anticipate the potential problem and reactivate Cheyenne. From a brief look around, it does not appear that ABMs are controlled from Cheyenne, either, although their forward control is listed as being in Colorado Springs (near Cheyenne).

    In any case, thanks for pointing out some faults in my original post. I failed to elaborate.

    1. Re:Perhaps... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Hypothetically, if we've spent $700 million to upgrade a facility in the past, this is no reason to spend much more to maintain that facility in the future when cheaper alternatives exist now."

      We've spent way more than $700 million on it, its probably in the tens if not hundreds of billions by now. I don't really think there is a "cheaper alternative", they are just parking it in an office base on an air force base. It is cheaper but they are throwing away a vast quantity of protection in the process so there is no comparing the two alternatives in terms of capability.

      My original post was highlighting the apparent conflict in the rhetoric coming from our fearless leaders. When 9/11 happened they kept saying it "changed everything", the world is a very dangerous place, there is an axis of evil, and a clear and present danger of "mushroom clouds". Then they take this action which suggests the world is vastly safer than its been in 50 years.

      I hate to break it to you but they've moved NORAD from a very secure place to a place a terrorist in control of a fully fueled low flying jetliner could probably destroy it.

      The U.S.S.R may not be around but there are more countries with nukes and long range missiles than there ever have been and there are more all the time, many in states that are very shaky. Pakistan is one assassination away from having a Muslim extremist government with nukes.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Perhaps... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Cost wise Cheyenne mountain is so-so in the daily maintenance expense department. While it does cost extra for the running of the water,air circulation, getting people and products in and out it is cheaper in the modern age with computers because being inside the mountain does make cooling a little easier. Also Cheyenne mountain provide cheap TEMPEST protection so they will be needing to build new TEMPEST areas which is not cheap.
      However the main problem they will be having is where do they get the space to house the people. Stuff that is used the Cheyenne mountain mission is already spread all around the area of Colorado Springs and further. While they have new building on peterson that may not be enough with the mission they were all ready supporting.

      However the talk about removing Cheyenne mountain has been around since the aiming and size of nuclear missiles got a whole lot better, compared to when the place was built, it is nice to see some actual discussion of that happening. However what will happen,because this tends to happen with every military site that does this, is that they will go into the shutdown mode and then some high priority mission will have a need for room, someone will say well we have some empty office space up in the mountain and the place already has minimal staffing so it will not be that expense to add some more people up there. That mission will grow at which point it will cross the magical number where they are required to reopen the convenient markets in the place along with the mess hall. Then others will look and see that there is additional room up there and all the conviences so they will move and after 1-2 years the place is back up to normal and you have had to spend all the monies moving in/out.

  72. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by ccmay · · Score: 1
    Sure interesting to see how close the houses are. Looks like a normal suburban neighborhood, I don't think it's even base housing for the officers. You could throw a rock from the checkpoint gate at the bottom of the hill to the nearest house.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  73. yea..riiiiight by Danathar · · Score: 1

    On the serious side, I could care less if the commander has to sit in traffic. That sucks for him..Suck it up and do your job!

    On the crazy side..Who says they are REALLY closing it? Sounds like the perfect cover story to use it for something else. It seems rather odd they would spend all that money just to close it down

  74. Re:So much protection... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    Since you brought up "conspiracy theory" let me toss in the latest pattern which keeps appearing just over the horizon:

    Instead of port security, the feds do Marine Infrastructure Recovery Program (MIRP), and SSA Marine - a major port handler announces awhile back it is moving its HQ from Seattle, WA, (USA) to Arizona (USA), presumably to be better positioned for any possibility of port operations in Mexico, when the NAFTA Super Highway gets built; and

    While the Carlyle Group, several years ago purchased Trenstar, Inc., which has expertise in RFIDs with regard to container shipping, while the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement was recently passed, making legal foreign ownership of the ports.....see something suspicious going on here?????

  75. Re:Bunkers etc. do cause a problem for law enforce by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative
    I do know that law enforcement has a problem with fortified houses and bunkers. They're illegal in lots of places.
    This is, unfortunately, absolutely true. Let's hear it for "proactive policing"! Naturally these laws are only meant to give our beloved law enforcers the leverage necessary to keep all those nasty bikers from building forts in otherwise peaceful neighborhoods. Never mind the fact that it's now essentially illegal in many places to build a house too sturdy to break into, or in some cases even own a house built in the 50's with ATOMIC WAR in mind. No, it's more important for the fat, lazy cops to be able to simply arrest "violent bikers" for bricking up their downstairs windows than to actually catch them in the act of being violent.
    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  76. Independence Day by Mike_ya · · Score: 1

    If the aliens can take it out, whats the point of having it under the mountain?

  77. I'd split my mod points with you if I could by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    That's damn funny stuff - I'm still laughing here. Well played =)

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  78. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

    Looks like the joining point of two different datasets. The blacked out area is hemmed by zig-zagging north-south and east-west lines on the right and straight lines following Colorado hwy 115 on the left. Unless there's big national secrets at Cheyenne Shadows Golf Club, I'd say the "incomplete data" theory is most likely.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  79. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Well, you know we can't let the terrorists win at golf... :P

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  80. Send in the fembots! by dhaines · · Score: 1

    I'll buy it for one million dollars and use it for my underground lair.

  81. Re:Doesn't surprise me at all... by Clomer · · Score: 1

    I live in Colorado Springs, and I can attest that the route from Peterson AFB to NORAD is not pretty. Colorado Springs is notorious for its east-west traffic, as any local can tell you. The route Mapquest shows would probably take at least a half an hour. The distance from Peterson to Schriever is greater, but it is a direct shot, making it a shorter drive by time.

    It is a sad day to see the Cheyenne Mountain facility closed, though. It is/was a cool little tidbit about the town, that the mountain to the south has a major military operation going on inside it. Especially since I have line of sight with it from my house. :-)

    --
    Intelligent responses welcome, flames will be met with marshmallows.
  82. Re:It's not sarcasm? Whoa... by Kamineko · · Score: 1

    I thought they were just playing Jepoardy!

  83. Apart from that, China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...(paranoia mode on) just constructed this giant bunker housing 200000 people.
    Now lets see, do the US AND China plan on something ? (paranoia mode off)

    1. Re:Apart from that, China... by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      And there's supposed underground cities capable of sheltering 250k people in Russia afaik.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  84. SPP.GOV , future american union = usa/can/mex by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    In the future, America/Canada and mexico will form one EU style AUnion. Its
    all documented at spp.gov . And many points are still secret btw. This
    whole thing is gona really shake up usa in terms of that lots of new laws/regulations
    will be made that are written by 'neocons' that are not voted in. And we know
    the house just passes bills without reading them... so there is no real democracy, just a sharade.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  85. Terminator 3? by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    The mountain facility is being placed on standby in case they need it again

    John Connor will use it. Just wait and see.

  86. That's OLD news... by cpghost · · Score: 1

    It's been known for quite some time now...

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  87. bunkers for pres & congress... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    What about shelters for the general population? Where's the civil defense corps?

  88. Also... by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    Please don't waste mod points modding this up funny, all I did was notice that it only took a couple of hours for the mods to ignore P's request.
     
    In addition, please don't donate money to my PayPal acct.
     
    ...and you can keep your pron, too.

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  89. Re:It's not sarcasm? Whoa... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I don't think "buxom" is the fisrt word that comes to mind when describing Samantha Carter... More like soccer mom, but without the kids, or minivan, or soccer. Basically all the good and none of the bad.

  90. Re:It's not sarcasm? Whoa... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    Except wasn't it movie first, then tv series?

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  91. A place to explore by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a really cool derelict facility about an hour north of Great Falls Montana. It's in the middle of stinking nowhere but the place is HUGE. The part that's above ground has steel-reinforced concrete about 5-6 feet think with rebar about 3 inches in diameter. Rumor has it that there are numerous subterrainean level but there isn't any exposed access.

  92. I do not think that word means what you think... by goodben · · Score: 1

    Penultimate means next to last rather than last. Unless there's some last resort beyond Cheyene Mountain, the word you want is ultimate.

    Trivia: Antepenultimate is second to last.

  93. Re:It's not sarcasm? Whoa... by Harodotus · · Score: 1

    You know, you're right. The movie was first. It was series writers who thought most of that.

    The movie writers probably thought something like: "hey lets do a movie and put Snake Blisken and an Academic Indians Jones in outer space fighting Egyptian aliens..."

    After the semi-successful movie, the SG1 series writers then probably thought: "Well Snake's (Kurt Russel) Agent says he's not available for TV work, lets get McGuyver, add a ridge-challenged Worf and Some science hottie babe. They looked around and didn't find anyone with big enough breasts who could do a military scientist type and eventually settled on Amanda Tapping who is buxom enough (NSFW and it's a joke) to satisfy most geeks while being able to speak two technobable sentences in a row without too much embarrassment."

    It wasn't until later that they hired 7 of 9 and put her in a leather bodice to be Worf's (T'elk's) babe de'jour. With the series writers thinking "Wow ratings are good, but they could be even better, if we add even bigger breasts to the cast. Who's on the Sci-fi big boobs call list? Oh yeah, Jeri Ryan (7of 9)"

    Note BTW that, snideness aside, I love the Stargate and Atlantis Series and while I do claim to be sarcastic, I don't claim to be very funny

    --
    Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
  94. A Memorial to Thunderbird? by RDFozz · · Score: 1

    In the second story of the "All-New, All-Different" X-MEN (the run which changed the X-Men from a failed 60's team to its current mega-star status), a villain assaulted Cheyenne Mountain; in the process of defeating him, one of the new team (Thunderbird) was killed. Interestingly enough, this info is in the Wiki entry for Cheyenne Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain).

    --
    R David Francis
  95. Re:Bunkers etc. do cause a problem for law enforce by ronaldb64 · · Score: 1
    The first time this came to my attention was when the cops tried to raid such a house. It was part of a complex of row houses and the cops ended up burning down the whole block (by accident) trying to arrest the inhabitants.
    They accidentally burned down a whole block of houses? What are these, the Keystone Cops???
    --
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  96. Re:burning karma - testing href by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

    Interesting, I didn't realize that karma was flammable. Maybe that is why they are moving operations out of Cheyenne Mountain; to provide better notice of impending karma attacks!

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.