PDA

View Full Version : What security???



bobuild01
11-05-2009, 09:13 PM
Senior Citizens Break Into Military Base
November 5, 2009 - 4:28 PM | by: Dan Springer

The U.S. Navy is reviewing its security policies following an embarrassing breach this week in Washington State. Five anti-war protesters were able to cut through a perimeter fence around Naval Base Kitsap and walk around the base undetected for four and a half hours. The group included three people in the 60's and three in their 80's.

The group was protesting the nuclear weapons kept at the base and hoped to get as close to them as possible. Members claim when they cut through a second and then a third fence they were within fifty yards of a bunker where nuclear warheads are stored. The Navy dismisses that but will not divulge how close the group got to weapons. It only released a statement saying that 'at no time was the safety of Navy personnel, property or the public threatened in any way.'

The group was swarmed by Marines and arrested shortly after cutting through the third fence. They were charged with trespassing and destruction of military property, both misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail.

Naval Base Kitsap is home to a fleet of 11 submarines. Eight of those subs are equipped to fire the trident nuclear missiles. Also, the base reportedly is the storage facility for more than 23-hundred nuclear warheads representing about one-quarter of the nation's nuclear arsenal.

The protestors have all been released and are awaiting an initial appearance in federal court.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/11/05/senior-citizens-break-into-military-base/?test=latestnews

What the article does not say is that this is another base that has outsourced security to an independent contractor because of severe budget cuts leading to base closures and a lowered homeland presence. I would think that congress would let the service protect at least our submarine bases themselves, especially under these circumstances. I know a higher number of subs were stationed there since it is also a training facility.
My main beef is the fact that they are only being charged with misdemeanors, especially since others have been charged with felonys for planning(unproven) a possible civilian attack under the Patriot act. They should also whether they were anywhere near the nukes or not.
It is time for the US government to protect our homeland and our citizens instead of bowing to the freaking treehuggers and antiamerican radicals. If they can do this who else could?
Read some of the comments if you are so inclined.

Just a small note.
I hope that the survivors of the attack of military personel and civilians at Fort Hood by a disgruntled or unhinged Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be ok. This makes me sick.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html
Please Mr. Obama, let our military protect us and themselves and not have to count on independent contractors who apparently are not up to the job.

Drastica
11-05-2009, 09:22 PM
That is all rather startling, especially if they really did get that close to the nukes...

Combined with this Ft. Hood thing, especially considering the information coming out now about the guy who did it, it'd be hard to argue with your last sentence.

bobuild01
11-05-2009, 09:42 PM
We lost an Air Force base, a Coast Guard base, and an Army base in MI due to the cuts. These were considered part of our northern defence network but that also destroyed around 150,000, or more, civilian jobs over the last decade.
I firmly believe that congress NEEDS to re-evaluate their decision to unprotect its citizens at home. Forget the dumb shit and do the jobs that need to be done first before we no longer need UHC or cap and trade.

EDIT: I was very disappointed by Obama this afternoon when he made a 2:20 minute perfunctionary apology four minutes into his 30 minute thank you speech to the cap and trade conference members at 5:00 pm. That shows me his real priorities once again.

TSR
11-05-2009, 10:17 PM
Dunno. Misdemeanor charges seem appropriate here, under the circumstances. The real crime is embarrassing the military and that wasn't their fault. They should have been caught at the first fence. And are civilian contractors really cheaper than doing it themselves? Bush over funded our military and they had to find ways to move their budgets and those spending programs are now entrenched. A lot of auditing needs to be done so that money is spent better. Though I fully agree that the military needs proper funding. A lot of the problem is that military financial needs tend to be variable while allocated budgets tend to be fixed, so any department that tries to save against a rainy day just gets their budgets axed. While the ones that throw it around like there's no tomorrow tend to get theirs increased. Stupid, but it's how things work.

ja ne

bobuild01
11-05-2009, 10:34 PM
I guess that in some ways I might have been a little harsh on the old folks but after my service to my country people such as them labeled all of us who did serve "baby killers", and much worse, which colors my views. The youngest of them is only a few years older than myself so I know they probably thought they were making a political statement, but I see it in a slightly different light. Besides, even if they were charged under the PA they would be given the opportunity to plead out to the misdemeanor charges. I just believe in realistic deterrents.
I do understand and agree with all your budgetary statements.

Lord Zero
11-05-2009, 10:44 PM
I have only one question...

Did any of the protestors look like this ?

http://ngnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/konami_revs_metal_gear_solid_silent_hill-11.jpg

Did someone claimed to be a Peace Walker ?

Drastica
11-05-2009, 11:17 PM
Well in one way you almost have to thank the people for showing the gaping flaw. Yes, they should be charged, but this should REALLY shake up the military. And the administration. Should these people be strung up or whatever? No.. With whatever punishment is doled out though perhaps a private 'thank you' might be in order from someone 'up there' enough who had been clueless of the state of things, (if such a person exists).

Who should be punished? Well, we can start with this 'private contractor' for one... If it turns out to be Haliburton related...I'll tell ya... fan + crap = Interesting Television for one thing.

More to the point, Bob's right on the mark that the Military'd do a much better job of policing it's areas. I think. I hope. It did when I was in. Then again, in this world, who knows?

Silver
11-05-2009, 11:55 PM
They dont have enough $$$!?

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

wysiwyg
11-06-2009, 01:02 AM
Well, most of you guys dont like the government anyway, don't like taxes, so what do you expect? You all have guns, so stand outside the fences of military bases and protect the damn sites yourself. (or point your guns the other way) depending whats your political colour.

Lord Zero
11-06-2009, 01:18 AM
They dont have enough $$$!?

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

Yeah... geez... no one buys the "we dont have money" shit.

Go preach someone else TSR.

Still things like each the B-2 being worth more cash than the income of entire nations... are sure signs of how much retarded they are.

Geez... and they keep bitching about the economical crisis.

BOLLOCKS !

Cut the military budget on half and the crisis will be solved instanstly.

Drastica
11-06-2009, 05:20 AM
Your pie chart isn't even complete, dude...I don't see Cuba in there, and I know they spend at least thirty-six dollars and ninety-eight cents US every year on their military...(mostly for used socks).

Also there's a minor (major) flaw in that chart, as we are involved in 2 wars at the moment, so of course our military's budget's gonna be outta proportion. Just had to point that out...

Lord Zero
11-06-2009, 06:00 AM
Your pie chart isn't even complete, dude...I don't see Cuba in there, and I know they spend at least thirty-six dollars and ninety-eight cents US every year on their military...(mostly for used socks).

Also there's a minor (major) flaw in that chart, as we are involved in 2 wars at the moment, so of course our military's budget's gonna be outta proportion. Just had to point that out...

Is still is a waste of money. :smoke1:

bobuild01
11-06-2009, 06:12 AM
Maybe the countries who think we should cut our military budget are right.
Unfortunately almost every one of those countries belong to treaty organizations who EXPECT us to provide the lions share of personel and supplies for any "policing" required to keep them safe, especially in the western hemisphere. That costs money which we provide, not them.
I in no way mean that they can not protect themselves, I am just saying we are bound by treaties and try our best to honor them.

@ Zero, I had to lol over your peacewalker pic. That is OK in a game but not IRL? The only one I saw a pic of was the nun.
@wysiwyg, If I could I would, right along with a few million others, mostly pointing our armament outward, unless we had to stop fence jumpers.

My main point is that it is much cheaper to keep those weapons secure than it is to disassemble them and find a place to store the plutonium which is too dangerous to use for power generation or medical uses.

Edit: I just saw a video on CNN(see I do watch more than Fox) purporting that the crazy shrink from Fort Hood frequented anti-american Muslem websites posting both videos and comments. True or not I am glad he didn't get to do the same to personel already in danger overseas.

Lord Zero
11-06-2009, 07:18 AM
Maybe the countries who think we should cut our military budget are right.
Unfortunately almost every one of those countries belong to treaty organizations who EXPECT us to provide the lions share of personel and supplies for any "policing" required to keep them safe, especially in the western hemisphere. That costs money which we provide, not them.
I in no way mean that they can not protect themselves, I am just saying we are bound by treaties and try our best to honor them.

@ Zero, I had to lol over your peacewalker pic. That is OK in a game but not IRL? The only one I saw a pic of was the nun.
@wysiwyg, If I could I would, right along with a few million others, mostly pointing our armament outward, unless we had to stop fence jumpers.

My main point is that it is much cheaper to keep those weapons secure than it is to disassemble them and find a place to store the plutonium which is too dangerous to use for power generation or medical uses.

Edit: I just saw a video on CNN(see I do watch more than Fox) purporting that the crazy shrink from Fort Hood frequented anti-american Muslem websites posting both videos and comments. True or not I am glad he didn't get to do the same to personel already in danger overseas.

No one expect you guys to do anything. At all. Is a occupation, a invasion if you want. Which threatens their national sovereignity.

That idea is bollocks. Obviously you are another friggin right wing pundit.

GTFO

wysiwyg
11-06-2009, 07:28 AM
Right wing, left wing, does not make any difference. Sad story is both need at least some form or military to keep a somewhat even balance in the real world.
Is true NATO is an alliance to keep the peace (at least that was it original purpose). But does not mention anywhere the US should police the world, thats something you guys invented yourselves due to the cold war McCarthy (i think that was his name) communism hunt.
Bottom line, any self supporting country should have a military for self defence. Comes in handy with natural disasters and the likes too.

SudoJones
11-06-2009, 08:16 AM
yeah. being an American myself, I completely agree with how terrible our nation is -_-

Fuck the fascist patriots and fuck Washington -_-

ShadowRFox
11-06-2009, 08:30 AM
Geez that just pathetic:speechless:. They shouldn't have been able to even get near the fence let along given the time to cut through it and breach a base with nuclear weapons. I mean come on, the US spend millions of dollars on the military and we can't even keep a few citizens out a military base with nuclear weapons. What just as bad is that they let this embarrassment go public. I mean come on, don't admit that your security is so crappy that several protesters can get into a base full of nukes.

One of the best possible scenario for a terrorist group is that they can detonate a nuke on US soil, and here we are basically saying that we left the back gate open to our nuke reserve.

Tiexandrea
11-06-2009, 09:21 AM
Cut the military budget on half and the crisis will be solved instanstly.

i want a shitload of your amazing weed.

bobuild01
11-08-2009, 07:50 AM
Obviously you are another friggin right wing pundit.

Not really. As I have stated many times I am a realist and just see good and bad in any and all governments. I do admit that my personal experiences definitely affect my views regardless of ideology. Isn't that just human nature though? Haven't you figured out by now that I might be fishing for a real solution that might already be working better than the system we now use? Why do you think I post a lot of questions versus a "my way or the highway" attitude that some others do? I welcome intelligent disagreement.

I agree with your interpretation of McCarthyism wysiwyg. You have that right on the money. In todays world it is no longer a viable train of thought but this government, as a whole, seems to think it is. It is just now directed at a different "enemy". I do think we have used our influence to "back" the wrong regeims more often than the ones best for their own countries though.

wysiwyg
11-08-2009, 08:39 AM
About those activists.... hehehe, beware what is comming to you in the next years.. you still need a lot of help to get to the european level:
(its a PDF, so might take a while to load, still fun reading material)

http://www.motherearth.org/inspection/inspectbook_en.pdf

bobuild01
11-08-2009, 09:14 AM
Thanks for the link, saved the pdf, after reading part of it. I need time to read and digest their proposals. An interesting read so far though.
I do believe that any WMD can be a crime against humanity in general.
I am more concerned with the issue of storage of the materials after disassembly. Until that day they must be secured. The current administration has hinted that no additional facilities will be licensed to store these poisons, after contracting with the private sector to build these projects. Where do we store the stuff that is too dangerous and can't really be destroyed by current technology?

wysiwyg
11-08-2009, 09:31 AM
True, but its much better to have a few "idiots" test the facilities and give the government/military/population a wake up call than have 1 real terrorist getting near nukes.
Or chemical or even more scary biological weapons.

LuxVertas
11-08-2009, 09:34 AM
*Sigh* I bet all this cash goes into secret projects to find new ways to kill Sheapards and goat fuckers and piss off the Russians!

Not to the brave men and women who rick their lives for a job that defends them from total bullfuckarry from asses!

What the fuck are the Top ranking Officers smoking? Do they not cair about the men and women they are sending to die? Or theur own whores?

RyviusRan
11-08-2009, 05:52 PM
Security is giving up freedom for safety.

The thing that is wrong is that we aren't really anymore safe with most of the freedoms we give up.

I find these wars a waste of time and money.

I swear a small nation could win a war against America. All they have to do is wait it out long enough for the U.S. to blow all their money and run their economy into the ground. Although there are people who profit greatly from war and would not like it to stop at all.

A lot of this war is religiously motivated. Even if the main goal isn't they still use it as a weapon which will make people think it is ok to sacrifice themselves.

If our means of winning a war was to just kill everyone we would have won long ago. The problem is that we want to somehow create a stable country over there. How can you do this when the citizens and people in power are not willing to do much and the people we call "terrorists" hold their ideals over their own life.

If our goal was different maybe it would be possible to complete what we want but the goal we have now (or the goal they tell us citizens) will not be able to be completed easily if at all.

It would take many generations to have success.

We never had the money to start this war. It doesn't really matter because we will keep pouring money into it because the people who are wasting all the money will be long dead before it is ever paid off.

If you study the last 150 years of american history concerning economic issues you will see there were many decisions that were made that could have been avoided and prevented most of the debt we have today.

There were problems that could have been easily foreseen, but it seems that the people who make those decisions never give a damn about future consequences.

TSR
11-08-2009, 10:22 PM
Security is being safe from risk. One of the common prices is a reduction of freedom. There is, however, no strict balance. It is difficult to have a lot of both. It is easy to have none of either.

If you are refering to the current 'police actions against terrorism,' they are a case of the American military being used as private mercenaries for the benefit of various financial concerns and corrupt government officials. There is little to no religious motivation at all in them, however they may be perceived by the general public whose tacit approval was required for them to be initiated. And there is no real intent to create a stable country. Quite the opposite. It is the various benefits derived from waging the war that are the motivating factor, not so much the end results. That's somebody else's problem. And genocide is insufficiently profitable and much too hot of a political potato, however pragmatically efficient it may be. In any case, the wars are won and it's the hostile occupations that are so draining, much like dogpaddling in a well one has been dropped in and can't climb out of. But that's our problem, not the folks responsible. Doesn't bother them to spend our money at all. And the same goes back for all that history. The folks benefitting from bad decisions are not the ones suffering from them. There is a solution to that kind of problem and it involves not being lazy and gullible at more than just the individual level.

ja ne

Lord Zero
11-09-2009, 05:28 AM
No politician makes long term decisions. They only care about the next election and
the hot topics of each month.

To change the country for real, we need wide plans of 10, 20, 50 years
for the future.

But is not gonna happen. I wish it, but i dont foresee that happening any time soon.

bobuild01
11-09-2009, 06:55 AM
Agreed. As an example I would like to use energy independence. We need that. It will cost trillions for the infrastructures. The technology required is still very expensive, the existing power grids need to be upgraded, the old dirty systems need to be phased out by the newer without limiting the energy production required to not only maintain existing capabilities but also increase output. That invariably will require time and an influx of capital by both private and government sources.
I could not agree more with your statement about politicians, some probably consider themselves visionaries at first but have to adjust their views to remain in the governmental hierarchy. I view it as only a power trip, regardless of who they are.