PlayItLoud Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 NORAD was created to guard against nuclear missiles which usually travels through outer space. They have very little do with what goes on within the atmosphere. Now, if you were asking where USAF was during and the CIA prior to 9/11, you'd have a case. It's just that we have nothing to do with their funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) NORAD was created to guard against nuclear missiles which usually travels through outer space. They have very little do with what goes on within the atmosphere. Not correct. NORAD has (and had) a lot to do with the airspace over Canada and the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command Now, if you were asking where USAF was during and the CIA prior to 9/11, you'd have a case. It's just that we have nothing to do with their funding. Not quite right. USAF just lend aircraft and crews to NORAD tasks. In peace time, it is the NORAD that keeps NA air defence. WWWTT's question is, in principle, valid. The only problem is that the answer had been known for long time. After KAL-007 incident in 1983 it was absolutely forbiden to fire on a civil aircraft with passengers in it. Plus, there had not been a precedent of using an airliner in this horrific manner. After 9/11 rules have changed. Edited January 1, 2012 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Does this mean you are not responsible for any comments/responces you make in referense/relation to comments or threads that I make/start? Nope. I'm fully responsible for all my comments, as are you. Thats like saying that if a woman dressess in a sexy/revealing outfit,you are not responsible for raping/sexually harrassing her! WWWTT Your logic is as flimsy as the majority of your posts are. Like I said, I'm fully responsible for the contempt I show you. I'm simply telling you that when you write less than intelligent things, your expected outcome should be less than serious responses. It's kind of like what the expected outcome should be for a woman who dresses in a thong and clam shell bikini. She should expect to be oggled at. She's not responsible for being raped/harrassed, because she should expect that social customs and offical laws should protect her, but she knows that if she shows off her stuff that there will be men looking at her and potentially approaching her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Your logic is as flimsy as the majority of your posts are. Like I said, I'm fully responsible for the contempt I show you. I'm simply telling you that when you write less than intelligent things, your expected outcome should be less than serious responses. It's kind of like what the expected outcome should be for a woman who dresses in a thong and clam shell bikini. She should expect to be oggled at. She's not responsible for being raped/harrassed, because she should expect that social customs and offical laws should protect her, but she knows that if she shows off her stuff that there will be men looking at her and potentially approaching her. So in other words you can not really defend NORAD so you think you have a better chance of going after my integrity.I wonder what that says about you? And as far as a woman dressed in a skimpy outfit,you seem to be putting alot of thought into that one!But beware the moderators here have a very conservative view! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 After KAL-007 incident in 1983 it was absolutely forbiden to fire on a civil aircraft with passengers in it. Plus, there had not been a precedent of using an airliner in this horrific manner. After 9/11 rules have changed. Thank you for your addition to my thread. When time permits I will research your contribution to further continue the debate! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 It seems that the only time I hear about NORAD is around Christmas time. And they make this hoax claim that they are tracking Santa Claus leaving the North Pole. My big question is where was NORAD during 9/11? How usefull was NORAD at tracking actual threats? Is Santa Claus a threat? Better yet is NORAD worth the money? WWWTT NORAD had all the feeds, of all air traffic (in and outbound) of North America on 9/11.………By about ~4PM pst, There were only a handful of aircraft flying in Canadian airspace, namely the numerous CF-18 flights and a sole CH-113 evacuating a heart attack victim from a ship off of Vancouver Island……….NORAD didn’t shit the bed on 9/11, even though it’s doctrine was to defend against threats entering North American airspace and the ROE wouldn’t allow for the carte blanche shooting down of civilian airliners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 NORAD had all the feeds, of all air traffic (in and outbound) of North America on 9/11.………By about ~4PM pst, There were only a handful of aircraft flying in Canadian airspace, namely the numerous CF-18 flights and a sole CH-113 evacuating a heart attack victim from a ship off of Vancouver Island……….NORAD didn’t shit the bed on 9/11, even though it’s doctrine was to defend against threats entering North American airspace and the ROE wouldn’t allow for the carte blanche shooting down of civilian airliners. Actually your statement reminds me about a joke. This guys is looking for a used car to drive back to his home province(U know which one). He finds one he likes.And asks the seller whats the matter with the vehicle.The seller tells him that the reverse gear is broken.The buyers sais "Oh thats OK cause I am not coming back" WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Actually your statement reminds me about a joke. This guys is looking for a used car to drive back to his home province(U know which one). He finds one he likes.And asks the seller whats the matter with the vehicle.The seller tells him that the reverse gear is broken.The buyers sais "Oh thats OK cause I am not coming back" WWWTT I’m having a hard time drawing a parallel here. Sorry. Edited January 14, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I’m having a hard time drawing a parallel here. Sorry. My appologies,I should have elaborated. NORAD,as a result of the events related to 9/11 has shown that it is as usefull as a car without important components/functions such as reverse gear. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prairiechickin Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 NORAD,as a result of the events related to 9/11 has shown that it is as usefull as a car without important components/functions such as reverse gear. Since NORAD was designed to counter the threat of incoming missiles or bombers, I'm not sure how failing to stop the hijacking of domestic airliners has any bearing on its usefulness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 My appologies,I should have elaborated. NORAD,as a result of the events related to 9/11 has shown that it is as usefull as a car without important components/functions such as reverse gear. WWWTT That’s an utterly incorrect statement………NORAD’s original doctrine and mandate was to defend North America from a external threat, namely Soviet Bombers and this morphed into the tracking and surveillance (and threat warning) of all rocket/ICBM launches across the globe………As the threat of massive waves of Soviet bombers crossing the North Pole diminished in the late 60s and early 70s, both the US and Canada undertook a significant drawdown of interceptor squadrons, bases and readiness, this was even further escalated with the demise of the Soviet Union in the 90s. What resources were still available on 9/10 were posed to intercept unidentified aircraft attempting to enter North American airspace, namely drug runners along the southern US border. The failings of 9/11 rest on the plate of law enforcement, the various intelligence services and leadership…….Not the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Some of NORAD's missions. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Sounds pretty easy for NORAD to track Santa Claus, what with all that radar and satellite technology. What I want to know is who is keeping an eye on the Easter Bunny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 What resources were still available on 9/10 were posed to intercept unidentified aircraft attempting to enter North American airspace, namely drug runners along the southern US border. The failings of 9/11 rest on the plate of law enforcement, the various intelligence services and leadership…….Not the military. Did you thouroughly think your comment through before posting it? On 9/11,the most prestigeous military facility in the world was successfuly targeted and you claim that it is not the military's responsibility for their defence?(pentagon) Can you please explain to me how the police,intelligence and leadership are going to stop a plane flying near freekin mach 1 within minutes of colliding with a freekin structure? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Did you thouroughly think your comment through before posting it? On 9/11,the most prestigeous military facility in the world was successfuly targeted and you claim that it is not the military's responsibility for their defence?(pentagon) Can you please explain to me how the police,intelligence and leadership are going to stop a plane flying near freekin mach 1 within minutes of colliding with a freekin structure? WWWTT Who do you think gathers and interprets intelligence and defines any given potential threat level & response in a democratic society? Military or Civilian leadership? The Pentagon is a (very large) office building, not G.I. Joe commander’s secret base…….. Who cut the Sky Marshal program? Who created barriers between the NSA, CIA and FBI? Who cut human resources to said intelligence agencies? Who’s in charge of immigration and airport security? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Who Who Who Who Who’s Is this how you answer a question?With a question? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Is this how you answer a question?With a question? WWWTT Like you just did? It's quite simple, the answer to my above question is clearly all the same.......Civilian, elected, Government..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Can you please explain to me how the police,intelligence and leadership are going to stop a plane flying near freekin mach 1 within minutes of colliding with a freekin structure? Nobody can. The airforce wouldn't even be able to scramble a fighter in time to do that. The main line of defence in this situation was security and intelligence personel. It's their job to make sure that civilian aircraft filled with passengers don't get hijacked and that people planning to do these things get caught long before they execute their plans. In the pre-911 frame of mind, the first thought NORAD or civilian air traffic authorities probably had when they realized that an aircraft was off-course was that there was some sort of pilot error or technical failure. The idea that a civilian airliner would be hijacked by radical Muslims and piloted the WTC was completely and totally unforeseen. The thought that another would be hijacked and successfully landed into the Pentagon (a fairly impressive example of airline navigation) was even more remote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Nobody can. The airforce wouldn't even be able to scramble a fighter in time to do that. The main line of defence in this situation was security and intelligence personel. It's their job to make sure that civilian aircraft filled with passengers don't get hijacked and that people planning to do these things get caught long before they execute their plans. In the pre-911 frame of mind, the first thought NORAD or civilian air traffic authorities probably had when they realized that an aircraft was off-course was that there was some sort of pilot error or technical failure. The idea that a civilian airliner would be hijacked by radical Muslims and piloted the WTC was completely and totally unforeseen. The thought that another would be hijacked and successfully landed into the Pentagon (a fairly impressive example of airline navigation) was even more remote. Indeed, the air force, via NORAD didn’t receive permission to shoot down airliners from the National Command Authority until after the third plane hit the Pentagon………Another failure on the part of civilian leadership, which started under the first Bush presidency (Of which Cheney was SecDef) and was expanded upon during the Clinton administration, in that they both saw the draw down of emergency preparedness and the inherent readiness drills……. Add this to significant reductions to the personal budget of the various intelligence agencies, and quite frankly, they got lucky on 9/11.……..A limited nuclear strike/terror attack could have decapitated nearly the entire US Government in 30 minutes………… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 ...The idea that a civilian airliner would be hijacked by radical Muslims and piloted the WTC was completely and totally unforeseen. The thought that another would be hijacked and successfully landed into the Pentagon (a fairly impressive example of airline navigation) was even more remote. Not as much as you may think....Samuel Byck plotted to assassinate President Nixon in his Oval Office with a hijacked airliner (1974). As for the Pentagon, physical security upgrades already underway including blast resistant windows were in response to known threats (e.g. truck bombs), and probably saved lives on 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 So what benefits would NORAD have today? Since they are generally designed around enemy nations sending jets or missiles our way and that seems to be so 20th century, what's the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 So what benefits would NORAD have today? Since they are generally designed around enemy nations sending jets or missiles our way and that seems to be so 20th century, what's the point? The same roles as it’s had in the past, North American (and North American interests around the globe) security, with now expanded roles to include maritime defence, ballistic missile defence and now to guard against another 9/11.………The Russians and Chinese still have hundreds of ICBM/SLBM, and though this threat in itself has diminished, made evident by the fact that the day to day operation of NORAD is no longer conducted within Cheyenne Mountain (But it’s still fully operational), there still is the potential threat. Tell the Iranians that ICBMs are sooooo 20th century..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Here we go again,the only time of the year I ever hear about NORAD. I wonder where Santa Clause is now??? If Santa ever tried to take down some office towers he better think twice! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) they are generally designed around enemy nations sending jets or missiles our way ^^^conceilment by the ultra obvious the better question is why doesn't canada have the capacity for mutually insured destruction Edited December 25, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 (edited) So what benefits would NORAD have today? Since they are generally designed around enemy nations sending jets or missiles our way and that seems to be so 20th century, what's the point? Did the Cold War really end? Below is the Yars-24 which entered service in 2010. It is capable of defeating any current ABM system. Edited December 27, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.