Have we ever NOT been at Homeland Security Threat Level Orange?

[Looni2ns]

Ron White, the comedian, was on HBO the other night, and part of his routine dealt with the Homeland Security Threat Level. His mom called and wanted to know what to do when the level was yellow. His response - Go find a helmet. She called back and wanted to know what to do when the threat level was increased to orange. His reponse - Put on the helmet.

So, if the TL ever makes it to red, what am I supposed to do? Bend over, grab my knees, and kiss my A$$ goodbye with my helmet on?

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

I would agree with you if Homeland Security always kept it at orange. They have not. Here is a timeline of changes in status.

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0844.shtm

At the bottom of that website it says that it's remained Orange for all domestic flights since August 06.

Can you look at the chart below and tell me if you think the risk could honestly be described as being only one step below "Severe", for the last 3 years non-stop without a break? There have been tens of thousands of commerical flights during those 3 years, with no terrorist attacks on them. If the risk was really "High" I would have expected at least 2-3 successful attacks during those 3 years.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

At the bottom of that website it says that it's remained Orange for all domestic flights since August 06.

Can you look at the chart below and tell me if you think the risk could honestly be described as being only one step below "Severe", for the last 3 years non-stop without a break? There have been tens of thousands of commerical flights during those 3 years, with no terrorist attacks on them. If the risk was really "High" I would have expected at least 2-3 successful attacks during those 3 years.

I think that the general threat level should be "Guarded" while airports should be "Elevated" but either way with the attacks carried out on mass transit throughout the world over the last 5 years it should be higher than the general level. The fact is that America doesn't have the manpower to cover all mass transit with the security it deserves, hence only airports having a raised level. By your "2-3 successful attacks" logic should thwarted attacks drive the threat level lower? Last month charges were filed in 5 separate terror plots in one week. Is the threat of terrorism really gone? Where do you think the threat level should be?

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by goof2

I think that the general threat level should be "Guarded" while airports should be "Elevated" but either way with the attacks carried out on mass transit throughout the world over the last 5 years it should be higher than the general level. The fact is that America doesn't have the manpower to cover all mass transit with the security it deserves, hence only airports having a raised level. By your "2-3 successful attacks" logic should thwarted attacks drive the threat level lower? Last month charges were filed in 5 separate terror plots in one week. Is the threat of terrorism really gone? Where do you think the threat level should be?

Thank you. So because we thwarted a number of attacks, that means that the level should be lowered right? Every hear the old adage that if you see 2 cock roaches, you probably have 1,000 that you can't see? Hey, they arrest thousands of burglars a year, I guess it's safe to leave our houses unlocked... I don't claim to understand exactly what is entailed with the threat level but if I'm not mistaken, the different levels come with different levels of readiness by the military, police, fire, airport security, etc like the DEFCON system, don't they? I don't think that it is JUST a catch phrase that they wave in front of the public.

[goof2]

It was compared to the DEFCON system earlier in the thread but I guess because the American public sucks at actually paying attention to anything the government was stupid for creating the system.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

I think that the general threat level should be "Guarded" while airports should be "Elevated" but either way with the attacks carried out on mass transit throughout the world over the last 5 years it should be higher than the general level. The fact is that America doesn't have the manpower to cover all mass transit with the security it deserves, hence only airports having a raised level. By your "2-3 successful attacks" logic should thwarted attacks drive the threat level lower? Last month charges were filed in 5 separate terror plots in one week. Is the threat of terrorism really gone? Where do you think the threat level should be?

I think airports have more than enough secuirty, so there is no need for a "raised level" of threat. If terrorists wanted to do some real damage, they would simply barracade a church or school and take out 200 people. That's a lot simpler than organizing a hijacking. 10 years ago they identified a weak point in our security, they took advantage of it, and now that we've raised the security of aviation, any intelligent terrorist would investigate other options.

And my whole point is, if you're going to have a "threat level", it needs to change once in awhile, or else people ignore it. If you have one of those coolant temperature gauges or voltmeters that stays in one spot all the time, do you ever pay attention to it?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I think airports have more than enough secuirty, so there is no need for a "raised level" of threat. If terrorists wanted to do some real damage, they would simply barracade a church or school and take out 200 people. That's a lot simpler than organizing a hijacking. 10 years ago they identified a weak point in our security, they took advantage of it, and now that we've raised the security of aviation, any intelligent terrorist would investigate other options.

And my whole point is, if you're going to have a "threat level", it needs to change once in awhile, or else people ignore it. If you have one of those coolant temperature gauges or voltmeters that stays in one spot all the time, do you ever pay attention to it?

As I said, all mass transit should have a higher level. Terrorists have demonstrated they like transit as a target in London and Spain. If you think the security in airports is too stringent where would you recommend cuts be made?

Part of what the threat level is supposed to accomplish is to have people pay attention everywhere, not just airports. Yes, airports are listed higher but people are supposed to be aware in their daily lives. As you mention above an attack can happen anywhere. As I mentioned there were charges filed over 5 separate terror plots in one week last month. There are people who want to attack us right now. The government can stop some of them, but the public needs to play a part as well. The fact that the average American cannot be bothered to pay attention to anything more than 5 feet in front of their face isn't a failure of the system, it is a failure of the average American.

Yes, none of the gauges in a modern car move but I still pay attention to them. The reason is they only move when there is a problem. I like having the gauges so I know if a problem is developing. Some stupid light or buzzer only tells me after a problem has happened. Just because modern cars are very reliable doesn't mean I no longer need to know anything about it. Having a temp gauge helps me a lot more than a overheat light if I throw the serpentine belt or the thermostat stops working.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by goof2

Just because modern cars are very reliable doesn't mean I no longer need to know anything about it. Having a temp gauge helps me a lot more than a overheat light if I throw the serpentine belt or the thermostat stops working.

But the gauge isn't any better than an warning light, because the way most OEM's make them work is, there's only 2 positions the needle can be: Normal, or dead. To get a gauge that actually works the way it should, you need to buy an aftermarket one.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

But the gauge isn't any better than an warning light, because the way most OEM's make them work is, there's only 2 positions the needle can be: Normal, or dead. To get a gauge that actually works the way it should, you need to buy an aftermarket one.

Are you sure about that? Any temp gauge I have seen will be on the bottom peg at a cold start up and will slowly rise to normal temp over the course of 5 minutes or so. Do they just program that in to fuck with people or is it actually measuring something, like the coolant temp?

I have less experience with modern cars actually running hot, but a late 80s Accord with a broken thermostat and an early 2000s Explorer with a leaking radiator both had fully functional temperature gauges. The gauge was especially helpful in the Accord as I had another 200 miles to go and it was the middle of summer. I could turn the heat on and off as needed to remove extra heat from the engine. I wouldn't have been able to do so with just an idiot light.

[Amber Lamps]

God Dammit! How in the fuck did I get sucked back into this bullshit argument?!?