The DEFCON system on 9/11 20 replies

Please wait...

Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#1 15 years ago

On 9/11, the US went to DEFCON 3 for only the 3rd time in history, which means that classified call signs are used and force readiness incresess. That is pretty high up, but why didn't the US go to DEFCON 1? The nation was under attack on it's home soil, and an ongoing attack on the US military's headquarter's in DC was happening.

If you were in charge of the military and you were inside of your HQ when it was attacked, i'd think you'd want to get every fighter in the US military in the air. It was actually the opposite. My dad was at Langley AFB on 9/11, and the ENTIRE BASE went into lockdown, only a few interceptors took off. Why would you order the closest major AFB with fighters to DC lanch so few interceptors after your military HQ was hit, and you didn't know if more were on the way?

I'm not saying that there was some conspiricy or something, but why would you keep the DEFCON so low when your nation was being attacked everywhere? I think it would warrent at least a 2...




Tango Protocol

Master of my own domain

50 XP

18th July 2003

0 Uploads

8,283 Posts

0 Threads

#2 15 years ago

Delta ForceThat is pretty high up[/quote] No it's not

Delta Forcebut why didn't the US go to DEFCON 1?[/quote] That would require like.. us being nuclear bombed in like 5 different places all at once.. not a simple (for lack of a better word) terrorist attack on one central location

Delta ForceThe nation was under attack on it's home soil, and an ongoing attack on the US military's headquarter's in DC was happening.[/quote] Uhm, ongoing attack?

Delta ForceIf you were in charge of the military

AKA President

[quote=Delta Force]and you were inside of your HQ when it was attacked, i'd think you'd want to get every fighter in the US military in the air.

Ever seen Independance Day? Yes.. it was a movie, but they did that and all of their men were needlessly killed, and resources were wasted

[quote=Delta Force]It was actually the opposite. My dad was at Langley AFB on 9/11, and the ENTIRE BASE went into lockdown

Deploying fighter jets needlessly results in fear of the people, riots, and loss in faith to the government.

[quote=Delta Force]why would you keep the DEFCON so low when your nation was being attacked everywhere? I think it would warrent at least a 2...

That's being a little too generous when assigning DEFCON levels, don't you think? DEFCON 2 Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum readiness

Again.. if you're too generous with DEFCON, people will not trust it and take it seriously when something bad DOES actually happen

Semper Fidelis United States Marines




cc.

2 excited 4 shark week

50 XP

25th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,076 Posts

0 Threads

#3 15 years ago

^PWNED

It was a hit and run erm, correction: hit and die. This type of procedure isn't what you want during a terrorist attack. DEFCON would be used for a nuke war, like Knippschild said, or a military attack on friendly soil.




Hypnotoad13

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

6th January 2006

0 Uploads

918 Posts

0 Threads

#4 15 years ago

:0wned: As terrible as the attacks on 9/11 were, and i'm not saying that they weren't the biggest attack on american soil in 50 years, but the physical damage was far less than what would have been required to do any lasting physical damage. This as opposed to Pearl Harbor where a significant portion of the Pacific fleet was destroyed.




Mr. Matt Advanced Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

357,146 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,704 Posts

781 Threads

#5 15 years ago

DEFCON 1 would have pretty much meant full mobilisation of the United States Armed Forces, including, I would presume, some degree of nuclear readiness. Now given that the US only went to DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis (you know, the time the world was very nearly obliterated by nuclear war), I don't see why they would have gone to DEFCON 1 because a couple of guys flew planes into some buildings. It wasn't a true military attack, and by the time the US military was fully mobilised the attacks would have been looooong over. 'Being attacked everywhere', 'ongoing attack'? You really don't have a clue what war is about, do you?




Gauntlet

Dead rather than Red!

50 XP

25th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,346 Posts

0 Threads

#6 15 years ago
Mr. MattDEFCON 1 would have pretty much meant full mobilisation of the United States Armed Forces, including, I would presume, some degree of nuclear readiness. Now given that the US only went to DEFCON 2 during the Cuban Missile Crisis (you know, the time the world was very nearly obliterated by nuclear war), I don't see why they would have gone to DEFCON 1 because a couple of guys flew planes into some buildings. It wasn't a true military attack, and by the time the US military was fully mobilised the attacks would have been looooong over. 'Being attacked everywhere', 'ongoing attack'? You really don't have a clue what war is about, do you?

Quoted for truth. :smokin:




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#7 15 years ago

I have to agree Defcon 3 was just "fine" I would say.

About the lockdown. Well incase of a terrorist attack you might wish to close the gates and maximize the checks to gain entry to locations that are highly imporant. Sending the entire airfleet into the air won't do much good if you have nothing to fly to and intercept, not that you need the entire airforce in the air for that to begin with though.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#8 15 years ago

Wait, I don't think you guys get it. What I meant by ungoing was that the attacks took place over like 2 hours, and no one knew how many planes had been hijacked and if more attacks were to come later on. Al Qudia likes to attack things again 1 month after the 1st attacks (such as the US anthrax attacks, and the 2nd attempt to bomb the London subways). Besides, for all they knew back then it could have been part of a larger plan (like the plot Al Qudia came up with in the 90s to kill the pope and hijack international flights). If they knew that Al Qudia had bombed US ships, embasses, and the WTC, why didn't they take widespread attacks seriously and deployed the national guard and military for a bit untill things cooled down?

I know today that must seem stupid, but back then those kinds of actions should have been taken.




Hypnotoad13

GF is my bext friend *hugs GF*

50 XP

6th January 2006

0 Uploads

918 Posts

0 Threads

#9 15 years ago

because by deploying National guard and or militias, you create a public scare. That means that the entire country becomes paralized and if something else did happen, we might not have been able to react to it. On september 11th due to botched inteligence, the government had no idea what was going on. For all intents and purposes it was running around with its head cut off. The last thing we needed was a panic, disabling the government on a local level as well as in the upper levels.




Tango Protocol

Master of my own domain

50 XP

18th July 2003

0 Uploads

8,283 Posts

0 Threads

#10 15 years ago

As a private first class in the USMC-R, I can tell you that DEFCON is something that is NOT abused, because as everyone else said (and I think me too) it creates a scare.. then if it's abused and upgraded too often, people start losing faith in the system and they stop taking it seriously.