3 ms·

They are extremely well secured. They don't travel alone; you may not notice that. They are surprisingly armored like a bank vault. And a report of attack can b

They are extremely well secured. They don't travel alone; you may not notice that. They are surprisingly armored like a bank vault. And a report of attack can be responded to by any LEOs, and the military. Getting away with a weapon is as close to impossible as it gets. We had one come in one afternoon, a bit late. We stay on standby to receive. They can't get the doors to open correctly. This is no small matter; they have to open just so. After us faffing off for a couple hours watching, they decided to drive down to Rocky Flats, and come back tomorrow. They aren't allowed to spend the night just anywhere; it has to be a secure installation. Next day, they come back. The techs at Rocky Flats figured out their doors. FYI, the US military has a strong policy against recognizing hostages.

leetrout 5y ago
> recognizing hostages What does that mean?
- Sophistifunk 5y ago
  Keeping the drivers as hostages doesn't stop the airstrike.
- juq89 5y ago
  It means if a theoretical attacker were to take the security forces hostage, there is no leverage gained for the attacker in that scenario. And yes, that means exactly what it sounds like.
morpheuskafka 5y ago
If you remember the thread a couple months ago about DoD personnel putting sensitive information into online flashcard sites, a number of them had the specific location on base where the OST convoy would be directed to park during a Safe Haven operation (not that it wouldn't be hard to spot them from the air anyway). So I'm guessing that most any military base is a possible location. I remember reading on Reddit quite some time ago that a federal LEO said their office could be used as a stopover as well, although I can't find the thread now.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Does this information come from factual reporting, or from HN and Reddit threads?
galacticaactual 5y ago
> FYI, the US military has a strong policy against recognizing hostages. As a former member of a US military unit specifically tasked with hostage rescue, if your implication is hostages are expendable, you are 100% pulling shit out of thin air, movies, or both.
- CapitalistCartr 5y ago
  No, not at all. Nuclear policy when I was serving was to use all available means to prevent nukes from being taken. In other words, our presence on the ground wouldn't prevent an air strike. F-16s were twelve minutes away, so it wasn't beyond the pale. And yes, that meant if we somehow became hostages, we might be expendable. I'm sure USAF would have mounted a rescue if practical, but priority was no nukes lost. None of this is out of my backside, rather out of the mouths of officers during training and serving.
  - kortex 5y ago
    I have a friend who works with the DoE and this squares with what I've heard. Nuclear/DoE tends to go above and beyond even other sensitive fields. It would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that contingency plans prioritized preventing material from falling into the wrong hands over basically all forms of collateral damage. I'm sure the NMCs are well aware they'd be hellfire missile'd before letting a nuke slip away, if those were the only choices.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Your friend shared top secret nuclear security plans with you?
      - kortex 5y ago
        No, lol. But they've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the Fed and anything involving nuke sec, personnel are basically dogmeat in any situation where the poop hits the fan. Anyone ex-mil or who runs in those circles knows this; it's hardly a secret. Of course, you are expected to not let it get to that point. But re: the comment about hostages, yeah, Uncle Sam would not hesitate to disable a nuke or material, even if it meant casualties of NMCs held hostage. Civilian casualties, no idea. That is the kind of fodder of actual classified conops. But in the metaphorical trolley problem between "N civilian casualties" and "nuke gets away", yeah my guess is N will be nonzero.
wolverine876 5y ago
What is that based on? You actually have access to confidential info and are sharing it on HN?

leetrout 5y ago

> recognizing hostages What does that mean?

Sophistifunk 5y ago
Keeping the drivers as hostages doesn't stop the airstrike.
juq89 5y ago
It means if a theoretical attacker were to take the security forces hostage, there is no leverage gained for the attacker in that scenario. And yes, that means exactly what it sounds like.

morpheuskafka 5y ago

If you remember the thread a couple months ago about DoD personnel putting sensitive information into online flashcard sites, a number of them had the specific location on base where the OST convoy would be directed to park during a Safe Haven operation (not that it wouldn't be hard to spot them from the air anyway). So I'm guessing that most any military base is a possible location. I remember reading on Reddit quite some time ago that a federal LEO said their office could be used as a stopover as well, although I can't find the thread now.

wolverine876 5y ago
Does this information come from factual reporting, or from HN and Reddit threads?

galacticaactual 5y ago

> FYI, the US military has a strong policy against recognizing hostages. As a former member of a US military unit specifically tasked with hostage rescue, if your implication is hostages are expendable, you are 100% pulling shit out of thin air, movies, or both.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago
No, not at all. Nuclear policy when I was serving was to use all available means to prevent nukes from being taken. In other words, our presence on the ground wouldn't prevent an air strike. F-16s were twelve minutes away, so it wasn't beyond the pale. And yes, that meant if we somehow became hostages, we might be expendable. I'm sure USAF would have mounted a rescue if practical, but priority was no nukes lost. None of this is out of my backside, rather out of the mouths of officers during training and serving.
- kortex 5y ago
  I have a friend who works with the DoE and this squares with what I've heard. Nuclear/DoE tends to go above and beyond even other sensitive fields. It would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that contingency plans prioritized preventing material from falling into the wrong hands over basically all forms of collateral damage. I'm sure the NMCs are well aware they'd be hellfire missile'd before letting a nuke slip away, if those were the only choices.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Your friend shared top secret nuclear security plans with you?
    - kortex 5y ago
      No, lol. But they've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the Fed and anything involving nuke sec, personnel are basically dogmeat in any situation where the poop hits the fan. Anyone ex-mil or who runs in those circles knows this; it's hardly a secret. Of course, you are expected to not let it get to that point. But re: the comment about hostages, yeah, Uncle Sam would not hesitate to disable a nuke or material, even if it meant casualties of NMCs held hostage. Civilian casualties, no idea. That is the kind of fodder of actual classified conops. But in the metaphorical trolley problem between "N civilian casualties" and "nuke gets away", yeah my guess is N will be nonzero.

wolverine876 5y ago

What is that based on? You actually have access to confidential info and are sharing it on HN?