3 ms·
The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a reason to do that in response to an active threat.
by noelsusman 8mo ago
The closure was for 10 days full stop. I can't think of a reason to do that in response to an active threat.
- schiffern 8mo agoThis is OpSec 101. Making the public closure too "tight" around the operational timeline could (negligently) leak operational details. You can always cancel a closure later.
- iAMkenough 8mo agoIs saying "indefinitely" or "until further notice" any worse than "10 days?" The specificity of the timeline was what caught my eye.
- vachina 8mo agoIndefinitely infers permanence. You’ll scare everyone off with that language.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoIs Opsec 101 to increase the estimate by two orders of magnitude? "We think this operation will take about 10 weeks, so we're estimating 10 years."
- schiffern 8mo agoThe answer is "long enough to avoid giving away operational details," not some robotically applied constant multiplier like 10x. We also don't know whether they expected this to take 1 day or more. Just because it worked out quickly doesn't mean that's the "worst case" operational timeline.
- lazyasciiart 8mo agoIsn’t that how estimating timelines should work?
- brynnbee 8mo agoI think the point was to get headlines and attention, as someone else said it sounds like the FAA is frustrated that the DoD isn't cooperating, and this seems like a possible attempt to make this frustration public to pressure DoD into playing more nicely.