Author Topic: sudden military presence at sf bridges (Read 346 times)

mrfish · « **on:** February 01, 2002, 06:02:48 PM »

for weeks now there has been maybe one lonely cop guarding the golden gate bridge. i know because the bus i often take stops there on its way to the south part of town.

today there was a helicopter hovering over the golden gate and below it, 2 suv's full of m-16 toting helmeted green guys, cops, a coast guard ship out in the bay and a pair of jets high over the city (looked like f16s but they were pretty high)

i wonder if they have stopped "warning" us of threats? i wonder if they are just gonna respond from now on?

hmmmmm.....

Raubvogel · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2002, 06:11:59 PM »

Hopefully it was just a drill.

midnight Target · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2002, 06:28:35 PM »

Took Mrs. Tahgut to see SF in December. I was a little surprised at the lack of security in evidence at the GG. Stopped at the old Battery overlook on the North side. That is pretty cool stuff. Talk about homeland security! We used to have 14" guns stationed there to protect SF Bay. Up through WW2 I believe.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2002, 06:55:22 PM »

A couple of light planes were buzzing around the bridge. It took the idiot bridge director 45 minutes to call the authorities and inform them of this. By the time the jets arrived the light aircraft were gone.

Apparently the two light aircraft highly alarmed the tourists.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2002, 07:00:42 PM »

whats with these people calling in warnings after it's obviouse the threat (of a threat?) is over. we had a guy here a few weeks ago tell the guy filling his plane that he was going to crash it into a building. turns out he was just joking(not very funny though) but the atendant didn't report it until 2 hours later. the airport was less than 30 miles from downtown. the guy had already landed and went home before the alerted national guard planes

StSanta · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2002, 09:05:01 AM »

>Hope this desn't come off as anti-American but...

It seems like what's being done as 'security' in the US is more of a show than anything else. Large visual presence, but little done in terms of security.

Soldiers at airports with guns and in uniform. Soldiers in other places. Warnings here and there.

The Israelis do it the quiet way - people in causal clothing milling about. You don't see any guns, but they're there.

To me, it seems like the administration is trying to create an image of real security, but isn't doing much else.

I sincerely hope, for the sake of all Americans, that they use the troops as a way of visualizing that there is security - all while there are tons of people in plain clothes doing the actual security work.

Should mention that there are virtually no steps taken in this country, aside from anti terror laws and other unseen things. Sad, in a way: we're as much westerners as the US, and thus just as good targets. The American embassy has added protection, but that's about it.

mrfish · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2002, 02:31:30 PM »

if someone wants to blow up the bridge, they can still just drive right on and do it.

i mean those soldiers would be nice if an army decides to march over the bridge but.......

the only way to stop a truckbomber other than a roadblock is intelligence info. and in this case some planes buzz the bridge and 45 min later the troops show up? hmmmm

Kronos · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2002, 02:44:12 PM »

visual security is both a good deterrant to "normal criminals" as well as a sign saying to the general public "hey we're here, and doing something." The appearance can keep the public from panicking, whether or not its truly effective. Against terrorists such as the Al Qaeda network, I doubt its really effective, may just be more enticing, since more people, whether military or not just means a bigger target.

Personally, I dont think we can ever really be secure from the terrorists, unless we round em all up and shoot em. There is absolutely no way to stop somebody that is determined to end their life killing other people, short of killing them first.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2002, 03:40:40 PM »

Truckbomb would not damage that bridge too much.

mrfish · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2002, 04:14:04 PM »

that's true - setting one off on the cantilever section of the bay bridge would do more damage but even then. none of our bridges are very good targets. except nash bridges of course...