Message posted by Tom on June 11, 2008 at 12:59:52 PST:
Could I offer a qualification to what you've just suggested? I would tend to think any change in the composition of the security units on site shouldn't affect the "use of deadly force" status. From reading the DoD policy, that status seems soley based upon the assets/programs in question. For example, as far as I know, ANY site with nuclear weapons present is a "deadly force" site (which I tend to think is a good idea!). What this logic leads to is that there are no longer assets or programs at Groom that justify deadly force for protection. So, did previous "deadly force" programs simply terminate, or were they moved elsewhere? Or, were the "deadly force" signs simply a holdover from long ago and only recently got updated and brought into conformance with DoD policy? Sigh...I miss the good ol' days when they were using the deadly force to protect the saucers.....
In Reply to: Re: Tikaboo this summer? And new sign posted by loopbacktest4echo on June 11, 2008 at 12:32:17 PST:
Replies: