Security Alert Color Codes

[DawnCt1]

Senator Kerry doesn't like the color coding for the terror security alerts and he said that one of the first things that he would do is to eliminate it. He doesn't say what he would replace it with, but no doubt "he has a plan". Is this a good idea? Kerry's campaign seems to have as its theme song; "Anything you can do, I can do better". We just don't know what that is however.

 

[mikeymars]

Dawn hits a home run again. When Kerry stated this, I had the same thought: make a complaint, but offer no option or solution. I expect that sort of behavior from a small child, not a Yale graduate.

Granted, there are issues with the color-code system, the basic one being the "the little boy who cired wolf" syndrome, ergo, you can only go from yellow to orange so many times (without anything happening or the arrest of parties who clearly were about to attack) before the impact and utility of the color codes starts diminishing.

On the other hand, changes in the codes still do immediately raise general awareness of potential risks, and may actually affect terrorists. For alll we know, certain attacks that were planned may have been cancelled because the color codes raised security at something they had specifically targeted.

Now, all Kerry has said is he will remove them. For the sake of argument, let's assume that happens. Then what is the scenario when the authorities get major new information about potential risks? Do they make any public annoucements? And if the potential risks are generic (as they always are, ergo, "we have evidence that terrorists may be planning to use truck bombs, but don't know where or when"), what does Kerry think the public is supposed to do without specific guidelines (which the current color codes provide)?

 

[DisneyMomx7]

Even before Kerry mentioned changing the color code system I think many people thought it was a joke. The first time they raised it everyone (including me) went crazy buying duct tape and plastic and water, etc. I even sent my son, who goes to college in Washington D.C., a gas mask! Now it's like ok the color changed - big deal. I would rather have the threat be made public as specific as possible instead of this child like color scale.

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
I would rather have the threat be made public as specific as possible instead of this child like color scale.

Given reality, that would be completely useless. If the authorities have any meaningful "specific" information on a potential threat, they're not going to compromise the investigation and pursuit of those involved by going public.

As a result, the only information you would ever get under your scenario would be so hugely generalized as to be meaningless ("terrorists may be planning a suicide bombing attack somewhere"...."terrorists may be targeting utilities."). And you would inevitably end up paying as little attention to those "announcements" as you do the color codes.

 

[DisneyMomx7]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Given reality, that would be completely useless. If the authorities have any meaningful "specific" information on a potential threat, they're not going to compromise the investigation and pursuit of those involved by going public.

As a result, the only information you would ever get under your scenario would be so hugely generalized as to be meaningless ("terrorists may be planning a suicide bombing attack somewhere"...."terrorists may be targeting utilities."). And you would inevitably end up paying as little attention to those "announcements" as you do the color codes.

I seem to remember that the threats were site specific such as the Prudential Building in Newark, NJ. I just believe that these kinds of warning are more useful.

 

[WishingStar]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
I seem to remember that the threats were site specific such as the Prudential Building in Newark, NJ. I just believe that these kinds of warning are more useful.

ITA, and why is it better to have a color scale, why can't it be said that the terror alert is high, mid, low... I'm an adult not a child.

 

[mikeymars]

Originally posted by DisneyMomx7
I seem to remember that the threats were site specific such as the Prudential Building in Newark, NJ.

The only reason the Feds released a list of potential major financial institution building targets his past summer was for political reasons (to show that the Department of Homeland Security was willing to provide "specifics" in certain situations).

However, within days of those annoucements it became clear that the info on these "potential specific targets" was based on old and somewhat stale data (information on a single laptop captured in Pakistan, that dated to 2000/2001). The moment that list was released, you can be 100% sure anything on it was immediately removed from al-Qaeda's actual current "hit list" (if any of those buildings were even on it to begin with).

Again, if the Feds had known of an actual planned attack on a specific location, they wouldn't have publicly announced it, again in the interest of not compromising investigations. You are never going to be told "al-Qaeda is planning to attack the Hoovertown Mall sometime next week."