In my opinion, this is a move by the feds, especially in this day and age, that I don't fully understand.
[QUOTE]Keating said the new the control room, in contrast, could be damaged if a terrorist commandeered a jumbo jet and somehow knew exactly where to crash it. But "how unlikely is that? We think very," Keating said.[QUOTE]
You know, the federal goverment spent millions to design, build, and maintain this bunker. Even though the cold war is over, one doesn't know what could happen....how likely did we think 9/11 was to happen?
Why wouldn't they play it on the safe side, and keep an ultra-secure facility such as this up and running full-time? I'm glad though that there keeping it on "warm standby".
[QUOTE]Keating said it costs about $250 million a year to operate Cheyenne Mountain fully staffed. Congress's Government Accountability Office has said efforts to modernize Cheyenne Mountain were too expensive or behind schedule. [QUOTE]
So, the goverment can't get their act together with this place, so basically they are shutting it down and moving somewhere else is what I read from that line?
I find it annoying that OUR security is "too expensive", yet other nations security aren't. This is just another annoying example.