Strag

I think I've found my next carry piece. Does anyone know if that thing comes in a subcompact model?

Diceman

Human-animal hybrids? Alternative energies? The KFC 11 herbs and spices?

I know it's a top secret research facility and all that, but IMO, that serves to underscore my point. I believe that Los Alamos was penetrated a few years back by a chinese spy, or there was a fear that had happened, or something like that. I would think that espionage represents a higher threat level than a fully armed assault.

After all, let's say a hypothetical enemy force assaults the Lawrence Livermore facility, and seizes control of the most top-secret lab, with all the goodies. How are they going to get out? How are they going to get the information out?

Even if they did get the information out, three things have to happen in order for a foreign power to be able to use that top secret information against the US:

1. The information must be retreived and returned to the foreign power. This is where the miniguns ostensibly come in.
2. The information must be recreated or reverse engineered before its application
3. The information must be applied - either in recreating technologies the US already has, or designing countermeaures.

All this takes a lot of time. How would all this get done before the US retaliated? The best an enemy could do (to damage the US) in that case is distribute the information to anyone who will pay for it - to let the genie out of the bottle, so to speak. This is nothing that a spy couldn't do. I doubt that miniguns are going to stop a spy - at least not in any way that an M16 (or any other modern rifle) can't. I'm not saying "No Security", I'm saying "Appropriate Security".

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

aeroripper

Aliens?

Sorry I don't think the possible collateral damage justifies the need for a minigun. I don't understand their rationale behind needed such "security", do they have worries about maybe a riot, suicide bomber, or maybe a vehicle laiden with explosives? I don't think anything more than armed guards and an extensive security system is needed for protection and they are paranoid.

Buck Fush

These guns were put in place to prevent an all out assault on the facility. Only worrying about espionage went out of style when planes started crashing into our buildings. If someone spent this kind of money you can bet there's something in there that should not be in the wrong hands. That, or they want people to believe that so maybe some militants might waste their time trying to assault the wrong facility.

Steeler

Or maybe one of the guard commanders figured out that he could requisition some really wicked cool miniguns. How awesome would that be? Check that stuff out, dawg.

__________________

Buck Fush

LOL
If they're anything like some of the people I've worked with, you're probably right. IT managers always have the best hardware.

Delta_Swift

That and the deterrent argument sound the most realistic to me.

This has nothing to do with anything, but I'm just picturing a minigun bolted to the counter of a McDonald's by the cash register. The business end would be pointing towards you with a little microphone located conveniently between the six barrels. The cashier would be clenching the grips, crouched, and staring up the barrel at you as the weapon points up towards your face.

Cashier: "Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
Me: "Yeah, I want..."
Cashier: "Speak into the mike, fool."

__________________

Diceman

What? Who said that LLNL should only worry about espionage? Besides, did you know that a minigun won't stop a 767? Not by the time the 767 is at a range where it can actually be hit, at least.

Look, there are two different objectives that are being considered here:

1. Capture information
2. Destroy the facility

I'm arguing that the weapons aren't needed to deny the first objective, and it sounds like you're arguing that they're needed to deny the second objective. Should I take that as implicit agreement that they won't help against the first?

In regards to only the second option, how is an enemy force going to get enough hardware close enough to LLNL in order to accomplish the destruction? It sounds to me like you're envisioning the kind of armoured bulldozers employed by the israelis being used against LL. I'm no weapons expert, but it seems to me that the minigun is most useful for two things: shooting down incoming missles - akin to their employment on carriers, and battlefield suppression - just getting the other guy to get his head down. Neither of those threats strike me as the prime threat against LLNL.

Besides, to deal with the missile threat, I don't think you'd want mobile platforms (their intended use) as much as stationary, computer-controlled guns - for nothing else than giving the weapon the accuracy needed to deny incoming missiles.

Steeler probably has the best explanation as to why they got there. "I wonder if they'll approve this..."

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

Buck Fush

You did. You dismiss an armed assault and make the point that the biggest concern is information being lost. I am merely pointing out that A) an armed assault is not the last thing we need to worry about and B)there could be physical items, such as our own version of WMDs, inside that building.



^^Straw Man^^
We have many measures in place to attempt to prevent the usage of another commercial airplane as a weapon. As you pointed out, these mini guns will not help with that task, but if this facility were assaulted by 3 Suburbans full of bad guys in an attempt to retrieve some weapon to use on the American population, I, myself, would rather be on the trigger side of that gun.


You’ve left off the third, which is:
3. Capture a weapon or substance that could be used against Americans.


I am arguing that they are needed to protect the contents of the facility.

I am a computer programmer. I identify computer-related risks and create solutions. If there was a computer problem that needed fixed and the chief of security decided to fix it without consulting me I’d call him a dumb a$$. This facility needs protection and the expert hired to provide that security has decided that this is the right step. I’ll trust his decision. We have no idea what is inside that building that needs protecting.


Although I find amusement in that comment, I tend to trust people to do their job until they have shown that they are incapable. I don’t believe for a second that multiple $75,000 guns were purchased because someone thought they’d be cool to play with.

Steeler

My father used to talk about all the neat crap his Combat Engineer unit would snag through the PX and other "quartermaster" channels. Bulldozers, armor, air service, sports equipment, lobster, gourmet cheeses. You know someone - you get stuff. I'm not saying people aren't doing their jobs, I'm just wondering exactly who made this tactical decision, and if it's less about tactics and more about getting some cool hardware. Sometimes the two go hand in hand.

__________________

Diceman

I agree that an armed assault is not the last thing we need to worry about. I stand by my position that it is also not the first.
In response to your comment about planes and buildings.
All well and good, and I agree with most of it. As I've mentioned previously, these guns may be overkill and they may not be overkill. But we shouldn't justify this stuff because it is overkill.

I'd believe it. I've heard of crazier things happening. And, there's a difference between being incapable/incompetant vs. getting over-powered toys/tools. I'm saying it's the latter, not the former.

Edit: I'm saying it's potentially the latter

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

CingularDuality

Ah, this last post has enlightened me to your point of view. "Why would you shoot a knife-weilding burglar that breaks into your house, when you could just knock the knife out of his hands, tackle him and wait for the police?"

Some of us believe that it's better to be prepared for situations that we hope will never, ever happen.

Perhaps it is overpowered. Perhaps they'll never need to use it. So what?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Diceman

Ah, yes. Of course, that's exactly what I'm saying. Good call.

__________________

[drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
[ma-c2][taw-c1]

CingularDuality

Thanks.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

SmokingTarpan

I'd be less worried about the army of fully armed and armored terrorists backed by light armored vehicles suddenly showing up at the facility, and more worried about the one terrorist in normal clothes that manages to sneak in a bomb inside his shoe. Frankly, I don't see a reason for any facility inside the US to have such weaponry as a deterrent security system.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo