Talk:NORAD/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Anniversary

An event mentioned in this article is a May 12 selected anniversary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 May 2004

Rumor

I live in Colorado Springs, right next to Norad/Cheyenne Mountain, and I have heard rumors that the mountain can open up and has a place for airforce one to land inside. Can anyone shed some light on the validity of this? (unregistered Dave from CoSprings)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.50.83 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2005

The Truth

Yes we do track Santa Claus every Christmas, no we do not fly an "Air Force performance jet" from the Yukon to Mexico City to do this. We can determine Santa's relative position without wasting thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Also Air Force One most definitely cannot land near nor park inside Cheyene Mountain. -Maj Jon Thornton, Alaska NORAD Region —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.37.206.6 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 December 2005

about the stargate reference, there is a broom closet in the facility with a placard "sg1 access" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.101 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 6 May 2006 15.235.153.101

POV issue

The following from the NORAD in popular culture section strikes me as definitely not having a neutral point of view:

"The movie is often used in support of nuclear disarmament, but is also one of the first movies to shed light on the culture of computer hacking, although it perpetuated a paranoia of hackers based on erroneous facts."

No citations to the claim of the movie Wargames' use in disarmament discussions, to the claim it was one of the first movies to shed light on hacking, or to the claim that the movie change hacker perceptions - and falsely too. If nobody has a problem with it, I think this sentence could be removed. The reference and description of the movie Wargames already included seems to cover the appropriate bases. Thoughts? Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithh (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 July 2006

deleted 7/06/06 Keithh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithh (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2006 Keithh

Christmas

NORAD comes to public attention at Christmas, when it purports to track Santa Claus on his journey around the world delivering toys for the world's children.

Eh? When did this happen? --Lucky13pjn 02:21, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Every yeah around Christmas, eh. According to http://www.noradsanta.org/ this will be their "fiftieth season tracking Santa". Usually this is something covered on the evening news on Christmas Eve, reporting something along the lines of "NORAD is currently tracking Santa over Ireland. He should be entering Canadian airspace over Newfoundland in three hours." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.168.186 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 November 2004

Page move

I just moved NORAD to this page, and created a disambiguation page... While I believe this is the right thing to do, I am at loss as to how to clean up all the references to NORAD all over the place - is there some way to do that automatically? Hou Shuang 03:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are SAC and PAC?

In the Background and formation section there is a reference to PAC and SAC. "Both times, the PAC properly had their planes (loaded with nuclear bombs) in the air; SAC didn't." Neither term seems to be defined in this article (although SAC is a link) and the relationship between NORAD, SAC and PAC isn't clear.

In addition, does anybody have any citations for the times when we came close to WW III? Hamster128 15:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of the PAC, but SAC is the Strategic Air Command. They were the predecessors to the Air Combat Command (and possible the Air Space Command)--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that PAC stands for "Pacific Air Command" and (as already mentioned) SAC stands or "Strategic Air Command" (1sttomars 17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Pop culture - T3

Wasn't Norad or at least Cheyenne Mountain the place of the finale of T3? Should that be mentioned? -Ron 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

someone wrote:

"In addition to being destroyed in the movie Independence Day (though not shown), Cheyenne Mountain also figured prominently in the film Deep Impact, serving as the place of final refuge from the asteroid which strikes at the end of the film." I'm 99% sure this is incorrect. The site mentioned in the movie as "the Ark" was in limestone caves in Missouri. I don't believe NORAD or Cheyenne Mountain were ever mentioned in Deep Impact (unless they were mentioned in passing when nuclear missiles were launched at the commets). I could be wrong, though. --HenryV1598 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NO, they were not mentioned in T3. The end of the movie took place in some VIP only bunker, never referred to as NORAD or Cheyenne.Dkriegls (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the T3 reference from the page, the end scene took place at Crystal Peak, not Cheyenne Mountain. Warren —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Images?

Are there no images to be had? (Bjorn Tipling 06:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

Scramble/Intercept History?

There is some contention (in my perception) as to the history of NORAD intercepting jets over American airspace.

It would be great if someone could fill in something on that. A lot of people want to know. ClintJCL 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the intercepts are classified, as data on the performance and capabilities of NORAD could be discerned from them. It's unfortunate, but if you want to know what NORAD does, join the Air Force or the CF. (Psyklek 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

There's some info on some 1960s exercises here; Operation Skyshield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.242 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ent Air Force Base

Why does "Ent Air Force Base" redirect to this article when there isn't any actual information on the base in it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roachmeister (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Good question... Guessing sincing the person who redirectd Ent to NORAD is not available to provide the details needed to have a separate article. I have an investigation going on the original history of Ent AFB... once acquired I will separate the "redirect" and have a stand-alone article on Ent. Plz be patient. LanceBarber 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ent AFB started the work of "NORAD" before NORAD was built and identified. When the threat of having the work of "NORAD" being destroyed, they built a facility underground. The current Olympic Training Center building in Colo Springs is the last of any ENT buildings. Other units and duties were moved either along with the development of NORAD or to Peterson AFB. Thus the formation of Cheyennee Mtn Air Force Station to bring NORAD and its facilities and support under a base or station format. Documentation and references of this facility is not easily readibly accessable. Still working on those details. LanceBarber 07:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious

Just a couple of points that I'm curious about. The box near the top of the page says: "Controlled by Joint operations of United States Air Force and Canadian Forces Air Command." Back in ancient times, an entity called CONAD (Continemtal Air Defense Command) existed, which consisted of the USAF's Aerospace Defense Command, ARADCOM (Army Air Defense Command -- Nike missiles, etc.) and elements of the U. S. Navy. NORAD consisted of CONAD plus Canadian Forces. So, my question is: does the U.S. Army and/or U.S. Navy still participate in NORAD? I saw thar a USN admiral is listed under "Recent Commanders." Also, the history of NORAD makes no mention of SAGE. Shouldn't ther be a link to Semi_Automatic_Ground_Environment ? Gatr 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia... Popular culture

SGC

The pop culture section talks about Stargate Command, and says that the south entrance is featured on the show, although in actuality it isnt used. However, the picture a ways above it shows the entrance that is used in SG-1, and cites it as the north entrance...which is correct? --Estrill5766 19:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved previous SGC section to this Trivia section. LanceBarber (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Robot Chicken/Television shows

hi folks i just remembered that in one of the episodes of Robot Chicken (season 2 episode 16, the last clip at 9:29) i saw the N.O.R.A.D. "sign"(?) I thought that it would be better if someone else do that because my englisch is (what u already now...) sux ;) greetings from g´old germany =) -ad

(;Robot Chicken In the Robot Chicken episode S.2 E.16 the commander of N.O.R.A.D. ordered Santa Claus to submit them a cargo list. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.147.173 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Christmas

The NORAD Christmas patrol was referenced in the book Stuffed Animals by Michael Fry and T Lewis, the fourth Over the Hedge book.

Motion pictures

Terminator series

In the Terminator trilogy, the AI Skynet is built for NORAD to control the strategic military systems of the United States using Cheyenne Mountain as the core of Skynet's infrastructure.

United 93

NORAD is featured in the movie United 93 that portrays the events that took place on September 11, 2001 regarding United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. NEADS, Northeast Air Defense Sector, Rome, NY, is one of the two Air Defense Sectors that report to NORAD. The other is the Western Air Defense Sector, WADS,Tacoma, WA. These sectors are automatically referred to as NORAD when referenced. NEADS is the Sector featured in the United 93 film, and whose AOR ( Area of responsibility) covered most of the events on September 11, 2001

Live Free or Die Hard

In describing the backstory of the character Thomas Gabriel, it is mentioned that he broke into a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, using a laptop, shut down the entire NORAD system.

Televsion

Stargate SG-1

Cheyenne Mountain is featured prominently in the television show Stargate SG-1, as it is the location for the fictional Stargate Command. NORAD is mentioned occasionally as being above the Stargate, housed in sub-level 28. In the episode "A Matter of Time," the nearest secure phone above Stargate Command is at "NORAD, main level," which appears to be sub-level 2. Note, however, that the NORAD tunnel entrance shown in the series is the South Portal, which was used only for maintenance purposes, and never used by operations staff.

Jeremiah

NORAD is featured in the Showtime series Jeremiah being used as a self-contained community by the survivors of a post-apocalyptic world.

Seinfeld

In the Seinfeld episode The Phone Message George is frustrated about not going up to his dates apartment at midnight for "coffee". When Elaine mentions that some people drink coffee that late George says "Yeah, people who work at NORAD who are on 24-hour missile watch."

South Park

On one episode of the cartoon South Park, a supercomputer Trapper Keeper wishes to absorb a supercomputer located underground of Cheyenne Mountain, the location of NORAD.

Books

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

In the novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein, Cheyenne Mountain receives heavy bombardment from the lunar rebels

For Special Service

In the John Gardner novel For Special Services James Bond must prevent SPECTRE infiltrating NORAD after drugging its staff with ice cream doctored with a psychedelic substance.

Silver Surfer

The Marvel comic book character's real name is Norrin Radd, possibly a reference to NORAD.

Other media

• The manga Battle Angel Alita, (vol. 8) Desty Nova’s laboratory is shown to be in the ruins of NORAD.
• In the game Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 by Westwood Studios, the president requests confirmation from NORAD on a Soviet invasion during the opening cutscene.
• The Norad II is also the name of a Battlecruiser in the popular Real-Time Strategy game Starcraft by Blizzard Entertainment.
• A portion of the game The Journeyman Project takes place in NORAD VI, an undersea missile and submarine base.
• In the Brazilian comic UFO Team and its spinoffs, the NORAD is supposed to host a group of superpowered individuals secretly in an underground facility.

Cut and pasted excess trivia here from main article. LanceBarber (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

More trivia cut and paste

Independence Day

In the 1996 action movie, Independence Day, the attacking aliens destroy NORAD, where the vice-president and joint chiefs of staff had taken shelter. (cut/paste from Cheyenne MountainLanceBarber (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fallout Tactics reveals NORAD as the location of the famed Vault Zero, calling it the "ancient temple of war". c/p from main LanceBarber (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• NORAD was largely featured in the film "Independence Day" in which NORAD was consistently referred to as the governing body which ordered several air strikes against the alien invaders in that film. An example of the aliens' destruction in the movie is discussed when it is discovered that NORAD has been destroyed by the invaders. LanceBarber (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• from main:

In the movie Independence Day, NORAD is mentioned as one of the first targets destroyed by the invading aliens..."They knew exactly where to hit us."

In the movie Die hard 4 the main antagonist played by Timothy Olyphant hacks into NORAD using a laptop to prove to the joint chiefs of staff that the security network of the country is wide open to attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceBarber (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 March 2009 LanceBarber

NORAD was mentioned by character Kyle Reese. Skynet is an A.I. defense network that was built for SAC-NORAD by Cyberdyne Systems Corporation.

Copied from main article.LanceBarber (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

9/11 POV

"At the end of the Cold War NORAD reassessed its mission. To avoid cutbacks, from 1989 NORAD operations expanded to cover counter-drug operations, especially the tracking of small aircraft entering and operating within America and Canada, thereby confirming that General Richard Myers committed perjury in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission when he said NORAD was directed "looking outward" on 9/11." "After the attacks Bush Administration officers, with the assistance of the media, lied about NORAD's poor response by saying that NORAD was never inward looking; that the defense agency had been since its creation in 1958 directed "looking outward". This is, of course, a blatant falsehood. In point of fact, NORAD's first mission has always been its "inward" mission of "Air Sovereignty" -- Surveillance and Control of the airspace covering the United States and Canada."

Those statements need correct citation. The things are quite different from that. Counter-drug surveillance was done on boundaries (expecially US-Mexico) and traking of aircraft (small or big doesn't matter) within national sky relied on FAA radars (civilian). The map of NORAD' radars coverage on 2001 clearly shows that.

http://www.aereimilitari.org/Crono911/immagini/domande/domande01.jpg

How can you track a plane, without radar coverage? Interior coverage was FAA duty. Under specific circumstances, AEW Planes (like E-3 Sentry) can do the job. The cited statements mislead the reader. They need comprehensive explanation and correct source citation. Not my work: i'm only a guess, not familiar with your rules, just pointing out the inaccuracy. Bye, --Luciaperla (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The section has been removed, then re-added. I've added a {{POVsection}} tag, and removed the uncited OR statements that are Synthesis at best.

Also, I highly appreciate the user who added the citation info the best way they knew how. I've converted the citations that I kept to the Ref tag style, as they will now be automatically numbered. This is actually fairly easy to do, and simpler than adding the superscripted text as you did. WP:CITE can help you get started, or you can simply copy an existing ref tag, and replace the link with your own. - BillCJ (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote, "In response, their mission [NORAD] evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States", needs to do more research on NORAD. NORAD has always monitored and controlled the territorial airspace covering the United States and Canada since its formation in 1958. Its NORAD's FIRST core mission! NORAD's SECOND core mission is warning of an aerospace attack approaching the continent; and NORAD's THIRD core mission is providing a proper response to an aerospace attack against the continent.

Whoever wrote, "Those statements need correct citation. The things are quite different from that. Counter-drug surveillance was done on boundaries (expecially US-Mexico) and traking of aircraft (small or big doesn't matter) within national sky relied on FAA radars (civilian). The map of NORAD' radars coverage on 2001 clearly shows that", need, again, to do more research. NORAD performed counterdrug monitoring", clearly didn't read the citation!

The correct citation was provided: "The Air Operations Center (AOC) [also known as the Air Defense Operations Center - ADOC] maintains constant surveillance of North American airspace to prevent overflight by hostile aircraft. It tracks over 2.5 million aircraft annually. The ADOC collects and consolidates surveillance information on suspected drug-carrying aircraft entering or operating within North America, and provides this information to counternarcotice agencies." -- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/cmc.htm --(1999).

By the way, Air Defense Units and Alert Sites are on the borders to provide "geographic coverage" (GAO, 1994) of the continent, not to only monitor the borders! The FAA would not have been the government agency tasked to track Cruise missiles nor Black Jack Bombers that penetrated our airspace if we had gone to war with the USSR!

Maj François Malo, of the Canadian Department of National Defense, sums it up well when discussing NORAD’s Air Sovereignty mission in an essay he wrote in 1998, “In 1998, Canada posses the ability to detect, identify, and if necessary intercept aircraft over Canadian territory. The "Canadianisation" of NORAD operations over Canada is complete. Though we still rely heavily on the Americans for the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment and mutual defense, we have successfully transitioned on at least one of the three core functions of NORAD [surveillance and control of sovereign airspace].” --

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/canada/0056.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian78046 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 9/11 POV

Everything added on the 4th and 5th of August has been loopy 9/11 conspiracy POV. The last sane version was here. I've already reverted a couple of times, but it looks like protection may be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.115.126 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote, "Everything added on the 4th and 5th of August has been loopy 9/11 conspiracy POV", doesn't seem to realize that what is posted comes from sources on NORAD written before September 11, 2001! And they ALL say the same thing! The citations all say that NORAD's FIRST mission was "surveillance and control of the territorial airspace covering America and Canada".

Since everything on NORAD written before September 11, 2001 says NORAD was "inward looking", you may want to re-think your ad hominem argument.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian78046 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 August 2008

I didn't say the statement was wrong. I say the statement needs better explanation. Of course NORAD provides air defence for territorial airspace. It's a strategic air defence command, not a coast guard agency! The matter is operational.

This is the way Norad works (worked... now is different) using ADZ (Air Defense Zone): approaching unidentified planes in ADZ are tracked and tracking continues within territorial airspace (even exiting the ADZ). This is almost simple to do, for NORAD assets. If an unidentified plane appears within territorial airspace NORAD just doesn't know about it. It's FAA job to point that plane and to inform NORAD (if needed). A lot of unidentified planes fly (flied) within territorial airspace (not all the planes need transponder ID). NORAD has a picture on their screen about territorial air traffic but doesn't matter about it, without FAA request of pointing something out. NORAD can pursue/intercept/shot down something coming from an ADZ into territorial airspace but can't do anything for something emerging inside territorial airspace (NOT ADZ), if FAA doesn't ask NORAD to do something.

I know it's something difficult to explain, and my poor english doesn't help me.

NORAD mission is to defend territorial air space too? Yes, of course. NORAD assets can track an incoming menace? Yes. The ADZ zones serve this duty. NORAD can track a menace inside territorial air space? Yes, if the tracking started in an ADZ. Yes, if FAA asks for that. No, if menace suddenly appears inside territorial air space: only FAA knows (better: has competence to determine) if that target it's a menace or not and if it's something that needs NORAD intervention or not. Anyway, i don't want to criticize anybody nor taking position about any kind of political argument (i'm not american, i don't matter about Bush administration or USAF generals :-) ), i just pointed out what i know to be an inaccurate statement, hoping to help you to make it more accurate, that's all. Have a nice time. --Luciaperla (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: don't mix-up peace-time rules with war-time rules... they are quite different. ;-) --Luciaperla (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You said in reference to the article on drug interdiction, "Those statements need correct citation." I didn't say you said my statement was wrong. I said my citation was correct, which you would have known if you had read the article in the first place! If you had read the article from 1999, you would have read, "The Air Operations Center (AOC) (also known as the Air Defense Operations Center – ADOC) maintains CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTH AMERICAN AIRSPACE TO PREVENT OVERFLIGHT [emphasis mine] by hostile aircraft. It TRACKS [emphasis mine] over 2.5 million aircraft annually. The ADOC collects and consolidates surveillance information on suspected drug-carrying aircraft entering or operating WITHIN North America [emphasis mine], and provides this information to counternarcotics agencies."

Note the above article says, "The Air Operations Center (AOC) (also known as the Air Defense Operations Center – ADOC) maintains CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTH AMERICAN AIRSPACE TO PREVENT OVERFLIGHT." The article doesn't say, "The Air Operations Center (AOC) (also known as the Air Defense Operations Center – ADOC) maintains CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OF NORTH AMERICAN BORDERS TO PREVENT OVERFLIGHT." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian78046 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so resistant to the evidence that NORAD's first mission was inward. The pre-2001 literature on NORAD is explicit about NORAD's FIRST mission of "monitoring and controlling the territorial airspace covering America and Canada".

For instance (as I already mentioned) Maj François Malo, of the Canadian Department of National Defense, sums it up well when discussing NORAD’s Air Sovereignty mission in an essay he wrote in 1998, “In 1998, Canada posses the ability to detect, identify, and if necessary intercept aircraft over Canadian territory. The "Canadianisation" of NORAD operations over Canada is complete. Though we still rely heavily on the Americans for the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment and mutual defense, we have successfully transitioned on at least one of the three core functions of NORAD [surveillance and control of sovereign airspace].” --

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/canada/0056.htm

Are you now beginning to understand what air sovereignty means, and how simple historical facts on NORAD were all of a sudden forgotten on September 11, 2001?

What war time rules are you talking about? NORAD has had THREE missions since 1958, regardless of it being war time or peace time. Don't bring up false arguments!

NORAD and the FAA both monitored American airspace before 2001 (as should be already known to you by my previous quotes, but here's more!):

"The new Region/Sector Air Operations Centers (R/SAOC) system will be much cheaper to operate and will have greater capacity and processing capability. The modernized R/SAOCs will vastly improve NORAD's ability to control the airspaces of Norht America. NORAD has taken advantage of off-the-shelf capabilities in the acquisition process and worked closely with Canada. Both nations approved the funding to move the program towards a fiscal year 1998 fielding. A Request for Proposal was released and source selection activities included participants from NORAD, Canada and the U.S." -- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/rsaoc.htm

Note the above quote says "control the airspaces" of North America, NOT control the borders of North America. The airspace of any nation is the airspace between the borders and coasts (actually 12 miles out from each coastal area).

"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand. Flight plans from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are compiled in logs and have to be manually searched to identify aircraft...... There will be a learning curve for Air Guard operators, but the system that Litton touts as faster and better will ultimately make their job easier. Unlike current operating procedures, the new system will mean fewer manual inquiries and phone contact with FAA officials about commercial aircraft. The FAA flight plan is now hooked up via computer with the new R/SAOCs so operators can easily track friendly aircraft through our air space without having to get someone on the phone or thumb through written log books of flight plans." -- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199709/ai_n8766326

An ADIZ zone is a special area designated for national security purposes and has nothing to do with NORAD's broader mandate to "monitor and control the territorial airspace of America and Canada". "...defend[ing] territorial air space...", as you impute my words, is not the same as monitoring and controlling territorial airspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.89.229 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope these blasts from the not to distant past will open your eyes to the massive deceptions this nation has been bombarded with since September 11, 2001. This is why the word Truth is in the term The 9/11 Truth Movement. We actually do research to learn the truth. You may rely on politicians and the media for the truth, we don't!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian78046 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You say, "NORAD has a picture on their screen about territorial air traffic but doesn't matter about it, without FAA request of pointing something out." Half true. NORAD monitors all aircraft in our airspace is correct, however NORAD operators just don't remain indifferent when they see an aircraft veering away from a known flight path and heading towards, let's say, Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in NY. The NORAD operator will immediately contact civilian ATC (unless civilian ATC calls them first) and ask what they know about the aircraft in question. If the aircraft in question is determined to be "hostile" then civilian ATC will ask NORAD to intercept. Under Posse Comitatus, NORAD can only perform police actions when requested by civilian authority. However nothing prevents NORAD from picking up the phone and asking civilian ATC "What's going on!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.89.229 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

USNORTHCOM

What is its relationship to USNORTHCOM? Is it a subordinate unit within NORTHCOM? When I read about NORAD, it is often spoken of as if independent from NORTHCOM (e.g. NORTHCOM and NORAD share Cheyenne Mt). If it's a part of NORTHCOM, then you wouldn't need to mention NORAD (e.g. NORTHCOM is located in Cheyenne Mt, enough said). Jigen III (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the acronym "NORAD"?

I simply do not understand how "North American Aerospace Defense Command" becomes NORAD... Shouldn't it be NAADC? Could someone explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.232.71 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

NORAD... acronym... originally for North American Air Defense Command: NOR for North American Air Defense... military acronyms do not always use the first letter of each word in the title, a combination of single and group letters from the title that has a good sound and can be used in converstion easily, see the pronounciation in the opening sentence of the main article. Air Force kepted the same acronym, NORAD, when they changed the key word "Air" to "Aerospace". Please spend some time read all the sections and pull-downs in NORAD's office site, http://www.norad.mil/ . Please notice in Wipedia articles, there are references for all the work posted. Personal work, opinions, or interpretations are not allowed or are "encyclopedia". Please do not edit Wikipedia articles without doing research and have formal book, publications, or reliable websites to support your changes, including using the correct nomenclature to footnote or reference those changes. Thank you. Hope this helps. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Except Mexico?

"North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a joint organization of two countries in North America - Canada and the United States that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty and defense for North America, except Mexico." By this, I take it to mean that NORAD provides "aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and defense" for Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States? Phizzy (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Except alot of North America outside of southern Canada and the lower 48, and possibly Greenland, since a NORAD base is in Greenland. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In common usage, "North America" does not usually include Central Amercica or the Caribbean. It does generally include Mexico. In the same way, "Latin America" does not include Canada, even though French is a Latin-based language. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the section on 9/11

extended content hidden for ease of navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This entire section is a bid by its author to establish that NORAD bore a responsibility to monitor domestic commercial flights on 9/11/2001 (presumably to engage them when NORAD itself deemed it appropriate, independent of other agencies). Just a cursory examination of the references reveals that this bid fails spectacularly, because the author uses unreliable sources, selectively takes quotes out of context, or just plain misunderstands and misapplies them. Unreliable resources. 1. Canadian Aerospace Sovereignty: In Pursuit of a Comprehensive Capability - Maj François Malo (Reference [7]) First of all, this document is about Canadian air space. It is not applicable to the United States. Secondly, this is not even a technical document. It is as such full of opinions and conjectures. The disclosure at the beginning of this article says it was written by a student fulfilling a communication skills requirement at the Canadian Forces College. This disclosure furthermore indicates that the facts and opinions expressed in it do not necessarily represent the policy or opinion of the Canandian government or its Department of National Defence. Clearly, this document is not a reliable reference for this Wikipedia article. Misunderstanding/Misapplication 1. Cheyenne Mountain Complex (Reference [8]) Here, the author provides a quote to support his contention that NORAD was responsible for monitoring domestic commercial flights over the continental United States: "The Air Operations Center (AOC) [also known as the Air Defense Operations Center - ADOC] maintains constant surveillance of North American airspace to prevent overflight by hostile aircraft. It tracks over 2.5 million aircraft annually. The ADOC collects and consolidates surveillance information on suspected drug-carrying aircraft entering or operating within North America, and provides this information to counternarcotic agencies." The author's source tells us that AOC tracks over 2.5 million aircraft each year. I see no reason to doubt this. However, there are over 12 million domestic commercial flights in the United States each year. So obviously, this article is not referring to the monitoring of commercial domestic flights. It has no bearing on the events of 9/11. 2. Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed - GAO (Reference [4]) According to this document: "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. Of these tasks, NORAD considers intercepting drug smugglers the most serious. Under 10 U.S.C. 124, DOD is designated the single lead agency for detecting and monitoring air and maritime shipments of illegal drugs to the United States." Of interest here is the task of tracking hijacked aircraft, as occurred on 9/11. By specifically pointing out that "DOD is designated the single lead agency for detecting and monitoring air and maritime shipments of illegal drugs to the United States", this last paragraph implies that the DOD is not the single lead agency for the task of tracking hijacked aircraft. Indeed, this is covered in publication CJCSI 3610.01 (31 July 1997), AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS. According to this document, only after first being contacted by civil authorities through National Military Command Center (NMCC) can the military track and engage hijacked aircraft, and then within the limits of the defined protocol. ( Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft [Section 4, Paragraph a] and INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE IN PIRACY (HIJACKING) OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT [Enclosure B]). Quotes taken out of context 1. NORAD: Air National Guard manning stations across the country - National Guard Association of the United States (Reference [6]) The author argues that the following quote from this article supports his contention that NORAD was responsible for monitoring domestic commercial flights over the continental United States: "Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand." However, this quote has been presented out of context. These two paragraphs from the article, from which the above quote was selected, should restore the proper context: "The 1st Air Force air operation centers to be modernized are: the Southeast Air Defense Sector, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida; the Northeast Air Defense Sector, Rome, New York; and the Western Air Defense Sector, McChord AFB, Washington. lst Air Force is only one of four numbered Air Forces assigned to Air Combat Command. Its units are charged with protecting the borders of the continental United States. To protect our air space outside the 48 states there are three more battle management centers in North America being upgraded as well. They are Hickman AFB, Hawaii; and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. Canada's two centers will be combined into one and moved to Canadian Air Command, Winnipeg. The six battle management and command centers, part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), have been in existence since the first years of the Cold War. The centers in North America are linked together to monitor the borders of the United States. and Canada. Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand." It couldn't be clearer that this article is discussing NORAD's responsibility for monitoring the borders. There is nothing here to suggest that they were responsible for monitoring domestic commercial flights over the continental United States. 2. AIR DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL OPERATIONS - AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 13-1AD (Reference [9]) This instruction implements policy found in AFPD 13-1, Theater Air Control System. That document says "Theater Air Control System (TACS) provides the Air Force Component Commander (AFCC) and the Joint Force Air Component Commander (JFACC) the capability to plan and conduct theater air operations". So these instructions are concerned with theater air operations, not hijackings. Does it really belong in this article, and if so, why? The author discusses this on the website 911blogger.com [TruthAction Thread: Wikipedia editors livid over new [Active Thermitic Material] paper (http://911blogger.com/node/19833)], where he claims that Chapter 3.1 of the instruction supports his claim: "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack". Just a little later, though, in that same chapter, the rules by which NORAD in bound is presented: "3.2.11. Rules of engagement (ROE) and engagement authorities in accordance with (IAW) CINCNORAD/Commander, US Element NORAD guidelines." One of those guidelines is the aforementioned publication CJCSI 3610.01 (31 July 1997), AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS, which specifically states that its instructions apply to US Element NORAD. Again, civil authorities must first initiate contact through NMCC before the military can track and engage domestic commercial flights. Summary Again and again , the references cited do not support the author's claim, for a variety of reasons. References [3] and [5] were no longer available to view on the web, and reference [2] is the same as reference [8].I would recommend removing his revisions and restoring the article as it was prior to August 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command&oldid=225032828). GrantlandR (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC) The author says, "Indeed, this is covered in publication CJCSI 3610.01 (31 July 1997), AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS. According to this document, only after first being contacted by civil authorities through National Military Command Center (NMCC) can the military track and engage hijacked aircraft, and then within the limits of the defined protocol. ( Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft [Section 4, Paragraph a] and INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE IN PIRACY (HIJACKING) OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT [Enclosure B])." Reply: NORAD never needed permission to monitor hijacked aircraft. NORAD didn't even need permission from the FAA to intercept hijacked aircraft IF the hijacked aircraft presented "Imminently serious conditions". CJCSI 3610.01 says: "4. Policy a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. The Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), pursuant to the title 49, USC, section 44903(e), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity and may request DOD assistance in responding to an actual or suspected air piracy (hijacking) under the authority contained in Enclosure A. Reference a establishes the role of the NMCC to serve as the focal point for coordinating DOD assistance to the FAA. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference b. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure B." What is reference B? Reference B says: "The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference b)." Well now, what is DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7? Let's see: "4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD omponents that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent mergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informedthat verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available." And what is DoD Directive 3025.1? Let's see: "4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond torequests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as"Immediate Response." So, as the NORAD regulations quoted above say, NORAD DIDN'T even need permission to scramble and intercept hijacked aircraft over American airspace if such aircraft were deemed to be of "Imminently serious conditions". It should be noted that before the four 9/11 aircraft were identified as hijacked, they were in-flight emergencies first! And the four 9/11 aircraft continued to be in-flight emergencies until they crashed, which means according to the regulations in place on September 11, 2001 NORAD didn't need to get permission from the FAA to scramble jets to intercept them, let alone track them! NORAD wouldn't know if an aircraft it was monitoring was hijacked or not unless it was contacted by the FAA first or, as the 1997 National Guard Association article says, "Flight plans from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are compiled in logs and have to be manually searched to identify aircraft." What aircraft is the 1997 National Guard Association article talking about? Aircraft involved in NORAD's air sovereignty mission. Here is Colonel Dan Navin's, special assistant to the commander of 1st Air Force, explanation in the 1997 National Guard Association article about the importance of its monitoring aircraft over the United States, "It will enhance our ability to do what many say is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty." What is air sovereignty? As the April 2000 Air Force Instruction and the 1994 GAO report say, air sovereignty is "surveillance and control of the TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE [emphasis mine]", which includes hijacked aircraft (see full GAO quote below). The assertion that NORAD needed to get permission to monitor hijacked aircraft is ludicrous on its face. How did NORAD primary radar know that an aircraft was hijacked so it wouldn't track it until NORAD first obtained permission to track it from the FAA!!! The author is correct in saying that the Cheyenne Mountain Complex article talks about foreign aircraft flying over American airspace, but fails to recognize that keeping an extra set of eyes on foreign aircraft was also a part of NORAD's air sovereignty mission, and then forgets that NORAD says it didn't monitor inside American airspace at all prior to 9/11: In 2004 the Air Force said, "Before 2001, 1st Air Force was charged with keeping an eye on the nation’s borders, usually looking for threats in the form of Russian aircraft skirting too close for comfort to the mainland. In those few hours, the command’s mission went from looking outward to looking inward." -- http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/airdefense.htm In 2008 NORAD said, "Since the tragic events of 9/11, NORAD’s role which previously was outward-looking now includes monitoring airspace within North America." -- http://web.archive.org/web/20080103124933/http://www.norad.mil/50/nutshell.html The author says I take the last sentence in the quote below out of context. Is this so? Let's read the quote and its precursor sentences: The six battle management and command centers, part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), have been in existence since the first years of the Cold War. The centers in North America are linked together to monitor the borders of the United States. and Canada. Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand." The author then says, "It couldn't be clearer that this article is discussing NORAD's responsibility for monitoring the borders. There is nothing here to suggest that they were responsible for monitoring domestic commercial flights over the continental United States." The author needs to learn what the words "our airspace" entails/means! The author then needs to read the rest of the article where it says, "The FAA flight plan is now hooked up via computer with the new R/SAOCs so operators can easily track friendly aircraft through our AIR SPACE (emphasis mine) without having to get someone on the phone or thumb through written log books of flight plans." The first three paragraphs of the article talks about NORAD's (America & Canada) border monitoring duties, while the remainder of the article concentrates on America's monitoring duties over American airspace. Again, I remind the author that Colonel Navin is quite clear as to what the article is referencing to. Navin specifically says, "It will enhance our ability to do what many say is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty." As we know from the 1994 GAO report, "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: 1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; 2. tracking hijacked aircraft; 3. assisting aircraft in distress; 4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and 5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts." The author says the 1998 Canadian article (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/canada/0056.htm) is, "...not even a technical document. It is as such full of opinions and conjectures." No kidding! However, Major François Malo wasn't giving his opinion when he wrote, "In 1998, Canada posses the ability to detect, identify, and if necessary intercept aircraft over Canadian territory. The "Canadianisation" of NORAD operations over Canada is complete. Though we still rely heavily on the Americans for the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment and mutual defense, we have successfully transitioned on at least one of the three core functions of NORAD." The author should know the difference between opinion and fact if my research is to be criticized. Exactly where is the opinion in the above quote? The factual elements within the Canadian article are meant to only add support to the other documents provided, such documents coming from NORAD and the GAO. The references cited do not support the author's claims. I would recommend removing his revisions and restoring the article back to the August 2008 revision. The author does not understand the concept of "air sovereignty", and shows pathetic ignorance by claiming that NORAD needed to get permission to track hijacked aircraft! The fact that the author writes, "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States", is proof that the author is not acting in good faith and is posting propaganda on Wikipedia. As I've shown from NORAD itself, NORAD says it didn't monitor ANY aircraft within America prior to 9/11, even though the technical documents before 9/11 say that NORAD did, indeed, monitor both domestic and foreign aircraft before 9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Dean Jackson Washington, DC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) You've been pushing your fringe POV for over a year abd a half now, and you still don't have a consensus to add this information. If you have reliaable sources that prove NORAD was guilty of something, such as negligence, then please present them. Otherwise, what you are doing here is called synthesis, and that is still not allowed. Please stop trying to add your information without a clear consensus to do so, or you may find you're no longer able to edit this articel. - BilCat (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) BilCat, I've been pushing what NORAD said about its monitoring capabilities BEFORE September 11, 2001. Nothing more. What I've been doing here is called TRUTH, not synthesis! That these articles from NORAD, the GAO, CNN, Syracuse University, etc. all say the same thing, which is to directly contradict what NORAD has been saying since 9/11, is damning. That you can't see this is worrisome! I have presented the evidence (most from primary sources themselves) that proves that NORAD continues to lie about 9/11, and you obviously don't care. You prefer to allow trash be posted that have no citations to them, while deleting my cited articles that prove 9/11 was carried out by elements within and without the government. I provided the proof that NORAD lies when it says in 2004 and 2008 that it didn't monitor American airspace at all, and all you can say is, "You've been pushing your fringe POV for over a year and a half now, and you still don't have a consensus to add this information." Wow! Now I more fully understand what George Orwell meant by down the memory hole. Well, I haven’t forgotten what NORAD said before September 11, 2001 about its monitoring capabilities over the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC) It isn't proof, as you haven't proven that there weren't changes between 1997 and 2001 that may have prevented NORAD from tracking civil aircraft in the manner you claim they did. You said, "while deleting my cited articles that prove 9/11 was carried out by elements within and without the government." One, you don't actually state that in the article, and Two, that is a WP:Fringe theory per WP policy, and placing it here is giving Undue weight. I had a hunch that was what you were tying to prove here, and I'm glad to see it in the open now. - BilCat (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) BilCat, I've already posted NORAD's 2004 and 2008 quotes that say the defense organization didn't monitor domestic or foreign aircraft within America before 9/11 at all, when the historical record says they did (and you allow material that isn’t cited that contradicts NORAD today on this particular issue! "After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NORAD mission evolved to include monitoring of all aircraft flying in the interior of the United States.[citation needed]"). There were no changes between 1997 and 2001. If there were they would have been included in the April 2000 Air Force Instruction 13-1AD, Volume 3 on Air Defense Command and Control Operations, which states in Chapter 3.1, under Mission, "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack." This Instruction was in effect on September 11, 2001. On June 12, 2009, the April 2000 Air Force instruction 13-1AD, Volume 3 was finally superseded by the following Instruction: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI13-1ADV3.pdf In my August 2008 revision to this post I cited the April 2000 Air Force Instruction. It was this April 2000 Instruction that finally convinced the last editor of this post to allow my 2008 revision to stand. It isn't fringe to point out lies. The WP fringe policy should apply to what NORAD currently says about its monitoring capabilities on 9/11. Again, George Orwell would just love you: Truth=Fringe. Tell me BilCat, do you also believe that War=Peace, that Love=Hate? Doesn't Wikipedia do any research to determine if the government is lying on a particular issue? Or are you and Wikipedia just naive, and accept anything the government says as Gospel? BilCat, you are aware that government is composed of people, and that people do have a tendency to lie, especially if their so-called facts aren't vetted! One more clarification. The DOD Directives quoted above on not needing permission to scramble jets in the case of a hijacked aircraft were current on September 11, 2001. Even the June 2001 Directive (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf) refers back to DODD 3025.15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC) So as the April 2000 Air Force Instruction on Air Defense shows, the three missions NORAD was assigned back in 1958 when the defense organization was founded were still operational on September 11, 2001. The April 2000 Air Force Instruction gives NORAD's three missions as: 1. TW/AA [Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment]; 2. surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States; and 3. appropriate response against air attack. Now compare the April 2000 Air Force Instruction's enumeration of NORAD's three missions with the following from a computer simulation project Syracuse University was working on with NORAD back in the mid-90s: "The NORAD mission is threefold. NORAD's first responsibility is to provide surveillance and control of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments. The second part of NORAD's mission is to provide the NCAs with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America. This information is essential to providing those in command with information to aid them in making decisions on how to respond to an attack against North America. NORAD's third responsibility is to provide an appropriate response to any form of an air attack. NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from air-breathing aircraft, specifically the threat from long-range bombers. However, over the years the threat has changed. Now NORAD must provide an appropriate response to a multitude of threats, to include the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM)." -- NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University (http://web.archive.org/web/19990427233841/http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/civ/vanguard/C2Demo/OPRef.html). As you can see, NORAD's three missions (including its air sovereignty mission) continued unobstructed between 1958 and today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC) BilCat, here is the 9/11 Commission Report's take on NORAD: “NORAD is a binational command established in 1958 between the United States and Canada. Its mission was, and is, to defend the airspace of North America and protect the continent. That mission does not distinguish between internal and external threats…” Then the report adds, “…but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks.” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/911Report.pdf, p. 16. So the 9/11 Commission Report affirms my research when it says NORAD did, "...not distinguish between internal and external threats..." However, the report then inexplicably says, "...but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks." First off, NORAD does not get to define its own mission, so that is an odd thing to say! Secondly, as my pre-9/11 articles show, NORAD was indeed monitoring domestic aircraft within America long after the "collapse" of the USSR in December 1991. As the 1994 GAO report says: "NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: 1. intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; 2. tracking hijacked aircraft; 3. assisting aircraft in distress; 4. escorting Communist civil aircraft; and 5. intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts." So in part the 9/11 Commission report affirms my research, but then contradicts the pre-9/11 written word on the subject when it says "...but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks." Someone should tell NORAD this, because throughout the "post" USSR period NORAD was indeed keeping an eye on all aircraft within America, if only to ensure none strayed off their flight plans for too long a period (known as in-flight emergencies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.226.12 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

The page has been semi-protected from editing due to the continual addition of challenged material, can i ask editors to make sure that any additions to the article have consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)