It’s just a fancy SWAT team training facility. Probably has “Warfare” in the name because it’s getting built on Ft. Benning, an Army base. Wouldn’t be surprised if the facility gets shared with Army units who also do indoor and urban combat training.
Why is this downvoted? He has a point to a plausible reason for the name. It’s built at an army base that is also likely used for multiple different types of units. Would it make everyone sleep better at night naming it “Fluffy Bear Facility”? Would everyone prefer that we don’t have the tactical ability when and if needed? I am personally highly against war, but at the same time I feel much more comfortable knowing that we do have the ability and advantage when needed. I think the argument should be “how is this facility used and under what circumstances do these trained units utilize their skills?”
Now, the document claims that this will be a "hyper-realistic" facility, and that only one company is able to provide such unique capabilities.
This leads to some obvious questions: 1) if hyperrealism is so important, why aren't the other facilities, including the FBI, already asking for improvements to their existing sites? 2) why should there be new sites for these sorts of training facilities - what tactical training abilities aren't already available? and 3) if it's so important, why isn't it explicitly being developed as a shared resource?
I think the bureaucratic is more reasonable than the one proposed by the grandparent post, that is, each federal organization acts as its own fiefdom and wants its own things. Plus, there's probably some graft - is it really the case that only a single company can provide such construction?
This seems like the most plausible explanation. Federal agencies / military share these types of facilities everywhere. It's sad you're being downvoted for it.
Comments
It’s just a fancy SWAT team training facility. Probably has “Warfare” in the name because it’s getting built on Ft. Benning, an Army base. Wouldn’t be surprised if the facility gets shared with Army units who also do indoor and urban combat training.
Why is this downvoted? He has a point to a plausible reason for the name. It’s built at an army base that is also likely used for multiple different types of units. Would it make everyone sleep better at night naming it “Fluffy Bear Facility”? Would everyone prefer that we don’t have the tactical ability when and if needed? I am personally highly against war, but at the same time I feel much more comfortable knowing that we do have the ability and advantage when needed. I think the argument should be “how is this facility used and under what circumstances do these trained units utilize their skills?”
Because 1) there is nothing in the document about it being a shared resource (copy at https://www.wabe.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LSJ_Hyper_Re... ), and 2) the FBI already has such facilities, like 'Hogan's Alley' at Quantico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan's_Alley_(FBI) ). There are many other similar facilities, like in Artesia, NM https://www.fletc.gov/artesia-new-mexico
Now, the document claims that this will be a "hyper-realistic" facility, and that only one company is able to provide such unique capabilities.
This leads to some obvious questions: 1) if hyperrealism is so important, why aren't the other facilities, including the FBI, already asking for improvements to their existing sites? 2) why should there be new sites for these sorts of training facilities - what tactical training abilities aren't already available? and 3) if it's so important, why isn't it explicitly being developed as a shared resource?
I think the bureaucratic is more reasonable than the one proposed by the grandparent post, that is, each federal organization acts as its own fiefdom and wants its own things. Plus, there's probably some graft - is it really the case that only a single company can provide such construction?
This seems like the most plausible explanation. Federal agencies / military share these types of facilities everywhere. It's sad you're being downvoted for it.