"I live in a high risk city for terrorism -- do you" ???


March 16, 2003, 08:46 PM
According to this article, the government has determined the top 120 US cities at risk for terrorism.

I live in one of them!

Here is a link to the list of so-called "high risk" locations (note: the list is located at the end of the article):


Perhaps this list is a good "heads up" in case we go to war in the next few days.

:what: :what: :what:

I wonder how they determined the risk of these 120 cities?

How many other THR members live in one of these "high risk" locations?

If you enjoyed reading about ""I live in a high risk city for terrorism -- do you" ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 16, 2003, 08:48 PM
OK, I live in Tampa. I'm going to guess, bfore I read the article that I do. Report to follow...

March 16, 2003, 08:49 PM
woohoo! I win!! I win!!! I wi....oh wait, what do I win? Darnit.:(

March 16, 2003, 08:51 PM
I'm toast.

March 16, 2003, 08:54 PM
Do I even have to say it? :(


March 16, 2003, 08:55 PM

One of the advantages of living in the boonies-it ain't the city.

March 16, 2003, 08:55 PM
I live just north of Atlanta, in fact, I can see the skyline from here. So, yes.


March 16, 2003, 09:13 PM
Looks like they took the major cities in each state...like look at Anchorage, whats up here to blow up? Besides, this is the most heavily armed urban environent outside of Bagdad in the world...


March 16, 2003, 09:16 PM
Nope, nope.. noper!

Just like AR-10, I live waaaaaaaay out in the Hinterland.;)

March 16, 2003, 09:19 PM

I do not know what there is to blow up out there, but...

I think the psychological effect of blowing up a small place would leave EVERYONE to feel at risk...not just those in a large city. The effect of blowing up a small town would probably be just the same or greater than a large city, IMO. Take a look at the sniper shootings...everyone felt at risk.


March 16, 2003, 09:25 PM
Well, I live in Littleton CO, and everybody knows NOTHING EVER happens in a backwater burb like this.

March 16, 2003, 09:29 PM
hmmmm... CT is not even mentioned. I guess thats a good thing. :neener: However, New Haven harbor is the place that had a ship load of Pakistanis trying to disembark for shore leave and the coast guard wouldn't let them. This was a while back.

Actually if they know some of the great targets that we have in CT then CT would be up on the list.......... Oh wait this ain't a list that I want to be on.:uhoh:

March 16, 2003, 09:30 PM
So if you live in or within 50 miles of these cities, you should consider yourself at significant risk for the duration of the War on Terror, which President Bush says could last as long as 50 years.

What kind of BS is this ...? Just trying to scare everyone into a police state?

And NO, my STATE didn't even make it onto their list. :)

carp killer
March 16, 2003, 09:32 PM
Hell, they completely forgot my state! :evil:

Peter Gun
March 16, 2003, 09:34 PM
Squirrel nuts-
Thats just what I've been thinking. I live far from cities, but close to the border and a resort town (Stowe). I beleive a smart terrorist would see this as a good target. Almost no police (lightly armed), close to cities, possible rich city people on vacation, easy access to border. Now if they are also aware of the local population's rather heavy arms supply, maybe they'll skip VT.;)

March 16, 2003, 10:06 PM
my city's not on that list, but I honestly have to agree that they seemed to have just taken big cities and put them on the list.

March 16, 2003, 10:21 PM
If the wind is from the south I'll be glowing in the dark soon. I have to wonder the source of this though.

March 16, 2003, 10:28 PM
What I don't like about this list is that it is way too general.

I would guess that about 70+ percent of all Americans live within 50 miles of one of the 120 cities on their list.

Does anyone know of a more realistic "high risk" list -- i.e. one that ranks the relative risk of each city?

For example:

#1 risk -- NYC

#2 risk -- LA

#3 risk -- DC

and so on, and so on...

I think a list like that would be much more useful.

:what: :what: :what:

Just my 2 cents...

March 16, 2003, 10:34 PM
Hmmmm, I live 15 minutes from the airbase where every EA-6B squadron is home ported, and I'm not on the list?

Like I can believe that list.

March 16, 2003, 10:36 PM
:rolleyes: The closest town to me is about 3 miles away with about 800 population, I don't suppose were on the list.:confused:

March 16, 2003, 10:38 PM
I guess me and SquirrelNuts can move somewhere safe like Columb...oh wait, nevermind, we're done for.

March 16, 2003, 10:51 PM
Memphis is ranked 25th. I don't have a link for it at this time.:neener:

March 16, 2003, 11:52 PM

We could go to the Okeefenokee Swamp...wait...there is the Kingsbay Sub Base there....still thinking....


March 16, 2003, 11:57 PM
I live in CA...:rolleyes: What is that, a rhetorical question? :scrutiny:

Dave R
March 17, 2003, 12:26 AM
My STATE is not even listed.

March 17, 2003, 12:30 AM
Didn't even look at the list, but based on responses, it comes down to what we think they'll do based on population density.

Couldn't be further from the truth. We didn't expect they'd fly one plane into one Tower & then give it 15 minutes to make sure we'd film the rest - as a pure TV PR stunt.

They did.

Far from me to be anything expert here - I fully expected the terrs to burn the western states last year (power grid gone/watershed detroyed, etc.) during our horrendous drought - they didn't & it wouldn't have cost $100.

Just living in a high-density area, you are at more risk from our own domestic terrorists (can you say crime?) than from a recognised terr-group.

Take care.

Ala Dan
March 17, 2003, 12:31 AM
Looks like Birmingham, AL made the list; but
why not Huntsville? Wait a second, maybe
they heard Birmingham's nickname was incorrectly
defined as "Bombingham, AL"; in the recent
jury trial's of the 16th Street Baptist Church!

Thank You Very Much-
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

March 17, 2003, 12:45 AM
Maybe they'll use the Klinton Library as a reference...

Mike Irwin
March 17, 2003, 12:53 AM
I live just outside of Washington, DC.

I could see the smoke from the Pentagon fires as I drove to work on September 11.

Quite frankly, I'm not panicking.

I have a few things thrown together in a bag, along with stuff I need for my dogs.

That's all, folks. No plastic sheeting, no duct tape (other than what I normally have on hand for normal repairs).

Essentially what that is is a list of the most populous cities in each state, with a few near major military bases thrown in for good measure.

Excuse me, but can you say NO SHAT, SHERLOCK!

The Drunken Monkey Targeting Team could figure that out.


March 17, 2003, 01:05 AM
I've been thinking the same thing for a long time about how terrorists would go for small town targets to scare us all. Really, I don't see how that theory isn't discussed more. They're calledterrorists because they terrorize people. They terrorize everyone when they bomb a small town, not just big-city people.

March 17, 2003, 01:25 AM
They list 120 cities......as if they narrowed them down with some ingenius parameters? Basically, they just listed every city of any size, and 50 miles radius without.

March 17, 2003, 02:11 AM

Well, I guess it has happened. Remember the mail box bombs? Mostly small towns.


March 17, 2003, 09:11 AM
"Just living in a high-density area, you are at more risk from our own domestic terrorists (can you say crime?) than from a recognised terr-group."

You got that right - in my town anyway.

Looking at the situation from the perspective of having grown up near D.C. during the early part of the Cold War with duck and cover drills in school and neighbors building bomb shelters in their yards, this situation just doesn't seem as dire.

I also remember being able to the see the smoke from the burning buildings during the D.C. riots.


March 17, 2003, 09:16 AM
Wildalaska is correct about ANC being the heaviest armed urban environment. And if they try and infiltrait from here they'll only die cold, wet, and seasick.:D

Steve Smith
March 17, 2003, 09:57 AM
Colorado Springs....what do you think?

March 17, 2003, 10:02 AM
Folks, we're all at risk....what does it matter if your city is listed or not? Just try to stay positive and pray for a positive outcome. We're in God's hands, not theirs.

March 17, 2003, 10:24 AM
Un pensamiento...

¿Porqué está este art*culo de un diario de Argentina?

March 17, 2003, 10:37 AM
Wow. New York is on this list. Should I be surprised. But they also list Yonkers. Yeah, uh-huh.

This list seems shady at best. I'll keep my normal defenses up. Thanks.


March 17, 2003, 10:42 AM
Not that I'm complaing that we are NOT on the list, but we have Fort Jackson (huge Army base) and Shaw Air Force Base.

Man, not even the terrorists love South Carolina.

March 17, 2003, 10:43 AM
So what do they have against us "rednecks" in Lubbock. What are they going to do, take out their favorite school?

March 17, 2003, 10:47 AM
I live in the boonies :D but work in a college town with TWO nuclear reactors within 30 miles of each other. The home base for the B2 bomber is 50 miles away. :scrutiny:

March 17, 2003, 10:48 AM
I'm inside the Beltway, 'bout 5 miles closer in than Mr. Irwin, whutdoyathink?

Where that rash come from?:uhoh:

March 17, 2003, 10:54 AM
Montana didn't even make the list.....grin thingy

I think any al Qaeda types would have a tough time operating up here.

March 17, 2003, 11:02 AM
My office is 1.5 blocks from the White House. Our law firm has put together a disaster plan with supplies, I don't think they've done enough. Therefore, myself and a couple of buddies here in the office have prepared our own food, water and related gear if the worst happens. We've made our own evacuation plans to work our way back into Virginia to rendezvous with the wives.

March 17, 2003, 11:06 AM
Fifty miles should be considered the minimal safe distance from an “at risk” city. The reason is that in event of even a small radiological or nuclear attack (5-20 kiloton weapon), lethal radiation and fallout will be carried by prevailing winds at least that far. What a joke. Fallout can carry a LOT farther than that. Anybody remember Chernobyl? It depends a lot on luck, wind conditions and luck.

March 17, 2003, 11:08 AM

March 17, 2003, 11:12 AM
Actually, if the state-sponsored-terrorists want to _really_ send a message, they'll go after the smaller/mid-sized areas... Sorta like what they did around the periphery of DC a few months ago.

March 17, 2003, 12:03 PM
Looking at the situation from the perspective of having grown up near D.C. during the early part of the Cold War with duck and cover drills in school and neighbors building bomb shelters in their yards, this situation just doesn't seem as dire. I did not grow up during that time-I am 21, but I have a question.

Ok, we have all been concerned since 9/11/2001...not even two years have passed. Some people do have safe rooms, but not that many people. How long did it take for people to build bomb sheltes back then with respect to the onset of a threat? I am willing to bet it was longer than from 9/11 to today. But, I was not there, I do not know, so I am asking...


March 17, 2003, 12:30 PM
Good point SquirrelNuts. The Russians exploded their first A-bomb in '49. However it wasn't until Sputnik in '57 that folks got in their minds to build a shelter. I'd say it was early to mid 60's before that got into full swing. The Cuban Missile Crisis in '62 really got the blood pumping.

March 17, 2003, 03:42 PM
I've been living on borrowed time since the Cuban Missle Crisis. Is the stock market down for the day? I don't care - I happy to be alive.

I didn't really become of aware of backyard bomb shelters until around 1962 or 1963. Of course, that's when we moved to a town in a county where people had enough money to build them - Rockville in Montgomery County Maryland. I wonder if any of them are still functional.

I remember the duck and cover drills from the late 50s-early '60s. We had short classes on first aid and how to build basement shelters out of cinderblocks - yeah, right, okay. It might help with the radiation from the initial blast, but not the fallout.

I'm much more concerned that one or two 'events' could lead to civil unrest in places far removed from the initial destruction.

The Cold War brought about a great fear that the U.S and the U.S.S.R. could end life on Earth for the most part. A Russian attack on the East Coast would have been of such magnitude that planning to evacuate to the countryside was only considered by a scant few.

There's a large difference of scale from, say, one suitcase bomb going off in one city and ten or twenty or a hundred large bombs delivered to a metropolitan area by missles. And then consider that multiple cities were targeted in the same manner.

That's just not the type of situation I'm seeing now.

OTOH, I truly hope that 'they' realize that one bone-headed move could result in the end of 'their' way of life.


March 17, 2003, 03:53 PM
Well i am 50 mile from Tucson:uhoh:

March 17, 2003, 03:53 PM

I gotcha. I see what differences you are talking about now.


March 17, 2003, 03:55 PM
They just listed the largest cities in each State. It didn't take a rocket scientist to come up with a list like this. I could have done it easily. I would have added a few places these dolts missed.

March 17, 2003, 04:16 PM
Yeah - some "small" places are actually pretty big targets - Hubs of interstates or rail lines, communications lines, etc...

March 17, 2003, 05:09 PM
Well, I live in Boston, so I don't even have to look. I know I'm at risk.

I looked anyway, to see how they ranked me, but couldn't figure out.

Something that I found, though....




What/where the heck is "Worchester"? Is it at all close to "Worcester"? :scrutiny:

I would be interested to take a look at a .gov ranking of the most at-risk cities. Just for curiousity's sake.

March 17, 2003, 05:16 PM
Remember also that unless they have managed to cook up something REALLY nasty, we're far more at risk on the commute to work...

March 17, 2003, 05:25 PM
Well of course I live in a high risk city. But I'm actually outside the city limits in a semi rural area. I know which of my neighbors are armed and which stick their heads in the sand. Our neighborhood may have to close it's borders.

March 17, 2003, 06:25 PM
San Francisco... well I kinda figured we'd be a target; if it's not earthquakes, it's Diane Feinstein- talk about a diaster.

March 17, 2003, 06:53 PM
After reading the list, I agree that they mostly took the major population centers from each state.

However, based on some of the reasons that would make a city a real target, lets see where mine rates.

Transportation hubs?

Check. Three major interstates converge downtown

Near military installations? Check.
Ft. Knox
Ft. Campbell
KY Air National Guard C-130s

Industry? Check.
Three auto plants in the region
UPS hub

I also agree that living out in a rural area won't make you any less vulnerable. Our enemy despises our very way of life. That's why the 9/11 attacks had a symbolic component. What's more symbolic (and a softer target due to fewer police) than a small town right out of a Norman Rockwell painting?

March 17, 2003, 07:38 PM

March 17, 2003, 08:44 PM
Uh who ever wrote this list needs to be slapped. There are far more influintial targets to hit than just large cities, and the list misses some of the more important ones. I tend to view myself as not statistically signifcant enough to worry all of the time. I do work in DC, I know what I think the risks are as much as everyone else thinks they know what the risks are, and most of it doesn't make any since. Why does it seem like gun owners are the only ones not duct taping themselves in their houses already?
Am I missing something here, or is there a big DUH waiting for somebody from hopkins to walk face first into?

Mike Irwin
March 17, 2003, 11:17 PM
What I find interesting is that they didn't list Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Can anyone tell me why Carlisle might be on the target list? :)

March 17, 2003, 11:28 PM
AH the sky is falling, sky is falling. :rolleyes:

March 17, 2003, 11:57 PM
Close, but no cigar. But about 100 miles north of me and 225 miles south of me is still probably too close.

March 18, 2003, 12:03 AM
quote:"Can anyone tell me why Carlisle might be on the target list?"
U.S.Army War College?
Is there not also a Military Institute located there also?

deputy tom
March 18, 2003, 12:14 AM
As a matter of fact,Yes I do!



March 18, 2003, 01:21 AM
I guess I do too.:what: I'm doomed!:uhoh:

March 18, 2003, 09:15 AM
The S.F. Bay Area hosts no less than FOUR of the cities in Kaliforny. I worked in Fremont not too long ago, and the last place I lived and worked was San Jose. Palo Alto's not listed, but we have an over-abundance of rich corporate world HQ's, but we also have Stanford University and its bouyant flock of Human Shields-in-training.

Fremont. Why? Dimkum south-eastside middle-class town with no character beyond Elmwood, the local jail. Hmm. Contains the west coast Norad hub. That'd be hard to take out with improvised explosives, and an alert set of Air Force security.

Oakland. HUGE industrial port. Remember the port-worker's strike? Also a Huge population center, biggest drug market in the nation, and nowhere you want to live if you can afford to move.

San Francisco. The City. Lots o' people, lots o' prestige. 'Nuff said.

San Jose. The Heart of the Silicon Valley, and current holder of Kaliforny's economy in abeyance. Major corporate center, major industrial center, population 900,000 souls, all spread-out suburb style. Northern Kaliforny's slice of L.A.

Couple of points.

1.) All cities mentioned are Central or Southern Bay Area. S.F. and Oaktown are at either end of the Oakland Bay Bridge, Oakland being dead in the center of th east side of the bay. San Jose and Fremont wrap around the southern tip of the bay, and are seperated by only one city. The North Bay, home of Beserkely and home to the Anti-American movement, failed to be mentioned. :rolleyes:

2.) The whole San Francisco Bay Area is completely urbanized around it's entire length on both sides. All the cities touch at the edges, and it's basically a single metropolis from San Jose to The City on the west side, and San Jose ALL THE WAY to the other end of the Bay where the river comes in, and back down most of the Northern peninsula towards S.F.. Seen from the air at night, there are continuos pools of light bordering the whole bay for a few miles, with a giant pool for San Jose.

Last I read, the Bay Area is home to some 20-odd MILLION people. It's the fourth largest concentration of bodies in the country. Just like during the Cold War, most of us simply assume we're giong to be targeted, accept and prepare it, and forget about it until it matters. That's how I dismissed the Cold war. When you KNOW you won't survive, you don't worry anymore.

Granted, terrorist attacks are different than the cold war, but I've had YEARS of experience not worrying about nukes. The skill translates readily, so I just made sure I've got water,food, and guns and ammo about.

March 18, 2003, 10:00 AM
Army War Colege, Carlisle Barracks?

Double Naught Spy
March 18, 2003, 12:17 PM
Pretty much all the high risk cities are places with high populations and some amount of industry, commerce, or military influence.

No doubt would these be candidates for terrorist attacks, but they undoubtedly are, and have been, risky places to live as an individual. Generally, as population goes up, the chances for crimes tend to go up as well.

Truthfully, are you more worried about being attacked through terrorists or by some thug on the street who wants your lunch money and your ride?

If you live in any of those cities and you are not already prepared to deal with normal everyday types of violence/crime, then I can't see you gearing up for a terrorist attack.

Terrorist attacks are big media events, but statistically they still rank as being very low in terms of whether or not you will be injured or killed at the hands of terrorists.

March 18, 2003, 12:30 PM
Looks like they just based it on population. In Tennessee, they went for the four largest cities, including Cookeville which has no targets of real value. They also ignored Clarksville (right beside Fort Campbell) and Oak Ridge (which has one or two places of value).

Matthew Courtney
March 18, 2003, 08:33 PM
Call me stupid! With the nations 6th largest port and the nations largest liqufied natural gas terminal/storage facility, I'd have thought Lake Charles would rate a mention.

March 18, 2003, 08:54 PM
YUP and work in the Petrochemical industry and will respond to any major fire or explosion in the area, checked out the ole bunker gear tonight, just got to deal with what comes our way
chin up and Semper Fi boys

March 18, 2003, 09:12 PM
Oh goody-goody, I don't live in one of the mentioned cities. Therefore I am as safe as can be. I DO have to wonder just who compiled the list & how it was done. 'Cause, you see, I live in a city with an active wing of F-16's on one side of town & one of the two active minuteman missle bases in the US on the other side of town. So let's see, the current M-man is a MIRV vehicle; they's gotta be spare warheads, maintenance replacements & all that hangin' around. So let's say about 1000 warheads not in the silos.

So, whadda you guys think? Want to trade places with me 'cause this town's safe? C'mon guys, don't all speak up at once. 900F

March 18, 2003, 10:14 PM
Nope, looks like nothing in Idaho made the list. Just another example of what happens when you live in a state that has a potato on their license plate.

4 eyed six shooter
March 18, 2003, 11:06 PM
I live in a small town in Idaho. Lots of taters around here.
They better damn well not blow up my FREEDOM FRIES. People around here would be a lot less than understanding about that, and would put soo many holes in them that they would have to strain them for fingerprints. :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about ""I live in a high risk city for terrorism -- do you" ???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!