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

[labgrade]

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]

Low Profile?

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

 

[sm]

Yep
Maybe they'll use the Klinton Library as a reference...

 

[Mike Irwin]

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.

Christ.

 

[Combat-wombat]

Squirrelnuts-
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.

 

[thaddeus]

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.

 

[SquirrelNuts]

Combat-wombat,

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

-SquirrelNuts

 

[JohnBT]

"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.

John

 

[stevelyn]

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.

 

[Steve Smith]

Colorado Springs....what do you think?

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

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.

 

[muddyboots]

Un pensamiento...

¿Porqué está este artículo de un diario de Argentina?

 

[mjustice]

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.

MJ

 

[Sportcat]

not South Carolina

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.

 

[P12]

So what do they have against us "rednecks" in Lubbock. What are they going to do, take out their favorite school?

 

[Rickstir]

I live in the boonies 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.

 

[XLMiguel]

I'm inside the Beltway, 'bout 5 miles closer in than Mr. Irwin, whutdoyathink?

Where that rash come from?

 

[Kinsman]

Shucks...
Montana didn't even make the list.....grin thingy

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

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

 

[DMK]

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.

 

[ruger357]

Yes.

 

[bogie]

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.

 

[SquirrelNuts]

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...

-SquirrelNuts

 

[DMK]

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.

 

[JohnBT]

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.

John