Here's the link:

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/buffett.nuclear.ap/index.html[/url]

Pretty grim prediction.

(Edited for spelling and grammar-- not enough coffe yet)

Tomorrow or in the next 50 years.........

Interesting that W. Buffett would address this issue.

We became the richest and most powerful country in the world.  We have made many enemies in the process.  I agree with Buffett, we already had anthrax (biological) attack.  Its simply matter of time before terrorists move up the ladder and acquire nuke weapon.  I expect major NBC attack on US soil within next 10 years.  If you asked me few years back "what is the likelihood of nuke attack on US city?" I would've told you "highly unlikely."  But after WTC attack, I have a totally different perspective.  We thought we were immune but we were proved wrong.  

He was speaking to investers in his insurance company and also to the Government.

He wants the Government to shoulder more of the burden.

That aside, I tend to agree with his prediction. I do feel that the government can prevent a successful attack. I do not feel the current bearucratic government will do what is nessasary. The smart people in government will not prevail over political correctness and senority. Long term property values of NYC and Washington is not good.

Go with the prediction.

Suppose it happened.

Suppose the lawn of the White House was "Ground Zero".

Then what?

Would it FINALLY be open season (literally) on the traitors and apologists for terrorism within this nation?

Could we, in the defense of this nation, acting in the true sense of a citizen-militia, defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign [b]and domestic[/b]?

In the aftermath of the destruction of our nation's capital, would the lifespan of the liberals, left-wing socialists, anarchists and other America-hating traitors in our society be drastically reduced?

Would the civil protections we generously afford anti-American deconstructionists and traitors here be suspended and would we, Americans, no longer tolerate those who use "tolerance" as a bludgeon to our common American senses?

I'd say I'd be hard pressed to not "take to the streets" to defend our nation - FIRST from the enemies from within.

Finding them would be hard. Eliminating them would be messy.

But what would be the alternative? Enduring even more equivocation and phoney-handwringing from the left? Enduring even more calls for "understanding" from the traitors on the left? Awaiting the flood of blue helmets to help "restore order" in our damaged nation? Surrendering even more of my rights?

No, I would just as soon organize with fellow defenders of the Constitution to defend this nation - or at least my small portion of it.

[b]What would you do if DC was nuked?[/b]

I was wondering why Jimmy Buffet is talking to shareholders about anything. I was hoping that this was a parrothead thread! "Fins to the left of me, Fins to the right..."

Now Mac, that is the question.

If there were a nuke terrorist attack, first thing that would happen would be a bunch of stupid presidential executive orders, a bunch of new insane bills introduced in Congress, and a bunch of lame bills introduced in state legislatures.  Every time the terrorists do something, Americans pay by having the noose around their personal freedoms tightened even further.  In the end, the terrorists win.

marvl, the terrorist cannot ever win - not ever.

Now, I unfortunately agree with everything else in your post.

I have all the respect in the world for Warren Buffet as a great businessman & I agree with his conclusions that we will probably see an attack, but how does he have any special insight that any of us don't?

He is, naturally, concerned with his extensive investment in insurance companies.  His comments should probably be taken in the context of business rather than as a hard prediction.  

The importance given his comments are analogous to Rosie's inane comments on gun control.  Don't overplay this.

No doubt there's an eventual attempt. I only hope the bomber is holding hands with Sarah & Hillary in downtown San Fransico when it goes off.

He just had a 2.4 billion $ writeoff.  He just put everyone on public notice that no more will insurance companies cover terrorism. They will probably have a special line of insurance for that.  Since Berkshire-Hathaway also owns Geico. That might extend all the way down to automobile Insurance.  It will probably get shoved under FEMA disaster assistance or something. But I would expect to see lines of TERRORISM INSURANCE Along with FIRE,FLOOD,etc.  If you own a peice of Vulnerable equiptment it will probably cost you an arm and a leg.

Ben

He's got more money to find out what's going on that most governments.  He's in the insurance business - it is literally his business to know what threats are out there.  And, being the guy who's got the most toys in the world at the moment (ok, 2nd) he seems to understand his business pretty well.  I doubt he gets all his information from the media.

"The companies are now writing policies on terrorism but limiting their liability in any nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Only the federal government can ultimately insure property and other damage from a major terrorist attack, Buffett said."

I found this paragraph interesting.  I'm not sure whether Buffett means 'insure' as prevention of terrorist attacks or 'insure' as an attempt to get the government to pay for insurance claims so he doesn't have to.

Warren Buffet is a little slow on the uptake...

...my sock drawer told me this [b]weeks[/b] ago!

[whacko]

the_reject

I think he's probably right, but others have been saving that for quite a few years.

Personally, I think he's using this as a rationalization, or excuse, to limit liability in terrorism claims and nothing more. Read between the lines. He's just using the media to his business advantage.