Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/15/2002 4:13:19 PM EDT
Seriously, if the BGs got their hands on a nuke, even a small one, which target would be more appealing to them? NYC- Same target area as 9/11. Finish what they started. See how tough those New Yorkers REALLY are. Mess up international financial markets in a BIG way. Wash. DC- Same target area as 9/11. Finish what they started. Destroy gov't. of strongest nation on earth. Ounce-for-ounce, probably wreak more havok than NYC. I say DC. No other target area would exact a more widespread calamity. If NYC was hit, DC sends in the necessary response, if DC was hit, who would respond from where? Especially if 90% of those in charge (president, congress, and pentagon brass) were vaporized? The "shadow gov't.?" Its finger won't be big enough to plug [b]this[/b] leak. I wouldn't want to live in or near DC. Not now.
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:14:31 PM EDT
Can't we have both?
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:29:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SF: Can't we have both?
View Quote
:D: I think either would be significant. As Goblin stated, in addition to being very symbolic, DC would disrupt govt operations... The plane that grounded in PA may have been aiming for the White House... symbolic. An NYC hit would destroy our financial markets...
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:36:44 PM EDT
D.C.
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:37:58 PM EDT
How about a big ass bomb dropping on ***enter Islamic/Terrorist Supporting Nation Here*** reducing it to less than nothing?
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:38:06 PM EDT
no contest. nyc of course. maybe they can get the un this time.
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:42:20 PM EDT
Well, don't underestimate the current preparedness of our govt in DC. They have many more radioactivity detection systems, they have deployed a shadow govt to replace anyone killed, and they have many more cameras with 24 hour monitors watching. NY on the other hand has only a fraction of the precautions and observation being done in DC...so if you asked me which one they would most likely be SUCCESSFUL in this sort of attack I would have to say NY City.
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 4:48:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dex: Well, don't underestimate the current preparedness of our govt in DC. They have many more radioactivity detection systems, they have deployed a shadow govt to replace anyone killed, and they have many more cameras with 24 hour monitors watching. NY on the other hand has only a fraction of the precautions and observation being done in DC...so if you asked me which one they would most likely be SUCCESSFUL in this sort of attack I would have to say NY City.
View Quote
True, but with a nuke, you don't exactly have to be parked outside the White House in order to take it down. You could be five, ten, fifteen miles away. Just how many cameras and radiation detectors do we have?
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 8:21:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2002 8:26:05 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Neither, LA would be the best target for a nuclear attack. Why? Higher body count, prevailing winds would take a bomb set off in the Port of LA, the easiest place to bring a bomb, and then the radioactive plume would spread eastward across much of LA. Also the fires would spread inland better. And if its a big enough bomb it might set off the chemical plants and refineries that are scattered all through the San Pedro/Long Beach area. If you really wanted to cripple this country, the place to go would be Texas, Galveston or Houston, or anywhere along the Ship Canal. That would really fuck up our oil supply situation, not anywhere near the deaths of LA or New York. This new breed of terrorist Bin Laden created like high body counts though, so I still think LA would be a more likely target.
Top Top