They keep trying to make a connection from attacks such as 9/11 and a hurricane…they say that FEMA and DHS is a joke…can anyone tell me of a possible scenario where a group of terrorists could destroy such a large area of the US (other than nukes)…unless terrorists get ICBM’s and or a long range bomber…there is no way to destroy such a large area and disrupt so many people…so…how can they make the relation?
.
Yebbut…
Setting Nukes aside for a minute, most of the proposed WMD (chemical / biological) would have been a major hazard to life and limb, but not to infrastructure.
There’s no man-made way to wipe out 90,000 sq. mi. of real estate to the extent Katrina did without using a nuclear weapon or a LOT (read: waaaay more than aybody without a decent sized navy or air force or ICBMs has) of conventional munitions.
The two possible / likely scenarios (chemical / biological) require a lot of healthcare resources, but needing a fleet of small boats or helecopters to get to your victims would not be on the radar screen.
Having said that, the Nuclear scenario probably should account for some significant infrastructure damage… but probably even then way more localized than Katrina’s effects.
.
.
90k square miles—no is no terrorist act that could do that, but what if they had set a bomb on the levees around New Orleans? We’d still be dealing with the same issues correct?
What if there were coordinated attacks along those lines(i.e. destroy infrastructure) in multiple cities?
Exactly, and even if someone did have a 50 megaton nuke…and they did take out New Orleans per chance…it would be a VERY diffrent search and rescue where mere contact with dust and metal would be deadly due to radiation. The drills that they do at our local police and fire stations have nothing to do with total destruction of everything from Rockford, north to Madison Wi, east to Chicago and west to the Missisippi…more so drills preparing for a single infrastructure attack or building / block attacks. I dont get the translation of such a huge event being compared to 9/11 or Oklahoma City.
why do you read the liberal press?
I think it would be very difficult to sneak in a bomb that would puncture a levy. It would be very large.
The complaints I’ve heard is that DHS is so preoccupied with terrorism, it has paid only scant attention to dealing with natural disasters. That has nothing to do with how terrorists might destroy a large area as did Katrina… I’m not really sure what the issue is.
Unless there’s something else - can you post an article or something?
I think he might be reacting to the worry expressed by some people that since the response to Katrina has been so awful (I don’t necessarily agree with that, btw) that they don’t believe that the government is prepared to deal with a terrorist attack and its effects.
I think his point is that any terrorist attack is going to be significantly less disruptive, and therefore easier to deal with. (I don’t necessarily agree with that, either.)
Are you sure about that? Wouldn’t a truck bomb do the trick? Or a barge with a big fertilizer bomb?
Yes the levies could be taken out and the city flooded. However only No would be effected. Not only that but we woudl know exactly what we were dealing with vs finding slightly after the fact that the levees were breaking.
Also you would not have the other 89,000 sq miles or so of destruction to deal with. Plus the debris and desctruction of Katrina would not be in the way to rescue people.
~Matt
Bingo, a couple of well-placed underwater charges would not need to be any bigger than a suitcase.
From the USN Dive Manual (only an amateur’s course - EOD manuals are confidential):
“An underwater explosion creates a series of waves that
are transmitted as hydraulic shock waves in the water, and as seismic waves in the seabed. The hydraulic shock wave of an underwater explosion consists of an initial
wave followed by further pressure waves of diminishing intensity. The initial high-intensity shock wave is the result of the violent creation and liberation of a large volume of gas, in the form of a gas pocket, at high pressure and temperature. Subsequent pressure waves are caused by rapid gas expansion in a non-compressible
environment, causing a sequence of contractions and expansions as the gas pocket rises to the surface.”
read more here - http://www.coralspringsscuba.com/usn/Chap02.pdf
Suffice to say that it wouldn’t take much.
You truly are an idiot.
Your Secretary of State conjures up images of mushroom clouds in order to justify the war in Iraq, and then you suggest that it’s the “liberal” press which is going out of its way to associate DHS/FEMA with a potentially botched terrorist response. You just invent conspiracies to bash “liberals” and their imagined evils.
Imagine this if you can. Instead of a 50 megaton warhead, which is a bit impractical, why couldn’t terrorists just get hold of a large truck bomb and park it next to a chemical plant, perhaps an HCL tank? Or better yet, perhaps the cooling system of a nuclear power plant? Wouldn’t those scenarios require a FEMA/DHS evacuation response? Or better yet, explain how their lame response here bodes well had the levee break been done by a large truck bomb?
You truly are pathetic. You look for these conspiracies within actual important intellectual questions. Are you one of these people who think the media is focused on the “blame game” now? I got some news for you - it’s not the blame game, it’s called fixing the problem and replacing management. If you think that using a nice catchphrase like “blame game” is going to exempt the relevant parties from having their incompetence criticized, then I think perhaps you ought to get your head examined.
Yes the levies could be taken out and the city flooded. However only No would be effected. Not only that but we woudl know exactly what we were dealing with vs finding slightly after the fact that the levees were breaking.
Also you would not have the other 89,000 sq miles or so of destruction to deal with. Plus the debris and desctruction of Katrina would not be in the way to rescue people.
You also wouldn’t have an evacuation “plan” ahead of time so the city would be full of peeps.
They keep trying to make a connection from attacks such as 9/11 and a hurricane … how can they make the relation?
Same way conservatives compared the firefighters who worked for a few hours then perished, or who worked all day (with their familes home safe and sound) in the aftermath in those few square blocks in NYC with the NO cops and firefighters who lost their homes and families and had no way to know anything about their homes and families (for 3 or 4 days) and eventually walked off the job after 2-4 days or so. And I’m sure not one NYC cop would have quit to go look for family (or looted) at all in a katrina situation, right? … Or comparing Rudy and mayor Nagin. Comparing 9/11 to this distaster ***is ***silly, isn’t it?
I think the government tracks fertilizer sales (after OKC) and if someone buys enough then they are questioned…in a secret base. I dont think anyone can get away with it.
I have faith in my government to protect me from real harm.
Again, Suitcase sized charges made of what? Is it availabvle on the open market? Where can a “terrorist” buy it?
I dont think you can get anything that will damage the levy. You would be arrested before accomplishing your mission.
Yes, they track sales. So you probably have to buy a farm first, then divert.
I assume you are kidding about faith in the government. They do try and mostly mean well, but bureaucracies just don’t work well.
Could be worse. Could have FEMA in charge of health care.