At least the city I lived in was close enough to “primary nuclear strike” targets to be demolished by shockwave.
Never mind the fact that that’s nuclear strike targets, not “Terrorist-hijacked-jets” target. Clearly people tend not to think rationally about these things.
We live a few stone throws away from the biggest military base in this part of the country. I usually joke that we’ll either be the first or the last to go if there’s a war.
However, terrorists attacking that would be “putting your dick in a fire ants nest” level of stupid.
The goal of an attack is not to do a standoff with the military and win. It is tocause a lot of damage quickly, to negate the feeling of security. Attacking next to the largest military base would be perfect for that, as it creates the appearance, that the military is unable to protect the people.
But the fact is that noone can really protect against this.
Some heavy truck driving through a crowd was often more efficient than gunmen throwing grenades.
Unless specifically searching for it, any semitruck will pass most police unnoticed and could be loaded with a couple tons of explosive fertilizer, enough to destroy a large buildung, killing hundreds of people.
And the attackers either include their death as a planned result, or they run quickly after an attack, making it impossible to respond immediately.
The Midwest is full of missile silos that are on MAD target lists. There’s possibly more legitimate fear that terrorists could target something in San Francisco or similarly popular places. Terrorists also want attention, so a place with lots of news coverage is better too.
My dad pointed out to me as a kid that the city next to us would be a nuke target because it held the US strategic reserve of silicon carbide, a substance critical to grinding parts (e.g. making weapons).
At least the city I lived in was close enough to “primary nuclear strike” targets to be demolished by shockwave.
Never mind the fact that that’s nuclear strike targets, not “Terrorist-hijacked-jets” target. Clearly people tend not to think rationally about these things.
We live a few stone throws away from the biggest military base in this part of the country. I usually joke that we’ll either be the first or the last to go if there’s a war.
However, terrorists attacking that would be “putting your dick in a fire ants nest” level of stupid.
I think it would make more sense to attack there.
The goal of an attack is not to do a standoff with the military and win. It is tocause a lot of damage quickly, to negate the feeling of security. Attacking next to the largest military base would be perfect for that, as it creates the appearance, that the military is unable to protect the people.
But the fact is that noone can really protect against this.
Some heavy truck driving through a crowd was often more efficient than gunmen throwing grenades.
Unless specifically searching for it, any semitruck will pass most police unnoticed and could be loaded with a couple tons of explosive fertilizer, enough to destroy a large buildung, killing hundreds of people.
And the attackers either include their death as a planned result, or they run quickly after an attack, making it impossible to respond immediately.
Are you between the two nuclear labs in the Bay area? Those always show up as top targets and people always brought it up
The Midwest is full of missile silos that are on MAD target lists. There’s possibly more legitimate fear that terrorists could target something in San Francisco or similarly popular places. Terrorists also want attention, so a place with lots of news coverage is better too.
Well, I HOPE most people think rationally, but the ones who are going to whine about the local sports match? … Yeah, agreed.
My dad pointed out to me as a kid that the city next to us would be a nuke target because it held the US strategic reserve of silicon carbide, a substance critical to grinding parts (e.g. making weapons).