Posted on 11/09/2001 2:18:51 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
If New York Is Nuked This past week, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said emphatically that if the terrorist groups get a nuclear bomb, they will detonate it in New York. So, let's suppose a suitcase nuke is detonated in Manhattan. What should the civilians living in and around New York do? Should they flee outside the city? Should they run to their basements? It's also evident that an ounce of preparation now will do much more than pounds of after-the-fact rescue efforts. For some strange reason, our government is very reluctant to prepare its citizens for such a calamity, though acknowledging that such a calamity is not only possible, it's probable. Certainly the best defense against the use of such weapons should take place in intelligence and with our spies infiltrating terrorist networks. We discovered on Sept. 11, however, that thanks to Bill Clinton, America no longer has any real intelligence about these groups. The next layer of defense against such an attack is to hold the governments behind these terrorists accountable – but it's not clear that will be the case. Consider how difficult it has been to find the responsible party for the anthrax attacks. With our "perimeter" defenses weak, it's even more critical that Americans prepare for adequate civil defense. Civil defense is just that: defense prepared by citizens. Recently I was out on the West Coast and had dinner with Nancy Greene. Nancy, the widow of the late actor Lorne Green, is president of The American Civil Defense Association (TACDA). TACDA is a great organization that has raised alarm bells about the need for civil defense for decades. Nancy, a smart lady who has a keen understanding of international affairs and national security, gave me a brief history of civil defense in America. She said that real interest in civil defense first started with President Kennedy. After his first summit with Khrushchev in 1961, Kennedy was convinced the Russians were planning a nuclear attack on the U.S. He returned from his summit in a funk and became a hermit for three days. He then emerged from his silence with a plan. If America was going to survive, and millions of lives were to be saved, we would need a civil defense program. But Kennedy decided the Pentagon should not be involved. Instead, Kennedy called upon a friend on Madison Avenue to launch an education effort on how citizens could protect themselves in case of such an attack. The campaign worked, and was prescient as the nuclear tensions rose during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Since those days, America has let down its guard. We felt protected during the Cold War under an umbrella of nuclear-tipped missiles and a powerful military. Our enemy was definable. But now, terrorists are not so easily definable and they are not so afraid of retaliation, as the Russians were. Once again, government and the private sector need to go into partnership to educate citizens on how to create emergency disaster plans for their families. Extra food and water is a foundation of any planning. But how many American families have more than a week's supply, if that, on hand? It's also critical for citizens to have access to potassium iodide, necessary to prevent an agonizing death if radioactive iodine gets into the thyroid. But how many people know this? Why doesn't the government have a stockpile of potassium iodide? Perhaps a start would be for us to to discard Hollywood myths. A nuclear detonation does not mean the end of the world. The worst effects will likely not be caused by a nuclear blast, but rather by citizens unprepared and unknowledgeable about how to survive such a calamity.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:Christopher Ruddy
With all of the talk, some very serious from President Bush, about terrorists getting and using weapons of mass destruction against Americans, one would think the public should be prepared in case such a weapon is used.
Friday, Nov. 9, 2001
Homeland/Civil Defense
Bioterrorism
War on Terrorism
Think about that next time you fill up your gas tank, turn on a light, or heat up your house.
Well said, I am disappointed that the administration has not made energy self sufficiency part of their agenda against terrorism.
He's fightin' a WAR right now, so this is simply in the Queue waitin' for the right time to be put before the DIMocRATS who will quickly sign up to it. . .
Not real tuned into sarcasm are you?
I saw no hint of sarcasm. As a physicist, I take scientific comments seriously and that one showed gross ignorance, not sarcasm.
Sorry if I get a bit intense about something so trivial as the security of the country/world!
I asked them to remove it. It was just a double post, the exact same thing I posted in #91....double posts just get on my nevers personally, especially when I do them.
Comment #102 Removed by Moderator
I wonder what that was about?. . .
Please explain. There is a cute little 17 year old cheerleader at our highschool. She is a foreign exchange student from Danmark. How did she get to be a threat worthy of deportation? She's here on a Visa, and is an alien, so according to your rant she is suspect, should have her visa revoked, and expelled to save our nation. --- ASA Vet
I didn't rant. I linked. One of the links is to a discussion based on the idea of "revoking all visas". I listed that link in my post because there are many posts and points-of-view in that discussion. I personally subscribe to the idea of a Terrorist Deportation Plan, which would send all visitors home if they are from certain suspect countries. Last I checked Denmark (correcting your spelling) is not harboring terrorists. And if it were, I doubt if they would be blond Danish people, but rather, swarthy middle-easterns visiting Denmark for travel and a bit of terrorism.
I believe strongly in profiling, not just at the airport security checks, but at the visa window and the INS line.
The action I'm supporting would be focused on specific groups, but failing that, if the USA can't get smart enough to focus on those groups, I would accept a blanket ban on all visas, as much as it would inconvenience innocent people like your friend. Again, that's not what I hope happens and is not what I would vote for. I want to keep visitors from suspect countries out and let everyone else retain normal travel status. But if the only choice was "no visas" or "visas for everyone", I would have to vote "no visas".
We are at war. This is much more serious than any war we've ever been in. If we lose this one, we're out of the ballgame.
You forgot Mecca and Medina
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.