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
Exactly. You'd think we'd be smart enough to come up with a "Plan B" to minimize the power that they wield.
---max
By "major" you mean with running water and electricity?
Just kidding, I get your point. We as a country are ill-prepared to deal with an attack of any magnitude. And that's an understatement. Does our government think that we are too fragile to deal with the preparation for such an attack? Must be the case otherwise we would be doing it now (and should have been years ago).
I disagree with this. I do not think it is probable a terrorist will deploy a nuclear bomb. First, the whole nation is more security conscious, so it will be harder now than on 9/10. Second, the terrorist must get a nuclear bomb. Their sources: U.S., China, India, Pakistan, Russia and its former republics, France, U.K., Israel, and maybe South Africa. All these nations have tight security on their warheads, except possibly the former republics. Russia and the U.S. are working with them to secure their supplies. If the terrorists could get the bomb, so could Iraq, and Iraq has not, yet. Third, even if they get a bomb, they must transport it to the U.S. A private airplane or ship is the best way. But this must be done with no security leaks. Not easy. Fourth, after everything, it must work. There is no guarantee it will. That is why there is nuclear testing--to ensure the mechanisms work. Added together, I would say this is in the possible category rather than probable.
sw
yes, I think this is exactly correct.
Remember the scene in "Godfather" when Don Corleone tells his colleagues, "I am a superstitious man...and if anything happens to my son Michael, even if he is hit by lightning, I will blame someone in this room"?
I don't know how much influence Assad, Hussein, Abdullah, Qadaffi, and Musharref have over OBL-but I suspect it is more than we know, or can know.
I would announce that, in the event of a nuclear or subnuclear detonation within the United States, the US will retaliate with our strategic forces immediately and without further investigation against "all states which sponsor or tolerate terrorism".
But then, I am a superstitious man.
Ruddy is right on.
As a young boy I remember "Bert the Turtle" instructing us school kids how to "Duck and Cover" in preparation for a Soviet nuclear strike. Since I lived in New York City (potentially ground zero), myself and my pals were fully aware than it was a wasted exercise but participated just the same.
Since those days, the "Nanny State" has grown into the mess we see today.
The shrinks running the public schools today are more frightened about the potential residual effects such warnings might have on the kids than the actual threat itself.
Why have we allowed America to decline so quickly?
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.