There was not an appreciable rise in murders or rapes or assaults after Andrew.
There was, and my great aunt can confirm, a great deal of theft and a general breakdown in law and order as far as property was concerned.
A dirty bomb detonation would cover a much smaller area than the vast swaths of land that Andrew devastated. If it were to occur in NYC, there would 30,000 NYC police on the scene reporting to one man as opposed to the much smaller and decentralized forces in Dade County.
The combination of much larger police resources and a much smaller area of devastation would simply not be the same as an Andrew or Katrina situation. Moreover, the Feds would be able to go in immediately, since they would be dealing with an act of war and not a natural disaster.
I also doubt that many people would be interested in running toward a nuclear blast site in order to loot.
There is no real comparison between the two scenarios.
Citizens should always be prepared in case of an emergency - but that's not what this guy is saying.
He is saying: give up, it's hopeless, millions will die and there is nothing we can do.
There is plenty we can do: we can be prepared and alert, we can give the Feds the tools they need to track down terrorist scum and dismantle their networks.
IMHO he is saying that it is hopeless to prevent millions from dying, and tens of millions knocked out of economic productivity. But we should not give up, because there will be plenty to do after the destruction.
The dead millions will be our modern Alamo heroes, and we must prepare to avenge them, to destroy the enemies of civilization, and to suppress those who would enable these enemies.