?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Question for everyone - How's it going budday?

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> SMLGphotos

Links
SMLGphotos
DK Photo Group
Flickr

November 3rd, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
10:31 pm - Question for everyone
Do me a favour and respond with a list of 5-10 cities in the United States that are the most likely to be targets for a terrorist attack (no time frame, just in general. Repeats can count).

My list would be, in no particular order:
New York
Washington D.C. (clarified)
Chicago
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle (port)
Miami
Boston
Baltimore
Houston

Thanks.

(19 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:jodytamar
Date:November 3rd, 2004 07:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i think that list is pretty accurate. except, i would add D.C. and remove houston
[User Picture]
From:yokes
Date:November 3rd, 2004 07:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I meant D.C. when I said "Washington".

Houston I included because it is the largest city on the Gulf of Mexico (for the record. You list may vary, of course).
[User Picture]
From:jodytamar
Date:November 3rd, 2004 07:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
duh. i saw washington and immediately assumed seattle, even though you separately listed that. i read what i wanted to see rather than what was there.

i best be getting sleep tonight ;)
[User Picture]
From:timeo
Date:November 3rd, 2004 07:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd remove Baltimore because...nobody's heard of Baltimore. Probably replace that with Atlanta because of worldwide exposure from 1996....
[User Picture]
From:kwakhed
Date:November 3rd, 2004 07:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i'd replace baltimore with philadelphia -- you still have port access and great historical significance (liberty bell, independence hall, etc.).
[User Picture]
From:damsie
Date:November 3rd, 2004 08:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
COOL, arizona's safe!
[User Picture]
From:zodmicrobe
Date:November 3rd, 2004 08:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
NYC
Wash DC
Los Angeles
St. Louis (arch)
Miami
Philly
Boston
Baltimore
NOLA
From:(Anonymous)
Date:November 3rd, 2004 08:28 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hey, Sean. Check your evil gmail shit for the full explanation regarding my choices.

Norfolk, VA
St. Louis, MO
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles, CA
Orlando, FL

-Gary (swampxiix... at... mindspring... take a stab at it... you know you can do it... dot... wait for it... com)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:bork
Date:November 3rd, 2004 10:18 pm (UTC)

Seattle.

(Link)
About that Seattle thingy...

1. the ports are in the city. So, bomb the ports, and depending on where they hit, they also take out the Space Needle, Downtown, or the neighbourhood of West Seattle (which they can gladly have. Please.)

2. MS isn't in Seattle, it's 15 miles away in Redmond, WA. Plus, due to Redmond zoning laws that say that buildings can't be more than 5-6 stories high, the campus is literally a campus of about 25 or so buildings, all spread out. It's so large that we have our own shuttle serice to get around. And that's just the main campus - that's not mentioning the sattelite campuses that are in neighbouring towns.

3. The Space Needle? Downtown is a lot sexier, can do a lot more damage, can kill a lot more people, and is only a mile to the south. The Space Needle sits next to a mini amusement park and the EMP. Really nothing there. Plus, lots of Seattlites hate the damn thing; if the terrorists take out that and the EMP, the city would throw a celebration out of gratitude.
[User Picture]
From:cthulhia
Date:November 4th, 2004 06:02 am (UTC)

boston is a little more safe

(Link)
The Binladen family still owns a sizable chunk of boston, even if most of them have fled america. This includes a sizable chunk of Harvard, which is itself a significant portion of boston.

bin Laden may be estranged from them, as they insist, but I still think it means we may be a last resort, or solely because the port-city aspect would make it easier to get here.

Considering that the security at logan is Still Abysmal, I suspect they'd continue to use us as an entry point. Bombing Boston might actually cause enough security to tighten than security hole once and for all.

[User Picture]
From:yokes
Date:November 4th, 2004 06:04 am (UTC)

Re: boston is a little more safe

(Link)
CAMBRIDGE! :-)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:cthulhia
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:41 am (UTC)

lease, schmeese

(Link)
they were staking out the place to see how to topple it. or maybe they were annoyed that they couldn't just buy the entire WTC.

but I concede your point.

And your previous one. This is one of the few advantages of not having major landmarks. I'm not sure what they could bomb in boston that wouldn't be treated like a grand opportunity for urban renewal.

"please, take out the damned citgo sign. please"
[User Picture]
From:supercarbomb
Date:November 4th, 2004 06:01 am (UTC)

...

(Link)
I'd put Las Vegas on that list too.
From:meatpie
Date:November 4th, 2004 06:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think your list is a good estimate of where they would attack. Here's where they SHOULD attack if they want to cripple the U.S. war-making machine:

Dallas TX
Tucson AZ
El Segundo CA
Palmdale CA
Ft. Worth TX
Arlington VA
Huntsville AL
Reston VA
Goleta CA
White Sands NM
Groom Lake NV
Tewksbury MA
Waltham MA

Take out strategic targets in these locations and the U.S. will be unable to make war with anything more advanced than an M-16.
[User Picture]
From:cthulhia
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:45 am (UTC)

waltham?

(Link)
hey, I work there!

sure, Raytheon HQ is here (gets up, points out window "next building over, actually, wave to the 50 securtiy cameras"), but AFAIK, no weapons are manufactured here. (the nearest is, lowell?) Most big companies have out of state back-up servers. So the data on how to build them wouldn't be lost. It might be a while before we update them, assuming that they succeeded in getting everyone to be in the office that day.
From:meatpie
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:52 am (UTC)

Re: waltham?

(Link)
heh, hey, I'm IN the Raytheon facility in Dallas!! I'm not saying I WANT it to be attacked, but it is a strategic target. As for what goes on in Waltham, without violating my clearance I can say that you're right, they don't manufacture "weapons" there, but other things are built there, as well as stored there. Also, taking out the leadership is an important aspect in crippling manufacturing...
[User Picture]
From:cthulhia
Date:November 4th, 2004 08:02 am (UTC)

Re: waltham?

(Link)
um... enough clearance to assure me nothing *really* toxic, or at least not enough to affect this side of the parking lot?

now I'm paranoid.

and so not parking my car over on that side of our building ever again. eek.

but, otherwise, they ever going to fly you up here for a meeting? (heck, this building is the conference center, so you'd probably already be in my cafeteria for lunch.)
From:meatpie
Date:November 4th, 2004 08:14 am (UTC)

Re: waltham?

(Link)
Nah, no worries, it's mostly electronics. Actually, that's just about ALL Raytheon makes. RAC (Raytheon Aircraft Co) and LMAC (Lockheed-Martin Aircraft Co) make the flying bits. It's not likely they'll send me up there anytime soon, seeing as how they just dropped some serious coin on a VTC solution...though it isn't really all that much of a solution, so who knows?! I'll be sure to let you know if I ever am though. :)
[User Picture]
From:cthulhia
Date:November 4th, 2004 07:48 am (UTC)

las vegas?

(Link)
"seattle?"

(wants to watch Wargames now, and reminisce about simpler times.)

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com