Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

NYC too safe from terrorism

  1. May 31, 2006 #1
    Apparently we've done so good of a job at preventing terrorism in NYC and DC, we overdid it! We're so redundantly over-safe, we should drastically cut back.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cities_terrorism

    Yes, that's exactly how you get maximum benefit... :uhh: (who are these idiots?)

    (Not that any of this ever had any effect, other than PR...)
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. May 31, 2006 #2
    Sorry I deleted this message.

    I just had a quick thought and idea of terrorism/Sept 11/and U.S overall and what I said was wrong however it gave a base for another idea.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2006
  4. May 31, 2006 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So you're saying we get maximum benefit by dumping all the money into 2 cities? I didn't know NYC and DC have 300 million citizens....
     
  5. May 31, 2006 #4
    So you think terrorists are going to blow up a ranch in Whyoming?
     
  6. May 31, 2006 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What a sad sad stereotype.
     
  7. May 31, 2006 #6
    Well then, smarty pants. I'm in charges of awarding grants, and you're the governor of Why-oh-Why-oming. You tell me why you want $75 million in DHS money, what you plan to do with it, and how it'll make your state safer from terrorists.
     
  8. May 31, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How bout you tell me why 2 cities deserve 3/4 of a billion dollars while everyone else gets to rot. How much do you want to bet that if Las Vegas or the California central valley or San Fran was hit, you'd complain about uneven appropriations?
     
  9. May 31, 2006 #8
    Hundreds of extra police officers patrolling subways. Metal detectors, surveillance cameras. Concrete barriers around buildings.

    I'm not advocating disenfranchising the rest of the country, I'm just pointing out that there are at most ten cities which can reasonbly call themselves targets of international terrorism. Any other cities would be flattering themselves to be in that position. Las Vegas is an obvious symbolic target; suburban California is not. NYC has a super-high concentration of viable symbolic targets. The decision is yours.
     
  10. May 31, 2006 #9

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    According to this forum, those don't work, sorry.
     
  11. May 31, 2006 #10
    But it's good PR. Makes you look busy.
     
  12. May 31, 2006 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You hit an agricultural center and you'll get nationwide chaos. Probably not because of any actual danger, but how insane are people when it comes to their food? People think GE food will eat unsuspecting normal food. They're nuts
     
  13. May 31, 2006 #12
    Exactly. A suicide bomber drives into a cornfield, so the whole nation panics over the lost food.
     
  14. May 31, 2006 #13

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    sure thing boss :rolleyes:
     
  15. May 31, 2006 #14
    Your idea, not mine.
     
  16. May 31, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Im glad you aren't working for DHS....
     
  17. May 31, 2006 #16
    I'm glad you're not working anywhere.
     
  18. Jun 1, 2006 #17
    I think it's funny you equate ever city thats NOT New York or D.C. to "A wheat field in Wyoming"

    There are many cities that I promise you are on potential target lists for Terrorist groups.

    Is Oklahoma City the "middle of a wheat field"? (and it is irrelevant that it was a domestic terrorist in that case)

    Here is a story I heard about some time ago about a man who appeared to be doing alot of research on the "structural integrity" of some sky scrapers in Charlotte N.C.

    http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-081004-al-terrorist_arrest.62f5ce3e.html

    Charlotte (pop. 540,828)
    http://www.city-data.com/city/North-Carolina.html

    Charlotte isn't New York by any means, but it is the Banking Capital of the U.S. and clearly not "a wheat field"
     
  19. Jun 2, 2006 #18
    Seeing what happend on 9/11 I don't think there's could be such a thing as too safe.
     
  20. Jun 2, 2006 #19

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think that New York and DC are not very god places to spend our HS money. They've already been hit. The pattern of terrorism seems to be that they never do the same thing twice. This keeps them unpredictable, which is to their benefit. I'm afraid that while we've got our attention focussed on places they've hit in the past, they'll strike somewhere else.

    I'm sure that a terrorist trying to make a statement would be alot more interested in hitting new targets than in re-hitting old ones. Having already made their point about NY and DC, I would expect them to hit Vegas or Hollywood next. They've made their statement about our politics, now they'll want to say something about our morality.

    A widespread attack on Christian Churches wouldn't be any great suprise, either, it just requires more people than they've got. But maybe a Billy Graham crusade; couple hundred thousand people all in one place, millions watching on live TV, lots of limelite.
     
  21. Jun 2, 2006 #20

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The only threat to US citizens is through programs like 24 and NCIS. On an average day you got 20 cops patrolling Dunkin Donuts here in NYC.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: NYC too safe from terrorism
  1. War on Terror (Replies: 53)

  2. Terrorism and WMD (Replies: 4)

  3. Terrorism in Mumbai (Replies: 31)

  4. In Defense of Terror (Replies: 6)

Loading...