In your opinion(s), which cities are most at risk of being targeted by nukes (either Chinese or Russian) and why?

I truly appreciate all feedback.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), May 17, 1999

Answers

I think that there will be a lot of distruction in the Mid-West (Missouri, Kansas, etc.) because of the weapons in their underground silos. Of course D.C. for obvious reasions. I also think New York and L.A. because of their populations.

-- winna (??@??.com), May 17, 1999.

I'm not sure on this but I think China's missiles could only reach the west coast. That is if they were lucky enough the didn't blow up on the launch pad.

Russia, on the other hand, is probably still capable to take us all out.

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 17, 1999.

Roland,

Excellent question, and one that has been on my mind. I was wondering this morning if the nukes have their own electric supply, because you can't fire these things without electricity. And not without communications either. I would expect a first strike (suitcase bombs?) to take out these two prior to any big attack. At least, that's what I would think on my limited knowledge about such things.

I live in Iowa. Any silos in Iowa?

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), May 17, 1999.

My guess is San Francisco and Detroit because most expectations are N.Y. D.C. and L.A, surprise attacks are more effective. Any more "guesses" ?

-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), May 17, 1999.

All of the cities targeted by the National Guard for martial law.

-- Charles R. (chuck_roast@trans.net), May 17, 1999.

Unfortunately, Texas probably ranks as we declined to vote for WJC not once, but twice, and will again decline next election, if there is one, to vote for his backup. Additionally, messing with Texas would guarantee that we'd demand revenge any way we could get it.

-- Lisa (bummer@bummer.bummer), May 17, 1999.

This is Minnesotasmith, author of the Y2K-preparatory website http:y2ksafeminnesota.hypermar.net. Check out Life After Doomsday by Bruce Clayton. I own the book and think highly of it.

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 17, 1999.

If suitcase-style, I propose L.A. area as way to strike at U.S. media impact on world while leaving N.Y. and D.C. intact for blackmail purposes (besides, if they bring down the markets DIRECTLY and or federal government center, we'll fire back with EVERYTHING).

Otherwise, in classic nuke attack, too many targets to name.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 17, 1999.

See the following list of 120 "target" cities:

http://www.sbccom.apgea.army.mil/ops/dp/fs/fs_120c.html

And note who the partners of the SBC are: DoD; DoE; FBI; FEMA; EPA and Public Health Service.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), May 17, 1999.

Why can't they just send ONE nuke over here, aimed at the white house. WHEN IT'S RESIDENTS ARE HOME!

-- rick (I'mset@home.house), May 17, 1999.

Roland,

I am, of late, studying up on the topic of nuclear confrontation and preparation for same (like y2k isn't enough to worry about!). I found this site yesterday and it has alot of information of various topics, including several maps. However was dated as 1990, as I recall, so I don't know if it would be very current or up to date. http://www.xmg.com/nuclear.htm

I am in a deliuma of sorts today over this. Backhoe and dozer, from out of town no less, working up the road...may be a good time to put in that "root cellar", but don't know enough yet to tell them where/how...any ideas/suggestions/reality checks welcome...one side says over reaction, the other side says what are you waiting for???

-- Lilly (homesteader145@yahoo.com), May 17, 1999.

"Why can't they just send ONE nuke over here, aimed at the white house. WHEN IT'S RESIDENTS ARE HOME!"

How many kilo-tons would be needed, while minimizing collateral damage?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 17, 1999.

duh

-- duh (duh@duh.duh), May 17, 1999.

Good info Lilly...thanks for the link.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), May 17, 1999.

oh boy.... I'm convinced. There is more misinformation out there on subjects nuclear than there is accurate info. [rant mode off]

First. The Soviets have never targeted cities per se. Why? No military objective would be served by nuking cities. See thread http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000oYq for military targeting priorities. There is no reason that the Russians would target otherwise.

There are two exceptions to this. 1 - The old Chinese missiles had such poor accuracy (very very large CEP {Circular Error Probability}) that they weren't very usefull on small military targets (unless you were targeting something large and soft like an airfield full of bombers or going to hit a silo with something HUGE so it didn't matter if it wasn't close). Plus the Chinese didn't have enough missiles to hit enough military target to make any appreciable difference. So their older missiles were only useful on cities. That applies for the old misslies. I am NOT talking about the stolen bomb plans now, but the technology transfers that took place via the White House overriding the objections of other parts of the government. The Chinese either have or shortly will have vastly more accurate missiles and MIRVed warheads (Multiple warhead Independantly targeted Re-entry Vehicles) which allows for the first time for the Chinese to have militarily effective weapons.

Okay, the above is based on fact. The following is based on pure conjecture. 2 - Forget the military targeting, switch to political targeting. Idea here is that you hit one large city with a nuke, probably transported in by truck, and demand surrender, Clinton gets on TV, "My fellow Americans, I come to you with a heavy heart, for the sake of the children we must surrender, even though blah blah blah, etc...." I'll let Andy fill in the rest, that's his balliwick.

Anyway, I followed XMG.COM to Richard Fleetwood's site. While applaud his prodigous efforts, there are many items on his website that are useless or misleading. Forget anything about 25 megaton warheads, in fact ignore most of the info on 1 mt warheads because of increased accuracy most warheads are less than 500 or 100 kilotons, maps are outdated and too general anyway, older fallout shelter plans weren't right back then need to be re-engineered for more roof dirt, thearthquake maps are both old and contradictory, etc., however, his site still has lots of useful info and links.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 17, 1999.

THE CONSPIRACY!

The idea that America (or any country) values individuality as the highest ideal is a myth. Perhaps in simpler times it was true, but no modern industrial society can really afford a population of unpredictables. This is not surprising - the long history of our cult's persecution by the Conspiracy goes back for generations untold, and indeed there are signs of their hoary repression of prehuman SubGenii dating from before "man's" appearance on Earth. All of civilization's painful and misguided climb up from the primeval slime, and its subsequent loss of Slack and of any class at all, has been indelibly marked, nay, entirely motivated, by the aeons-bridging conflict between the Conspiracy's mindlessly chickenshit Witless Principals and the Jehovah-spawned, grandiose depravity of the superior yet ethnically all-encompassing race of latent SubGeniuses. (You should know this - you were/will be there in the Beforelife!) The fact that only in recent years has "our kind" begun to recognize our own sovereignty demonstrates both how vicious have been Their efforts at further denying us Slack and yet how near is our race to TRIUMPH. All this is ULTIMATE PROOF that Jehovah 1 has not only promoted the SubGenius as His Special Tool, but has simultaneously pulled the strings which make Them endarken Themselves with their hereditary ignorancy and us with their cubistic witch-hunt superstitions. His "reason" for this two-faced obedience-school programming, this fissioning of history into binary "war equations," unfortunately, or, perhaps, thankfully, remains a total mystery. no slopeheads alone could build, the miracles of the Old Testament, all these and more are events so inextricably interwoven with the invisible background war between Jehovah and the Xists that all the "Ancient Astronaut" fossils in the world furnish only the barest of clues. (The movie rights ALONE to these gut-splitting tales of reincarnancient history are worth millions!) Yea, it has even been suggested that the Carpenter of Nazareth himself, God Jr., Jesus 'What, Me Worry?' Christ, was in actuality a 'space detective' of the Xists, walking the Earth in human form with the mission of extricating us from the Monster God's grip. The black shadow of the Conspiracy, unfortunately, has seen to it that even His teachings were diluted and distorted until human attempts to follow them were fully as misguided as the carving of the heads of Easter Island or the 'runways' of Nazca. And so the true destiny of the SubGenius has been kept secret from Man. For Jehovah 1 is to the Xists and Us what a hungry fisherman is to a prize fish and his favorite pet worm - the last in the can. How many million other races were used before us in these ghastly galactic water-sports?

JEHOVAH 1 MANIPULATES US FOR HIS OWN SINISTER ENDS.

-- ! (!@!.1), May 17, 1999.

THE CONSPIRACY!!

The idea that America (or any country) values individuality as the highest ideal is a myth. Perhaps in simpler times it was true, but no modern industrial society can really afford a population of unpredictables. This is not surprising - the long history of our cult's persecution by the Conspiracy goes back for generations untold, and indeed there are signs of their hoary repression of prehuman SubGenii dating from before "man's" appearance on Earth. All of civilization's painful and misguided climb up from the primeval slime, and its subsequent loss of Slack and of any class at all, has been indelibly marked, nay, entirely motivated, by the aeons-bridging conflict between the Conspiracy's mindlessly chickenshit Witless Principals and the Jehovah-spawned, grandiose depravity of the superior yet ethnically all-encompassing race of latent SubGeniuses. (You should know this - you were/will be there in the Beforelife!) The fact that only in recent years has "our kind" begun to recognize our own sovereignty demonstrates both how vicious have been Their efforts at further denying us Slack and yet how near is our race to TRIUMPH. All this is ULTIMATE PROOF that Jehovah 1 has not only promoted the SubGenius as His Special Tool, but has simultaneously pulled the strings which make Them endarken Themselves with their hereditary ignorancy and us with their cubistic witch-hunt superstitions. His "reason" for this two-faced obedience-school programming, this fissioning of history into binary "war equations," unfortunately, or, perhaps, thankfully, remains a total mystery. no slopeheads alone could build, the miracles of the Old Testament, all these and more are events so inextricably interwoven with the invisible background war between Jehovah and the Xists that all the "Ancient Astronaut" fossils in the world furnish only the barest of clues. (The movie rights ALONE to these gut-splitting tales of reincarnancient history are worth millions!) Yea, it has even been suggested that the Carpenter of Nazareth himself, God Jr., Jesus 'What, Me Worry?' Christ, was in actuality a 'space detective' of the Xists, walking the Earth in human form with the mission of extricating us from the Monster God's grip. The black shadow of the Conspiracy, unfortunately, has seen to it that even His teachings were diluted and distorted until human attempts to follow them were fully as misguided as the carving of the heads of Easter Island or the 'runways' of Nazca. And so the true destiny of the SubGenius has been kept secret from Man. For Jehovah 1 is to the Xists and Us what a hungry fisherman is to a prize fish and his favorite pet worm - the last in the can. How many million other races were used before us in these ghastly galactic water-sports?

JEHOVAH 1 MANIPULATES US FOR HIS OWN SINISTER ENDS.

-- ! (!@!.com), May 17, 1999.

Brett

You were wondering if the missles could fire w/o electriciy. If they need electricity, beware of any country that is ordering large quantities of electrical extension cords.

-- Daryl (rushmore@dailypost.com), May 17, 1999.

Anon99: There would be NO collateral damage no matter how big a nuke hits DC. Everyone in that area is either a government puke, or someone sucking up to government, or sucking on the teat of government welfare.

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 17, 1999.

A...

A bit disgusted about our government? Any sane person should be.

LARGE cities... That is what will be targeted. Likely the trigger of WW III... how depressing... Billy Jeff, a.k.a. slick Willie, is working for our destruction. Why?

Y2K... The BIG IF...

lickin' my foot,

Desert Dog

-- Dog (cmpennell@juno.com), May 17, 1999.

Good question, bunch of useless answers. maybe this will help.

Nuclear War Survival Skills.

And if that dont, here's the link to the old fallout map (based on older style multimegaton warheads from 1979- a fall out map for newer multi-warhead in the sub megaton range weapons would have more targets and be more diffuse, and would have less fallout)

Chapter 4, map at end.

-- quasimodo (hunchback@belltower.com), May 17, 1999.

...or they might just ignore cities and detonate a nice EMP type one 200 miles over the USA. "What? that was NOT a communications satellite up there? Who'da thunk it?" Even better, call the White House 2 mins prior and tell them "Oops...Y2K glitch ya know, we can't turn it off. Sorry about that..."

Bob

-- Bob (fallout@shelter.com), May 17, 1999.

Addendum: A click through on XMG.COM lead to Roiegh Martin's August 1998 news had some really off base info. The author known as "Sunset Research Group" and author of How to Survive and Prosper After the Year 2000 computer Crash is listed as being ex-Navy officer & pilot, an engineer, Eagle Scout, and is certified by FEMA for Radiological Monitor and Disaster Manager. Heaven help us all.

Here are some quotes, "When nuclear isotopes IN ELEMENTAL FORM WHICH LAST FOR MILLENIAS--NOT IN FALLOUT FORM WHICH DIMINISHES IN DAYS OR WEEKS are dumped in the environment, the strontium and other heavier elements enter the food chain via cows milk, meat, and plants." First off the radioactivity is the same whether the isotope is in elemental or compound form, period, no exceptions. The isotopes all have a half life, some are short - 8 days, some are medium - 60-120 years, some are long 1,000s or 10,000s of years. Strontium (and cesium) can only be taken up into plants IF it is water soluable. Strontium and cesium are only taken up IF there is both a profound lack of potassium and calcium and an extremely low pH. The pH is so low most plant will not grow in that pH with perhaps the exception of cranberry bogs.

Next quote, "These isotopes collect primarily in your thyroid, and from there, irradiate your entire body. To protect from this particular threat you need to saturate your thyroid with potassium iodide (PI), which then disallows isotope penetration." First - only significant absorbtion by the thyroid is iodine, second - radioactive iodine is an alpha emitter, to radiate your whole body it would have to be a gamma emitter, third - it's KI not PI, PI would be phosphorous iodine and the valence is wrong.

He goes on about various items, "ISOTOPES on the elemental level, as are released in NON WAR-BLAST nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl are absorbed by plants which are absorbed by animals we milk and eat, or plants we eat, or water we drink (invisible, emit radiation forever, and cannot be filtered out)". Nothing can emit radiation forever. Ditto the absorbtion/pH.

Another, "That will be plenty of time to become aware of the threat and evacuate the area for good (you can never live there again)." He should check out downtown Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I'm sure the fellow means well, and his suggestion of stockpiling (governments stockpile - individuals hoard) KI is a good idea. He's just right for the wrong reasons.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 17, 1999.

Why would you ask such a question? Do you want to know if you're at ground zero? If you are near a military target (nuke silo, bomber base, or coastal sub base), then you're at ground zero. Of course, DC's on the list. But if you think the president will be wiped out, unfortunately, he'll be safe. The next wave takes out secondary military targets such as other military bases, manufacturing plants and logistics facilities. Now tell me how does this tie to Y2K?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 17, 1999.

Maria... what does this have to do with Y2K? Well, if Slick Willy sells us down the river, we may never have to worry about all our Y2K preparations. And he's selling us, hard and fast.

Any one have ideas as to WHY???

-- Disgusted With Willy (Dis@gusted.com), May 17, 1999.

Roland; It seems everyone didn't actually answer your simple question. For my 2 cents worth; I would say if the nukes are above 25 megatons anything within a diameter of 100 miles will be demolished.

If that would be true,then any major city will be a ground-zero target.

Besides Washington DC, Philadelphia Ship yards and Norfolk,VA Ft Benning GA and the First Airborne Division, ninety miles west of Milwaukee,Wisc to include Chicago, Ill. And ground -zero for Florida is between Tampa Int Airport and Mac Dill Airforce base,which will also get Miami, Fl. A airblast 1 mile above the Pacific Ocean and 5 miles west of LA,Calif.

Those would be a guess but then who knows, only the guy who presses the button ???

Furie...

-- Furie (furieart@dnet.net), May 17, 1999.

Most likely? If it is a terrorist strike they will only have one weapon, possibly two. New York City would do the most damage to us economically, Washington D.C. would decapitate our government. Choices, choices.

If the Russians and Chinese hit us under our current no response policy the obvious intention would be to totally devastate this country. Every military base and every city in this country with industrial capability and a population over 30,000 would be hit. Think about it. They have over 10,000 warheads to throw in the first strike, with half that or more remaining as a reserve. Get a map of the United States and draw 10,000 dots on it.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 17, 1999.

Let's think about this all for a moment folks

1)What purpose does it serve for anyone to launch all their missiles at us? NONE. There is not one damn thing to gain from us being blown off the map. To effectively take us out, the number of missiles used would create such an amount of fallout not one person on this planet would be safe

2)You all assume the missiles would get through. Sure, some would, but let's not forget about our defense system, we do have some folks

3)If it is a Y2K caused launch, have you considered the number of steps to a missile launching? Every single step would have to malfunction to a default of "launch"...ain't gonna happen folks.

A)Missiles have to be fuled i)Fuel pumps would have to work ii)Fuel would have to be aviable B)Doors have to open C)Missile has to accept coordinates D)Missile has to clear silo E)Nuke has to arm which happens POST silo

And these are just the steps I can think of off the top of my head!

4)all though this relates to what I said above, what good does a wasteland USA serve the world? No resources to take...a huge portion of the world would have to be avoided...couldn't even get a good slave labor force...it serves ZERO purpose to destory us

Could all you conspiracy folks get together please. If the NWO is controlling the world and building camps here already, why would the NWO bother if nukes were coming? *hum* tough one huh?

-- Lordy (youfolks@aresick.com), May 18, 1999.

BULLSHIT lordy,,

Over and over again this nuc winter crap. It goes back to "they" don't wanna play monopoly no more.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 18, 1999.

Roland,

I'm guessing a full scale launch, (see Nikoli answer). Europe would tremble, middle east would fuel them, we would be armed bands of guerilla's. And No they really don't need our food. There goes the what about the fallout whiners.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 18, 1999.

R Wright,

Let me see if I got this straight.

Our sattilites will see the launch. Our radars will see the missles. And we will wait with baited breath for the mushroom clouds to form? LOL

Our silos will be empty and the boomers will launch, no missle defence is 100%, and cruise missles are hard to knock down. Let's also not forget the weapons we have deployed in other countrys. It's a no win situation for all.

I never have bought into the nuclear winter thing, but if you churn enough ground with nukes, you will raise the back ground count, you will destroy enough infrastructure, and the human race could be killed off or sent back to 1st grade. I take no comfort in Russia explodeing 30,000 small nukes as a defence, it just adds to the problem.

Someone might think they can take out a US city and tell us to grab our ankles. Japan thought that a few years ago.

Oh,, the detargeting and no launch on warning is strictly political warm fuzzy, nothings changed. It still takes 5 min. to spinem up and retarget, you don't have to fuel them, they are solid fuel. The subs work just like they usta. If you can get 4 or 5 guys to agree to launch, you open the safes, get the keys, and launch. The codes are just for verification, each sub captian owns the missles if they are cut off,,EWO's.,, same for the silos, missle cruisers, and alert bombers.

Reminds me of two guys in the basement, with a propane leak. one guy has an AK47, and the other has a 22 pistol.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 18, 1999.

CT,

IMHO, nukes were not made for defense, only offense. There won't be any blackmail attempts from them.

"Our sattilites will see the launch. Our radars will see the missles. And we will wait with baited breath for the mushroom clouds to form? LOL"

Our sats see the launch, take out about 10%, woops out of time. I do not believe in mad. We (NATO) want to do business in the world, we want to keep that environment consumer friendly. They (antiNATO) don't need our rescources, they need NATO on their knees. That won't happen with blackmail, only fullscale launch.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 18, 1999.

LORDY,

A Y2K caused launch only needs two things. First, it needs standing orders for launch on loss of communications. Second, it needs a comm failure with data that suggests hostile action. All it has to do is suggest hostile action. There have been quotes from Janes that suggest that the standing orders are in place in the Former Soviet Union. All of those other failures or not only mean that the shots may or may not go.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 18, 1999.

Aparently nobody bothered to click through so here it is.

Anyway the fallout maps you see at gun shows and in books are totally useless because they are very outdated. They show missile fields that haven't been there for over a decade, etc. There is a book you can purchase from the Government Printing Office, it is a little more up to date, very detailed, about 2" thick, can't remember the name, I own it, I've read it, I wouldn't bother with it. Just figure it out for your self. The Russians have NEVER targeted cities per se. Their targeting priorities have been as follows, 1. Command and control centers. 2.What can hurt them within a few minutes (missile silos and other platforms{subs}) 3. What can hurt them within a few hours (bombers) 4. What can hurt them in a few days (land based stuff in Europe, etc. and support for 2&3) 5. What can hurt them in a few weeks (land based stuff in the US) 6. What can hurt them in a few months (the US infrastucture,oil, electric and communications) 7. What can hurt them in several years (US people) Now please do understand that flight #432 from Boston to Albany is considered a troop carrier with a flashy plant job.

That said, remember that ground bursts are only useful for hardened targets like #1 and #2. Otherwise they are a waste of kilotonnage since the #2, 3, & 4 of the 4 damage rings are smaller the lower the height of burst.

Remember, in reality the only reasons to target cities is for terrorism. Maria is right.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 18, 1999.

Furie - " Roland; It seems everyone didn't actually answer your simple question. For my 2 cents worth; I would say if the nukes are above 25 megatons anything within a diameter of 100 miles will be demolished. If that would be true,then any major city will be a ground-zero target."

Well it is not true for two reasons. 1 - If you explode a 20Mt warhead at optimum burst height to maximize the damage, at a diameter of 35 miles you'll be able to break windows. To break most windows at 75 miles you'ld need a 160 Mt bomb. 2 - 20 and 5 Mt warheads were only on the old bear and bison bombers. Warheads have a shelf life and these have been replaced year ago with more useful (due to improved guidance) sub-megaton warheads.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kenseger/surv/BLASTFND.TXT

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 18, 1999.

Ken, where did you get your experience? Or can you say?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 18, 1999.

Maria - All of the information (with a few exceptions) that I have posted comes from readily available public sources. The greatest source is your friendly Government Printing Office, NOTA (National Office of Technological Assesement - can't remember it's new name), FEMA, etc. Please note that many GPO's will give you, "I'm sorry that publication is restricted", BS, so you just ask them to talk to their supervisor. If that doesn't work call a different location, you'll get what you want.

Additional information comes from TACDA publications (The American Civil Defense Assoc.) particularily their Journal which used to be big and came out more frequently, read the last decade or so of that. TACDA's annual meeting is a great source of info, particularily just hanging around between sessions when you can chat with people like Marcel Barbier, Edward Teller, Jane Orient, Cresson Kearney, Ed York, Art Robinson, etc. You'll learn all sorts of interesting things there. DDP (Doctors for Disaster Preparedness) annual meeting and newsletters are great too.

Now plowing through publications like The Effects of Nuclear Waepons, 3rd edition, edited by Glasstone isn't light reading, but if you want the facts, tha's where they are. That book is fabulous since it also includes several circular "slide rules" that allow you to calculate all sorts of weapons effects (prompt radiation, dynamic pressure, over pressure, wind speed, thermal intensity) for different sized weapons, at different HOB (height of burst), as well as radiation decay and exposure, etc.

It's all there, you just have to want to look for it and not minding when you find it.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 18, 1999.

I haven't read that NWE document you reference but I used to do this stuff for a living. Just wondering when it became unclassified.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 18, 1999.

Well, to get back to the hypothetical CITIES question ...

Anywhere theres a high concentration of military types and their bases or known politicians.

Potential gifts from China & North Korea ... for the level one West Coast post-toasties cities list ...

 Silicon Valley & San Francisco ... *Big Sigh*
 The communications capital of the world ... Los Angeles
 Seattle
 Portland

For the mid-U.S. ...

 Colorado ... anywhere close to NORAD
 New Mexico for the hidden stuff
 Kansas City, just because
 Chicago
 Dallas, Houston & Austin, TX
 New Orleans

Gifts from Russia & any other p-od nuclear country from the other side of the pond ... level one for the East Coast post-toasties league ...

 Washington DeeCee, natch
 New York City
 Boston
 Atlanta, as silicon south-ish
 Miami

Also ... from the terrorist groups a.k.a. the suitcase brigade ... any of the rest of the 120 cities ... if anythings still left.

*Major Sigh*

Diane

(BTW, watch the Atomic Train movie ... sobering. Then weed your garden and either pray and/or meditate).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Diane, did you come up with this list though meditation or pray? We know you know nothing about the military, so it doesn't come from expertise.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 18, 1999.

Maria, a little tool to help you plan your visits to the forum here. De nada.

-- Lisa (Lisa@work.now), May 18, 1999.

Egad... Look, the thread question is "Which Cities are Likely Nuclear Targets??" It is a trick question since the answer is none. Washington D.C. excepted as it is a command and control center. With the exception of terrorism cities are not targeted, military sites are targeted.

Lisa - To quote Arty Johnson of "german soldier" fame of Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, "Vedy inderrestink, buut schtupid". Try harder next, you can do better than that surely?

Diane - I'm very disapointed, "Atomic Train"? My son didn't find it sobering, he found it humorous. Ditto Broken Arrow. Maybe humorous is not quite the right word, how about pathetic?

Are we going to start teaching science based on movies? (of course sometimes it seems like we are basing economic, military, and foriegn policy on them...) So what's next? Nuclear physics from On The Beach? Intro to Biology from Godzilla? Advanced Animal behavior from King Kong? Astrophysics from Plan 9 From Outer Space? Aquatic Zoology from Voyage to the Bottem of the Sea? Electrical circuitry 101 from The Forbidden Planet?

Maria? Are you there? Help, help, I'm drowning........

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 18, 1999.

Ken,

It's probably why Hollywood would be a "hot" target. ;-D

BTW, watch the last part of the movie ... where the nuclear bomb blows up and observe the impact of same ... then extrapolate to your area ... and see if it causes you "concerns."

Maria,

Neither ... I came up with it by typing and *thinking* about the original question.

Also *why* would you ever think I'd WANT to be in the military? (As you once implied on another thread.)

One can watch and observe, or serve ... as they choose ... and develop a *different* expertise from either perspective.

I don't pretend an expertise in the military. I do, however, have a certain time-tested expertise in online research. And, like many, I'm curious.

Especially now. Got a problem with that?

Then it's *your* problem.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 18, 1999.

Diane - "It's probably why Hollywood would be a "hot" target. ;-D"

Cute! Clever! I like it!

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 18, 1999.

Diane, I never thought or implied you would WANT to be in the military. You make your own life choices. I really don't care one way or the other. My problem lies with your inability to see past your self acclaimed capabilities and call me clueless.

I just don't understand why you keep on "researching" the web sites for military stuff trying to fit another piece of the puzzle "...and develop a *different* expertise from either perspective" Face it Diane, "watching and observing" doesn't even come close to playing the game. My hands-on experience has more clues than any perspective you may have. Having "a certain time-tested expertise in online research. And, like many, I'm curious" doesn't give you more knowledge than my experience with strategic planning and nuclear weapons effects.

You obviously didn't read my posts above. The Russians don't want to attack cities with hugh populations. Think a little more about it Diane; don't just type up the words. That's not the objective of war, Diane. Tell me, in all your research where does it say that the objective is to kill people. Military targets are primarily military capabilities. Killing people is a very unfortunate by-product. In earlier times, people were the military capabilities, carrying the guns and swords. Today's weapons have taken the person out of the equation. Do some more research Diane, you haven't Got It yet.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 18, 1999.

Maria,

The Russians and the Chineese are firm believers in de-moralizing the enemy. Russia and China would not hesitate to bomb populated cities to bring quick victory to a war. Compared to Russia the U.S is a babe in the woods when it comes to war. The United States worries just a little too much about playing nice when it comes to war, but even the United States bombed populated cities to bring about an end to the war with Japan.

-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), May 18, 1999.

Questions to answer ( no, I'm not deiter : )

Where do we keep our millitary?

Where do we keep our industry?

Where do we keep our power plants, and switching?

Where are the communication hubs?

Where are the shipping hubs/ports?

Answers ( multiple choice )

A.. In citys

B..Near citys

C.. All the above

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 18, 1999.

Well at this point in the thread it seems obvious that anything that Maria or I say or re-say has zero impact on people that are devoutly attached to Hollywood's version of the military. Might I suggest (talking to an empty room here) that people research what the Russians themselves say are their targets. There are plenty of retired Soviet generals that give book interviews and TV interviews that confirm what Maria and I have been trying to tell you.

Just for fun; CT - you need to add D. off in the countryside also your targeting of industrial sites, power, hubs, etc. is WAY down on the list of targets. Diane - N. Korea? They have yet to prove they have "the bomb" and their missiles currently can not hit the lower 48 in design or practice. They can hit Alaska by design, but not by practice, though how long it will take them to debug their latest is anybody's guess. Chicago? An inland coast guard station? But not St. Louis with Boeing/McDonell-Douglas here? Aw, I feel left out... sigh.. whimper.... :)

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 19, 1999.

Ken. What you and Maria are saying may have been doctrine during a NORMAL scenario, but with Y2K in the picture that is completely out the window. Now the whole supposition here is that the russians know they are going down the tubes along with the Chinese, and their nuclear capability may be offline for a very extended period of time after rollover. It is a given that the U.S. , however badly affected, is going to pull out of this first.

Given these parameters the logical thing to do would be to so utterly destroy this country as to render it incapable of cobbling together any kind of response while your own forces and economy are in a shambles. I don't see anything difficult to grasp about this, it should be self evident. It should also be self evident that the current no response until confirmation of impacts policy we are under also invites a MASSIVE first strike. They will want to make damned sure they get everything we can possibly throw back in the first hit.

No, that old Soviet target list is totally irrelevant in todays climate. It's a brave new world.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 19, 1999.

And Nikoli,

even if we now tried to change all nuke silos to respond per the old MAD days (as opposed to waiting for a first strike in order to confirm that we are indeed under attack (THANK YOU SO MUCH BILLY JEFF)) this would immediately get back to Moscow and Beijing, inviting an immediate attack. Catch 22. We are history should the Generals so desire. Lunev and others say the Russians have been planning this end-game since the 30's. I would think about returning to the UK but England and Blair will be history too.

Costa Rica sounds tempting just about now.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 19, 1999.

I notice nobody included places like St. Louis, which, if memory serves is the closest thing to a single point of failure for the phone system. Galveston, for the oil industry.

Umm, Ken, Chicago is the closest thing to one of 3 points of failure for the transportation industry(air). It's also the home of the meat processing industry. And a SERIOUS player in the economic underpinnings of America (can you say "Options") BTW IRRC 911 calls ALL go to St.Louis first and hop back (at LEAST one hop maybe two depending on the system). And of course there's Hampton-Rhodes, a double bagger (navy, arguably the largest civilian maritime harbor in the country), and, Cleveland, where torpedos are made, the Navy (and AF) get paid from, and a LARGE number of other, major, rust belt type manufactories reside and or are headquartered, plus NASA GLEN (used to be Lewis). And based on the fact that the guards were there a while ago, the Nike base is still here. (though there may be other reasons for the guards). [And NOT the park in Parma, thanks Goulardi]

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 19, 1999.

Ken, you're right.

Nik, your thoughts are only self evident to you. Don't believe in "Y2K has changed everything". The normal scenario is not out the window. And I guess we also disagree on Russian culture too.

Dian, so you think we're a babe when it comes to war. Yet you contradicted your own statement; we did bomb people following Russian and Chinese methods (your thoughts). Well, WWII was the beginning of a new way of fighting war. People have been taken out of the equation with the advent of the launcher.

Andy, have a nice day.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Chuck, why would any foreign country want to destroy industrial targets, some which you mention? Doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that they would want to take over these capabilities and reap the benefits (profits). First and foremost, destroy the capability for a country to retaliate. People are an industrial resource, not military. Keep the industry as much in tact as possible.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Diane, I never thought or implied you would WANT to be in the military. -- Maria

I stand corrected, Maria. In checking, it was your earlier comments that I recall ...

FWIW, this is what I think about the experience you bring to the Y2K table (and the military): those who can do, those who can't ... You have little (very little) hands on experience and all the research you do in a twelve month period can not come close to my years experience in the field.

Under ...

Army To Outsource Two Major Software Centers (Mission-Critical Y2K Problems?)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000m0n

This is not meant as a slam, but frankly, I take with a grain of salt, what YOU say about Y2K, and because of your avowed troll status, I also take your military comments in like manner. They are also self acclaimed capabilities, BTW, Maria.

This does not mean you dont have a military expertise. Its clear you do, at least from 10 or so years ago. Correct me if Im wrong but I believe you once indicated it was your career in the 80s. So you do operate from experience and a knowledge base. So do we all ... so do I. Its all different, but not necessary better or worse.

When I initially called you clueless long ago, I do believe it was in the context of the international Y2K situation. Thats what has stuck in your craw all these months? Right. Okay ... then in some things you are NOT clueless ... and in others you ARE. That same statement can be said of every one of us. Myself, included. Feel better?

*Try* to check and verify ... is a s good a motto to use with the newsmedia as it is with the military news.

You may not approve, as in your above statement to Ken ... Just wondering when it became unclassified, but a LOT of information and puzzle pieces ARE available in the public domain. Its a well used information gathering tactic. The CIA has created an art form out of it. The other area of high use is in corporate competitive intelligence research techniques ... which IS one of my expertise areas, Maria. But I dont expect you to just take my word on that one. If you choose, you can check the archives, for verification. (A painful thought, I know, without a search engine.)

You say ... I just don't understand why you keep on "researching" the web sites for military stuff trying to fit another piece of the puzzle "... and develop a *different* expertise from either perspective."

Well, you DONT have to understand it, Maria. Just accept, or not, that I will try to research and I will TRY to link the puzzle pieces from an outsiders perspective. As any investigative journalist would do. So do many others on this forum. You dont HAVE to like it, Maria. And we dont HAVE to stop looking or thinking or linking for that matter.

What you can DO is cogently add your assessment, preferably without cutting jabs like ... did you come up with this list though meditation or pray? We know you know nothing about the military, so it doesn't come from expertise. (Are you having a bad hair day Maria? I have them too.) What would HELP is if you back up your pronouncements with links to information where we can verify your military perspective. Problem is, you NEVER do that Maria. Why is that?

At any rate, we will, if motivated on a topic, try to find out. Its called *trying* to sort the reality from the illusion of reality.

You also say ...  "watching and observing" doesn't even come close to playing the game. My hands-on experience has more clues than any perspective you may have. Having "a certain time-tested expertise in online research. And, like many, I'm curious" doesn't give you more knowledge than my experience with strategic planning and nuclear weapons effects.

Perhaps not with nuclear weapons Maria, but I WAS trained in the area of strategic planning in a business perspective, during my Business school M.B.A. program, and in having strategic planning job responsibilities. (I was once on the board for the San Francisco chapter of the North American Society for Strategic Planners.) Direct experience and training, does lead to a certain ability ... useful, even now.

You also say ... You obviously didn't read my posts above.

Well, I did Maria. Doesnt mean they address the original question posited by the first poster ... Which Cities are Likely Nuclear Targets? Its a simple question, Maria.

Finally, Maria, you say ... That's not the objective of war, Diane. Tell me, in all your research where does it say that the objective is to kill people. Military targets are primarily military capabilities. Killing people is a very unfortunate by-product. In earlier times, people were the military capabilities, carrying the guns and swords. Today's weapons have taken the person out of the equation.

Wow, Maria! If that statement doesnt beat all.

WAR ... is about killing people who dont agree with another groups perspective. The modern military machine, of which you were a part, may like to kid themselves that war isnt about killing people ... with terms like military targets or collateral damage ... but the truth is ... it kills. (Thats a mere outsiders observation.) Just look at Kosovo, for the latest in a very long line-up.

A NUCLEAR bomb kills, Maria. A nuclear accident KILLS, Maria. And, it was the original intention of the primary design, Maria.

Are you implying we shouldnt be concerned about nuclear repercussions, Maria? With a modern military that might refer to nuked civilian causalities as damage?

*Big Sigh, Maria*

And then your all time classic Maria ... Chuck, why would any foreign country want to destroy industrial targets, some which you mention? Doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that they would want to take over these capabilities and reap the benefits (profits). First and foremost, destroy the capability for a country to retaliate. People are an industrial resource, not military. Keep the industry as much in tact as possible.

Watch the nightly news Maria. Observe Serbia, former Yugoslavia.

That is EXACTLY what our military is doing. Why do you think another country wouldnt try to do it to us?

(Shakes head in utter amazement!)

Yes, I think I get it, Maria. And then theres Y2K.

Do you at least acknowledge that we might have cause for concern? Or dont you get that one?

Diane

(BTW, Chuck ... Im trying to discourse with Maria, under the YOURDON FORUM COMPACT rules. Not easy, but Im trying.)

;-D

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Thanks for your response. Diane, you still don't get it. Military strategic planning is quite different from your Sony strategic planning. Wow if that don't beat all (shaking head is disbelief). You still don't understand.

Ok Diane I don't understand why you keep researching (as you call it) but I said nothing about liking it or not liking it. Knock yourself out.

Agree on the point about the CIA. But you my dear are no CIA, no comparison. Again intelligence for the military is different from intelligence on Sony marketing strategies.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Oops hit the button too fast. No shit, bombs kill people, in the military it's called collateral damage, that is, not the intended damage but what happened. Continue to worry about nukes. I never said you shouldn't worry about nuke. As a matter of fact, I've said that nukes are nasty things. But they have been here a long time and I'm not losing sleep over them.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Military strategic planning is quite different from your Sony strategic planning. -- Maria

Chuckles, and duh. But are potential Y2K repercussions more like military or business strategic planning? (The answer is probably ... both.)

I don't understand why you keep researching (as you call it) but I said nothing about liking it or not liking it. Knock yourself out. -- Maria

Thank you for your permission to research Maria. Some daze, Ill knock my self out ... others, Ill take a walk and sip a caffe latte, thanks.

;-D

"Agree on the point about the CIA. But you my dear are no CIA, no comparison. Again intelligence for the military is different from intelligence on Sony marketing strategies." -- Maria

LOL, Maria. No ... I try in my tiny little puter way ... and I wish I had their research budget!

However, the Yourdon forum, as a whole, does have the ability to collectively research ... Y2K issues ... to the best of our volunteer abilities. That is the *value* to be found here ... much of the time (if your wear hip boots some days or slippers on others.)

Its better than nothing, and certainly WAY more comprehensive that a happy face press release ... or SEC 10-Q! Can you at least agree with that?

Continue to worry about nukes. I never said you shouldn't worry about nuke. As a matter of fact, I've said that nukes are nasty things. But they have been here a long time and I'm not losing sleep over them. - - Maria

Ill worry about nukes at times when global tensions are mounting and next year. Otherwise, like you, I DONT loose sleep over it either. See ... we can agree on something!

If we die, well, we tried. Then its on to the next adventure. (Depending on your personal belief or knowledge system.)

Have a nice day, Maria. Really.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Nikoli - Congratulations, you and Chuck and Diane, finally made a lightbulb in my head go on. Let's go back several k (seems likes megs) to my little listing of target priorities. Priorities #1 and #2 require ground burst weapons. Ground bursts (as opposed to air-bursts) cause fallout. If priorities 1 & 2 are covered, radiation will take care of 4, 5, 6, & 7. After all every Russian that went through grade and high school has hours and hours of civil defense training, you can even purchase video tapes of their films and film strips (that's about 14 hours of material). In the US we have none. So if #s 1 & 2 are hit, I really think that, given the near total absense of knowledge of the realities of the effects of nuclear weapons or civil defense techniques, that complete and total pandemoneum would break out in the US on a vastly larger and more horrible scale than the most alarmist "pollyanna" worries about "Y2K panic". After all, this forum is not populated by dummies, yet otherwise intelligent people say things like 'a 25 Mt bomb will cause total destruction for a 100 mile radius' or things like that. People that know nothing about nukes and CD might just either commit suicide or go on a killing spree because they "know" they are going to die soon because they've watched On The Beach three times. So ignorance will take care of target priorities 4-7, unfortunately. Going along ths line of reasoning. People in areas of moderate fallout that could be saved quite easily will die because they failed to know and take just the minimum precautions. Good grief, I'm starting to sound like deJager! All we have to fear is fear itself (and a mountain of ignorance).

Also, Nik I do follow your "Y2K use it or lose it" concept. I still think (or at least hope and pray) that the Russians will wieght the risks, rewards, and costs and figure that tons of foreign aid is better than fighting. After, and I think Andy would agree, if the Russians outright controled the former US of A, could they get more or less goods and monetary assistance from a partially nuked US than they do now from us?

Chuck - that communications site that ties the east with the west is actually a good hour south of St. Louis several miles west of a town of 5,000 or so people. It is a very hardened site and would require a ground burst.

As for war's object to be killing people, if this would be the case the Soviets would have murdered all of the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians years ago. Even the Chinese didn't kill the Tibetans (well, yes they did kill all the infants and sterilize the women though, so in the long run it's the same effect). The reason the soviets killed somewhere between 20-30 million Ukranians was a disagreement over "needed farm reform".

IDSD

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 19, 1999.

If each country had only a dozen ICBMs, I think this discussion would make a lot of sense.

But considering how many thousands each side has (for the time being), I think it is realistic to expect that the last man standing by a button on what appears to be the losing side will push that button for the sake of going down swinging.

I'm not talking about Clinton or Yeltsin. I'm thinking of the submarine captain.

I don't think anywhere in the continental 48 is safe.

Maybe those concerned should be thinking about moving to Uruguay.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 19, 1999.

Ken, I hope you are right and the Soviets decided the better part of valor is disgression, but it sure looks like Billy Jeff is trying to provoke them into acting to me. It also looks like he intentionally lowered our defenses in anticipation of this moment. You add those two things together with the Chinese nuke deal and the abandonment of Korea while the buildup of Northern troops is going on and the buildup of Chinese forces opposite Taiwan and you start to see a definite pattern emerging here. I think we have a complete and utter madman in our White House, and he is planning for his legacy to be the destruction of the Planet.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 19, 1999.

Dear Nik, I've love to jump down your throat and yell that everything you say is impossible, hasn't really happened, etc., etc.

But I can't.

IDSD

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 19, 1999.

Nik, your last statement shows your state of mind. (I think we have a complete and utter madman in our White House, and he is planning for his legacy to be the destruction of the Planet) Woooooo! Nik, you're almost believable until you state this. Get a grip.

Diane, you are so liberal (war is about killing people)! Oops sorry made another remark (similar to the "meditation and pray" remark that you won't like). I have no links to the information I have. It's in my head from many discussions and classified research about nuclear war strategic planning (I had to spell this out; don't want to confuse you with business strategic planning cos it's not the same thing). I've studied the many basing options, the nuke capabilities of both sides (and China including recent events) and I have no links to this classified info. Take it or not. Since you don't have the budget of the CIA (or the training - you don't know what to look for in military matters), maybe, just maybe, you could listen to some of the info I post. (OH what am I thinking; the doomers listen to a troll????) Oh well, truce. (no, it's not a bad hair day or PMS - go back to my "jaded" thread I started from a few days ago)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Maria, that's it. You are just going to have to change your posting name. I cannot reconcile this mental image of a classic airhead blonde with that Italian Name. Might I suggest Teddy, or Bambi?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 19, 1999.

Sorry nik, can't do it. I'm typical italian, first generation (my parents were born in Italy). I agree that clinton is bad, real bad but the "destruction of the planet", come on nik.

Diane, btw, I asked Ken about the NWE document because I wrote the computer code to come up with the distance calculations, did the graphs, and used them in missile basing option studies.

So Ken where did you get the document?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 19, 1999.

Maria - Kansas City Government printing office was where I ordered my copy of the book. After first having to convince them that it was okay to sell it to me. The first edition was Atomic Weapons Effects to give you a BIG hint how long this has been around. Second edition was Nuclear Weapons Effects. My copy was the third edition and was what was around in the early 1980's. Since everything has gotten smaller since then I doubt they'll bother with a 4th edition. Editor's name was Glasstone. It was reviewed and highly recomended in the TACDA Journal in the early 1980's. That journal was great in its hayday. It would tell you who to write to in Switzerland to get all the design specs etc. of swiss CD systems. Interesting thing to note: there are four official languages in Switzerland; German, French, Italian, and Romanch. English ain't one of them. Guess what the CD lit. is available in though? Perhaps they were just trying to fan the flames?

FTR, I don't think Clinton is a madman or wants to destroy the planet. He's just acting like a two-bit politician that has always had things go his way. Now if only the Republicans had a highly desirable alternative....

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 19, 1999.

Thanks Ken

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 20, 1999.

Wow! What an interesting, um, discussion. Sorry I'm late, been on vacation. I sure hope whoever "bombs" us doesn't have a AAA book! :-) While passing through Montana, I read this: The nation's largest intercontinental ballistic missile complex is headquartered in Great Falls, Montana. Who knew? All of those people who bugged out to Montana due to Y2K..... oh, dear! ;-)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), May 26, 1999.

About 10 years ago I heard that the Soviets had enough warheads to pave every American city above pop. 7000 into a glass parking lot, screaming with radioactive counts for hundreds of years. Don't know if they still have this much megatonnage. I don't know if they'd attack all-out or first "only" take out the SAC bases in the Dakotas and the command&control centers in DC, NY, Virginia, and Maryland. I don't know how many nukes would stray off course, whether by inate design flaw or by FUBARage from the EMPs of the first nukes to hit the ground. The aftermath, even after a few dozen hits, would be devastating and would utterly destroy our prosperity and health for generations. Even if the Chinese struck the WEst Coast we'd be toast.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), May 26, 1999.

At least one of them! I can't wait! Neither can you guys really. You know I'm correct!

-- jon (fletcher@family-net.net), October 25, 2000.

First of all attacking silos with missles is out of the question. They will all be empty by the time the missles hit. So you'd likely just want to crush the major metropolitan centers, as well as any above ground millitary installation. I have a feeling though that the EMP aspect would be more useful, because from what I understand the US isn't really well shielded against such things, as compared to the bulky but EMP shielded Russian equipment.

-- J (bionicpill@death-star.com), January 14, 2001.

I think, although the Russians are a poor country and aren't doing so well nowadays, they still have the power to "nuke" us all, I'm not too sure which cities are most at risks, probably Washington D.C., and some on the west coast. In Canada I'd say Ottawa and Vancouver. UK, London, some where in Ireland, Liverpool etc, France would be Paris and Nice. etc etc, the list goes on and on. If Russians or Chinese did have the power to do that though, they would have probably done it already

Thank you for your time, Guine, Canada

-- Guinephr Siobhan Sinton (mascariantavous@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001.

I thank the most Nuclear target city is D.C because our presadent lives there! I mean if i was in a war with U.S I would go for the presadent. love jenny. bbbyyyeee

-- Jenny lively (inspgadget 74020 @yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

Roland, That's a disturbing question. It will seem like it hit home where ever it hit. The Sept. 11 terrorists seemed to hit my own home but I don't live in NYC. Some say they hope it will land on them because if it happens the world won't be fit to live in. I grew up in Detroit area and some say that area is a target because of the auto industry which would be converted to making war machinery as it was in WW1 and WW2 when they built tanks there. They could blow up OPEC shipping exporting ports because without oil we are crippled. I think nuclear bombs have made war obsolete. Since the war could easily escalate, it's like dropping one on yourself no matter where it goes off. The better question to ask might be where will my soul be when it goes off?

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), January 26, 2002.

aside from NY and DC, id say detroit because of the nuclear power plant, the auto industry, the air force base, to former tank factory, the water supply, and the proximity to canada

-- *** ****** (__@____.com), May 27, 2002.

Well first of all we wouldn't have to worry about this problem if Eienstien hadn't invented the Atom Bomb! I think if there was nuculer war they would bomb New Mexico! To be spacific Los Alamos, because they have labortories where they test chemicals. Also because they hold the most classified information about nukes. They also have sattilites that give Nato information. If anyone were to nuke us it would be Russia,because they sarted communisim!

-- ************* (ant_20072002@yahoo.com), June 20, 2002.

Folks,

I have some of the LATEST government documents from FEMA regarding nuclear war survival...ONLINE, on SurvivalRing. Granted it is dated as late as 1990, but that is the LAST of the info that FEMA and the federal government put out for we "civilians". Such things as PREPAREDNESS PLANNING FOR A NUCLEAR CRISIS, hundreds of pages of fallout shelter plans, going back as far as 1959, air raid shelter info from 1941, shelter in new homes from 1976, and much more are FREE to download.

Go here to get them....

http://www.survivalring.org

Richard Fleetwood Founder - SurvivalRing

By the way, just finished a CD Rom with over 630 MEGABYTES of this stuff....

-- Richard Fleetwood (rafleet@aol.com), September 16, 2002.

-- you made bad codes, i break them (please@broken.com), September 16, 2002.