| Replaced_Texan |
07-18-2007 07:29 PM |
Houston? We have a problem.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One of these cities is not like the others -- one of these cities just doesn't belong.
- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area today as one of the six urban areas in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks, as it doled out nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants. . . .
The Department of Homeland Security had been criticized in the past by officials from large cities who argued that the government was not living up to promises that it would focus heavily on the risks cities face.
Today, the agency gave 55 percent of the grants to six urban areas --
the Bay Area, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York/New Jersey and Houston.
SF Gate
Houston? If you need a sixth city, I would think Detroit would be more at risk.
|
The auto industry is more important than the oil industry and the second largest port in the US?
ETA:
In 1947, my father was in elementary school in Pt. Arthur, Texas. A ship in Texas City, Texas full of fertilizer blew up, killing 518 people. That explosion sent shockwaves that burst the windows in my father's classroom 100 miles away. See map for idea of distances. And read the Texas City wiki that terrorists probably masturbate to. People compared the explosion to atomic bombs and earthquakes.
If you're a terrorist, you want to go for a big, dramatic bang that no one is going to ignore. And you're going to go for massive impact that lasts a lot longer than just the initial bomb going off. Hitting downtown Houston with a dirty bomb or whatever would only accomplish the first. Blowing up a few oil tankers and refineries in Galveston Bay and the Port of Houston would shut down a good hunk of shipping in the country, cripple an already weakened energy infrastructure, and yeah, cost a lot of lives, including probably mine. That NASA is right in Clear Lake, not too far from the refineries in Pasadena, would just be the icing on the cake. |
