Yep, my city's just been nuked and darn, I've run out of toilet paper...that will certainly be at the forefront of people's worries. (end/sarcasm)
Reminds me of all the hype before Y2K
Makes sense that the author is a former legislator. Politicians have no clue what a good policy is, they only know politics. Stockpiling food is not the way to deal with nuclear terror. The way to deal with nuclear terror is surveillance, border control, and detection.
He forgot to mention beer,Jim Beam and smokes...he doesn't know what he's talkin aboot.
The towel heads are just too incompetent to pull it off. Getting a nuke, maintaining a nuke, smuggling and maintaing the nuke into the US, concealing the nuke and maintenancing the nuke in concealment, hiding the nuke from US NEST is too much for the IBM crew to deal with. It isn't going to happen, ever.
Hump Day blues?
For those that are taking this B/S seriously, a tip. Learn which leaves and grasses are non-toxic to the rectum and forget about toilet paper.
It will be hard, if not impossible, to tote large boxes of toilet paper on your trek through the nuclear wilderness, and taking a dump will be the last concern on your mind.
the fact is , everyone should have some backup. Localized disaster happens every day, someday something big could happen.
Counting on the government or some aid agency to bail you out is pretty lame.
He also swears he's not trying to sell a book because, as we all know, it's a law that if you have information critical to the survival of the republic, it can only be disseminated through Barnes and Noble.
'We have to be ready for everything' - a reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security
usatoday ^
Michael Chertoff is overseeing a sweeping reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security. Among his many challenges: Improving airport screening, protecting the borders, guarding "soft targets" such as subways. Chertoff discussed these and other issues Tuesday with USA TODAY editors and reporters. His comments were edited for length and clarity.
Question: We now have at least two models for al-Qaeda attacks on the West - a large-scale hit intent on killing thousands and a smaller version, as represented by London. How do you see the al-Qaeda threat today?
Answer: Al-Qaeda always had a core base of people who pledged allegiance directly to Osama bin Laden and who always took directions from him. And then there were always groups who were affiliated and associated but didn't take direct discipline from al-Qaeda. I think that bin Laden, even if you go back to the late '90s, supported a broad range of like-minded organizations where you didn't have the same command and control. One of the challenges is to identify not only the large-scale terrorist plot, which will tend to have a bigger signature - meaning we have a better opportunity to pick it up using intelligence methods - but the smaller-scale thing, conducted by an affiliate or an associate, or even a like-minded group, that has a low signature that may not be at the scale of a 9/11. That being the case, smaller attacks take a shorter time horizon to plan and fewer resources, and are, therefore, difficult to detect.
Q:So how do you protect against both?
A: The short answer is that we have to be ready for everything. We have to look for the small-scale attack and address those issues with sleeper cells. But it doesn't mean we can move our eye away from the danger of a large-scale attack. Historically, al-Qaeda has wanted to cause mass casualties. And obviously, they were interested in things like biological, chemical attacks. They did work in those areas. We would be foolish if we averted our eyes from that as a potential threat, even if the likelihood of something like that in the near term is comparatively small. (Related item: Chertoff on airport security)
Q:Is there enough intelligence information to suggest which is the likelier form of attack?
A: I don't know that there is.
Q:Why do you think there has not been another major attack on American soil since 9/11, and what does that tell us about the nature of the threat?
A: We have disrupted a lot. We've disrupted overseas by taking out a significant percentage of the top leadership. We've disrupted at home by addressing sleeper cells and bringing cases against people, and sometimes they are not cases labeled "terrorist" cases. Sometimes the charges are much more garden-variety charges involving document fraud or removing people using the immigration process. We have increased our degree of surveillance at the borders. And our intelligence sharing has gotten much better. Our resolution and our determination to go forward without being intimidated have also sent a very strong signal to terrorists. But I would be the last person to say we can rest easy or that we have eliminated the threat. These terrorists operate on a very, very long time horizon. And that's why the state we are trying to get into is one that is not complacency, but not one of hyper-anxiety. Rather, one where we are mindful of the fact that there is a threat, we incorporate reasonable security measures and balance security measures into our daily life, but don't operate in a state of clenched teeth all of the time.
Q: We have a poll coming out that says three-quarters of the people believe that bin Laden is planning a new attack. Half believe he will succeed. What are your thoughts on those numbers, and what can you tell the American public about what is being done to capture or kill bin Laden?
A: Obviously, if bin Laden were captured or killed, that would be a significant accomplishment. But I think it is a mistake to personalize this. Whatever symbolic or charismatic value bin Laden has, the operations are carried out and planned and generated by a cadre of leaders underneath him. So I don't think his presence makes a huge difference in terms of the threat.
Q: Do you think random searches such as those undertaken in the New York City subways are effective? Would you recommend them for other cities?
A: I think searching, and even random searching, can have real value. You don't want to be predictable. A behaviorally oriented searching is the most effective. (Related item: Chertoff on lessons from the London attacks)
Q: One of the surprises in London was the lack of any forewarning that it was coming. And that all comes down to human intelligence. Where is the U.S. in developing such intelligence?
A: That's always a challenge. A lone wolf that wants to carry out a terrorist attack is not going to tell anybody. So there isn't a lot of human intelligence that you are going to get. This is one of the reasons that disrupting sleeper cells and going after people for training in camps is a very, very important way to keep things from happening.
Q: Are we anywhere close to being able to infiltrate some of these cells?
A: We get informants. We get people that give us information. Sometimes it's good; sometimes it's not good. We run down anything that seems remotely credible. But you can't count on that l00% of the time. You've got to use every tool that's available consistent with the law in order to give the maximum protection.
Q: In the last four years, the most horrific scenario - a nuclear attack - may be the least discussed. If there were to be a nuclear attack tomorrow by terrorists on an American city, how would it be handled?
A: In the area of a nuclear bomb, it's prevention, prevention, prevention. If a nuclear bomb goes off, you are not going to be able to protect against it. There's no city strong enough infrastructure-wise to withstand such a hit. No matter how you approach it, there'd be a huge loss of life.
Q: What about for a biological attack?
A: Bio is the opposite. It would be difficult to prevent the first onslaught of a biological attack. However, there is a huge impact that protection and response and recovery has. An appropriate mechanism that detects that an attack has occurred, coupled with an effective ability to respond, could essentially eliminate or all but eliminate loss of life. So the consequences would become very much reduced.
Q: Are you comfortable with the plans that are in place in the event of such an attack?
A: A lot of good work has been done, but we want to make sure that we have really taken the planning as far as we possibly can. We're working on it.
Q: Much of Homeland Security's mission centers on protecting our borders. What do you think the U.S. government needs to do to control the border?
A: The issue of the borders involves many more things than just keeping out individual terrorists. We have to look at the entire system. Sometimes we have a tendency to flood a lot of resources to one part of a system like the border, but then no one researches the question of what do you do when you catch the people? Just gonna let them out? That's not a useful way to apply the resources, and it's demoralizing to the people who make the apprehensions.
Q: On the two biggest issues, bioterrorism and nuclear, where does the buck stop? Who is in charge of these issues to ensure that we're doing what is necessary to protect this country?
A: What we have to do is make sure that everybody understands what everybody else is doing, that we have set of plans, that we're executing our responsibilities in a way that is consistent. And ultimately, we report to the president.
School children were taught in the early 1950's that the first line of defense against a nuke attack was to crawl under a desk and put your head between your legs. Kiss your butt goodbye was added by parents.
I am well prepared for nuclear Holocaust
I have a tiny umbrella and a little sign that says "Yikes!"
That this kook who wrote "Inside the Vatican" gets any press is an embarrassment.
The red zones will survive.
BUMP
This is just what I read a couple of weeks ago about a prophecy that Bob Jones and Joni Ames related. They saw about 30 cities hit by nuclear bombs. Quix also posted a prophecy. I would take this very seriously.
Rotate the Y2K stock, especially the double-malt and tobacco.
What is it with Farah? Does he honestly think nobody has considered this to be the next step for about a decade or more?
Joe, get some sleep will ya.
hell I won't need toliet paper.
I will have PLENTY of WorldNUTDaily articles to use instead.....