Louisville and Omaha deemed a bigger terrorist target

moe.ron · #1 07-08-2007, 01:37 AM

Then New York City.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070708/...errorism_funds

Ok then.

DeltAlum · #2 07-08-2007, 11:55 AM

I'll feel a lot safer the next time I drive through Omaha.

AlphaSigOU · #3 07-08-2007, 12:38 PM

Hey... don't forget that Omaha is headquarters for U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). Can't let the bastion of 'nu-cu-lar' command and control (and the home of Omaha Steaks) be stiffed in the handing out of homeland security funding!

RACooper · #4 07-08-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moe.ron

Then New York City.

Ok then.

No offense but if I was planning a terrorist attack I'd pick the secondary cities without the same level of anti-terrorist security - afterall the point of a terror campaign is to shock and terrorize the population, and hitting the "quiet" and "safe" populations centres would certainly accomplish that.

Tom Earp · #5 07-08-2007, 01:29 PM

That is becuase you are and why?

True, but we do not need to give ideas to some of these morons!

Just leave My little City alone!

Oh, the SAC Base is deep down and Bomb proof! B Neb!

Missouri was one of the biggest Silo Based of ICBMs, they are gone now, so buy a Silo, they are for sale! LOL!

Loose lips sink ships!

#6 07-08-2007, 01:52 PM

Part of this too could be that an attack at a city like Omaha would really inspire fear amongst the majority of Americans that DON'T live their lives in big cities. I know that when 9/11 went down I was living in a college town of 40,000 people in Texas. So while it scared me and upset me, I've always considered myself safe. I had the same feelings living in South Dakota about an hour north of Omaha. If a city like Omaha, Kansas City, Louisville, Waco, Sioux City, Des Moines were to be hit by a terrorist attack, it would change my perspective on how safe I am.

Having said that, what about the idea that NYC after 9/11 has seen a bolstering of its anti-terrorism infrastructure and there's not the need for continued high levels of funding?

neosoul · #7 07-08-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

Part of this too could be that an attack at a city like Omaha would really inspire fear amongst the majority of Americans that DON'T live their lives in big cities. I know that when 9/11 went down I was living in a college town of 40,000 people in Texas. So while it scared me and upset me, I've always considered myself safe. I had the same feelings living in South Dakota about an hour north of Omaha. If a city like Omaha, Kansas City, Louisville, Waco, Sioux City, Des Moines were to be hit by a terrorist attack, it would change my perspective on how safe I am.

the US gov't at its best: fear mongering...

bluefish81 · #8 07-08-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigOU

(and the home of Omaha Steaks)

I bet the reason for the increased budget is the steaks. It's the reason I moved here.

Rudey · #9 07-08-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

Part of this too could be that an attack at a city like Omaha would really inspire fear amongst the majority of Americans that DON'T live their lives in big cities. I know that when 9/11 went down I was living in a college town of 40,000 people in Texas. So while it scared me and upset me, I've always considered myself safe. I had the same feelings living in South Dakota about an hour north of Omaha. If a city like Omaha, Kansas City, Louisville, Waco, Sioux City, Des Moines were to be hit by a terrorist attack, it would change my perspective on how safe I am.

Having said that, what about the idea that NYC after 9/11 has seen a bolstering of its anti-terrorism infrastructure and there's not the need for continued high levels of funding?

Ummm no.

-Rudey

DeltAlum · #10 07-09-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaSigOU

Hey... don't forget that Omaha is headquarters for U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM). Can't let the bastion of 'nu-cu-lar' command and control (and the home of Omaha Steaks) be stiffed in the handing out of homeland security funding!

That's really about half way between Omaha and Lincoln at Offut AFB isn't it?

As for picking the smaller targets, that may make some sense from a military standpoint, but not from a PR angle.

RACooper · #11 07-09-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

As for picking the smaller targets, that may make some sense from a military standpoint, but not from a PR angle.

True - the public reaction of hitting a high-profile or value target is also a strategic consideration in a terror campaign... but it depends on what the goal of the terror campaign is: to erode public support for a government's policies through fear, to provoke a "hard" response and escalation of the underlying conflict, to achieve specific goals through the elimination of specific targets, or just to inflict terror through atrocity without any long term goal.

Tom Earp · #12 07-09-2007, 03:16 PM

Offut is South Omaha!

Steaks, oh heck yes, Omaha Steaks via on line!

ForeverRoses · #13 07-09-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

Part of this too could be that an attack at a city like Omaha would really inspire fear amongst the majority of Americans that DON'T live their lives in big cities. I know that when 9/11 went down I was living in a college town of 40,000 people in Texas. So while it scared me and upset me, I've always considered myself safe. I had the same feelings living in South Dakota about an hour north of Omaha. If a city like Omaha, Kansas City, Louisville, Waco, Sioux City, Des Moines were to be hit by a terrorist attack, it would change my perspective on how safe I am.

Wasn't this one of the reasons that Timothy McVey decided on Oklahoma City as his location? The idea that the middle of the country could be hit would be more terrorizing than if he hit an "expected target" like D.C.?

DeltAlum · #14 07-09-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Wasn't this one of the reasons that Timothy McVey decided on Oklahoma City as his location?

I think that's just where he happened to be closest to.

AlphaSigOU · #15 07-11-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

That is becuase you are and why?

True, but we do not need to give ideas to some of these morons!

Just leave My little City alone!

Oh, the SAC Base is deep down and Bomb proof! B Neb!

Missouri was one of the biggest Silo Based of ICBMs, they are gone now, so buy a Silo, they are for sale! LOL!

Loose lips sink ships!

The missile field at Whiteman AFB (351st Missile Wing) was obliterated; only one launch control facility (Oscar-01) remains preserved, since it was the only LCF within the boundaries of an air force base - Whiteman. The aboveground launch control facilities and launch facilities - LFs, or silos - were sold at auction, with the government stipulating that one could not dig anywhere three feet or deeper below the property. The silos and underground LCCs were stripped of equipment and missiles before being blown up.

They used to offer tours of Oscar-One at Whiteman before 9-11 if it was requested in advance. If you want to tour a Minuteman LF/LCF, there's the Minuteman National Historical Park outside of Wall, South Dakota. (Free ice water at Wall Drug!)

Just south of Tucson is Titan II LF/LCF 374-7, now the Titan Missile Museum.

Only Minot, F.E. Warren and Malmstrom air force bases still have an ICBM presence. (American Siberia...

)

http://www.nps.gov/mimi/ - Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
http://www.pimaair.org/index.php?opt...d=39&Itemid=51 - Titan Missile Museum
http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123059012 - Oscar-01