For many living anywhere else would be a choice that also hurt their chances of survival. Deciding to do a lot of things risks your survival. Deciding not to do many of those things would be choosing to survive, and lesson the living you did while alive. And leaving in fear, that's simply not my game, and that is what certain terrorists would want me to do.

The Nuclear clock is now about 3-5 minutes til midnight.

I'm still much more worried about drunk drivers than I am Al Quaeda and any nukes.

Fear and the public's reaction to that fear is a much bigger threat than any nuke.

I've said this many times before: Al Quaeda in reality doesn't have to lift another finger against us to do damage and disrupt the US.

All they have to do is say "boo" and we'll take care of the rest. We (as a nation) will whip ourselves into a tizzy.

When the public goes bonkers, there's very little that can be done except get out of the way and that may not be an option.

One stray bullet fired in the air blocks away, or a misdirected Molotov cocktail, and most of the emergency preps are out the window.

I fear us much more than I fear Al Quaeda.

I fear terrorists, if not specifically Al Qaeda. Sooner or later one will strike, here. Unless it is something that results in massive damge, it will be forgotten in 20 years. Few in New York remember the LaGuardia bombing of 1975. Very few know anything about the Wall Street Bombing of September 16, 1920.

But, I fear us more. I fear natural disaster followed by unprepared, and soon unruly, Americans.

These "experts" are fools.

Anything brought up during the Dem or Rep debates is just someone shooting off his mouth in front of a reporter.

Our politicians are more dangerous than any delivered-by-hand-because-that's-all-they-have nuclear bomb. They've screwed up the whole world -- how can some Middle-eastern bozo beat that?

Someone probably just bought stock in a bomb shelter company...

Sue

Its interesting that Americans were suddenly thrust into a new world of terrorism on Sept. 11, 2001. The truth is the world had been like that for a long, long time, people just raised their heads and noticed it for a few minutes. World War I was started by anarchist terrorists. In 1919 a series of mail bombs in Gimbles Department store packages exploded around the country. Including bombs targeting senators and supreme court justices. Europe has been dealing with terrorist attacks nearly continuously since then, including attacks from the PLO, Red Brigade and IRA. American embassies and marine barracks were bombed. But on September, 11 the world changed. Of course it didn't we just noticed it, but only for a few minutes. By now its mostly forgotten.

At the same time, I'm not particularly afraid of terrorists. On Sept. 11 millions of people were working in office buildings around the country and approximately 3000 were killed. Millions of people flew in commercial aircraft and a few hundred were killed. It was a tremendous tragedy for those people and there families. But we need to keep the threat in proportion and not let fear run away with rational thought. I still fly commercial (although I am getting annoyed by the ramped up pettiness of security) and I'll still visit New York, Chicago and San Francisco when I get a chance. The threat just isn't big enough to warrant hiding out in the sticks.

What scares me is that all our current crop of politicians are just stuffed shirts without any solid leadership or ideas. But that's far too political for this board. What we can talk about though is threat assessments and what is and isn't worth worrying about. Right now nuclear weapons don't really make the list.

I guess that includes a "dirty bomb" - and there's no time-table, so yah, sure; 30% chance of a dirty bomb device in the next 100 years sounds feasible.

There's a free DVD movie dedicated to raising political awareness on the subject. "Last Best Chance" is an educational DVD that dramatizes the modern nuclear threat of international terrorist organizations, produced by the Nuclear Threat Initiative. The DVD is freely available through the NTI-supported website. The film stars Fred Thompson as President of the United States.: http://www.lastbestchance.org/

C-SPAN has aired a few intersting broadcasts on the subject that are available for online viewing:
On 07/18/2006 Undersecretary Joseph talked about the threat of nuclear terrorism - Topics included record of accomplishment, national strategy, network of partner nations, and transforming our diplomacy. He responded to questions from members of the audience: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/in...ighlight=threat

Joseph Cirincione is another good source who has been featured on CSPAN and has a few good books on the subject: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3756009759863502593&q=Joseph+Cirincione+cspan&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

There are many other "experts" on WMD avialable by books/online video like Hans Blicks, Graham Allison, etc... the threats real but very difficult to assess by the average Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker...

The nuclear threat is unlikely, but if it happens extremely devastating. If you look at the clean up that resuled from the poisoning for Alexander Litvinenko, see: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/30/news/spy.php, nuclear material can get spread easily once released. A dirty bomb in an area with a lot people, can have those people spreading a lot of radiation. So while the probability is low, what is at risk is a lot. With a nuclear explosion, what is at risk is even higher, but the probability is also probably lower.

An attack by a lone gunman or suicide bomber is much easier to pull off, and probably more likely. It's happened a number of times, and it is likely ot happen again. Usually, it's one of our own going off the deep end and creating havoc and carnage. Sooner or later, it may be used by Al Qaeda or a group like it. But I see anyone doing it as a terrorist, the reasons behind the attack differ, but little else does.

You could look at any kind of attack by thinking of both probability and the amount that is at risk. If you were going to calculate risk, you would use both the probability and the risk entailed when deciding what to guard against.

It seems to me that many people do not want to think about such risks, and in order to not think about them, they also choose not to think about preparing.

This board is full of people who think about risks. If you have something you've called and EDC, you think about risk. If you have a BOB, you think about risk. If you maintain a first aid kit, you think about risk.

If you have no water stored, no food stored, no way of keeoping yourself and your family warm and sheltered, not back ups of any type whatsover, then you do not like thinking about risk, and that would put you in the category with many others.

Uh… that was rather uncalled for and quite a bit over the top… especially from someone who only has three posts on this board so far. (Add to the fact that now two out of your three posts seem unnecessarily sarcastic, and that means you only have one mildly constructive post.)

I suggest sticking around for a while and getting to know the people you are among before shooting your mouth off with rude comments about them.