<dials 911> "Hello? I'd like to report a fire. No, it hasn't started yet, but..."<br><br>I've just a few moments before I dash out the door again, but here's my take - and no offense is intended to anyone, so please read with that in mind:<br><br>1. I must agree about the "nuclear winter" comment - that's really, really bad science - in fact, it's so bad, I hate using the word "science" in the same sentence with "nuclear winter". A big enough exchange MIGHT alter some weather temporarily - weeks, months, a few years. Or might not. "Nuclear winter"? Hah! If anyone wishes to argue this, come armed with facts, please, not hype, and not "so-and-so with a personal agenda says it, so it's a fact" Puuleeeze! Be Jack Friday - "Just the facts, ma'am."<br><br>2. A massive all-out nuclear weapons attack on the USA is very unlikely - sorry to disappoint the TEOTWAWKI fans of that scenario. Familiar with the triad? It has worked for longer than anything else in history. The nuclear genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Wishing nukes away will NOT make it happen, no matter how many politicians in how many countries sign how many documents - get real. Going below a certain level (no one knows for a fact where that is) is not safe. Cripple the strike capability, remove one or more of the legs of deterance, and that will sooner or later guarantee a massive strike made on the USA. <br><br>Of course, most of what I write here in paragraph 2 is not a "fact" - it is at least partially debatable - but I suggest starting from a well-grounded basis in history, current events, some understanding of at least most of the major cultures in the world, geo-political realities - the whole "7 elements of national power" - current events beyond the pap dished out in "popular media", hard science, etc. before smacking the keys. Arguing from ignorance is such a waste of time... and this is a darned complicated topic.<br><br>3. Some of us (I suspect BeachDoc is one) have known for many many years of the very real possibility of a nuclear explosive device being used as a "terrorist" device. Specifically, but not exclusively, the possibility of it happening to the USA. Some of us have become aware of that since 9-11-01, but this is not "news" - it's merely being deemed "newsworthy" for the moment by the fickle and self-serving "media gods" (advance apologies to respectable media-types reading this). This is where the topic of "post-nuclear" should get interesting for this forum, I think.<br><br>What are the odds? I don't know. High enough to at least think about; not high enough to lose sleep over. MOST likely targets MIGHT be major ports and cities with arriving flights from overseas locations. My guess is that if you live in Bennet, Iowa, don't dwell on it. LA? NYC? Houston? Chicago? Places downwind of them? Give it a little thought, at least. What would you do? Could you do anything? If so, make reasonable plans and preparations, then get on with life.<br><br>I live in a place that COULD be a target, but probably is not. I gave it enough thought years ago (and to be honest, updated after 9-11-01) to come to reason and deal with it. I would be very interested in hearing others thoughts on the matter as it applies/may apply to them. I think it is germane to the "Urban Survival" line of discussion.<br><br>Just my 2 cents worth.<br><br>Tom