Terrorist Attack in the Future? When/Where? (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

Walking through Union Square and was having a conversation about terrorism... It actually started off as a conversation about property value by Ground Zero, financial district. I work 20 blocks from the Empire State Building, 40 blocks from the WTC, 2 blocks from Union Square, and all else that surrounds. I don't think about terrorism often, but hear and there on the subway, near landmarks, etc. it crosses my mind.

Anyways, with everything going on in the world and 9/11 being 13 years ago, one would have to assume there is some planning go on and how much our intel knows is something we could debate until the end of time.

Questions that I'm wondering on public opinion are in the poll.

ETA:

The terrorism I am talking about is a 9/11 like attack... Mass scale, highly organized terrorist group

 

[Freelove]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

 

[Parrothead]

suicide bombers in a suburban shopping mall.. gonna happen eventually- way too easy a target

 

[fantasycurse42]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

That is an interesting take, not disputing it by any means, but interesting.

 

[Sarnoff]

From what I've heard, Otis has reliable information on the next attack.

 

[Ignoramus]

Whom are you going to nuke? Would you have nuked Saudi Arabia after 9/11?

 

[17seconds]

I think you should change your date ranges.

It's kind of hard to say there will be an attack exactly 11-15 years from now.

 

[NCCommish]

Only a question of when not if. And it is just as likely to be homegrown as international IMO. Maybe more so.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I think you should change your date ranges.

It's kind of hard to say there will be an attack exactly 11-15 years from now.

Updated... So off the first 20 votes, it is imminent and within 10 years. kinda sucks.

 

[Brony]

You think the recent expansion of Five Guys Burgers was simply a rapid franchise expansion? Think again.

 

[Gawain]

I get a little nervous if I think about what could happen whenever I walk through Penn station. A few thousand people, all packed closely together.

Sporting events also seem to be a possible opportunity too I guess. Like the fella who mentioned the shopping mall...wherever people congregate there's a ripe target.

 

[Doug B]

The terrorism I am talking about is a 9/11 like attack... Mass scale, highly organized terrorist group

Since you gave this specific stipulation, I think we're a generation or two from something comparable happening. Voted "Yes", but put the time scale at "Over 50 years".

 

[Kal El]

It could easily happen, and I think another one could happen within the next 20 years, but the location is a mystery. I'm not certain one would happen at a sporting event, but it's certainly not out of the question. Neither would be an attack at a major amusement park.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The terrorism I am talking about is a 9/11 like attack... Mass scale, highly organized terrorist group

Since you gave this specific stipulation, I think we're a generation or two from something comparable happening. Voted "Yes", but put the time scale at "Over 50 years".

Over 50 years for another attack like that... Why do you feel that way? 9/11 planning wasn't even close to that in length.

 

[uwftbl]

Sadly I think it will be an athletic event. More than likely a Division 2 or 3 basketball game with a whole lot of people in a small place without a whole lot of security. Having said that, I haven't been to a D2 or D3 bb game in years and maybe I am assuming a whole lot about security.

 

[Parrothead]

World Cup?

 

[urbanhack]

Thanks Posty!

 

[jamny]

I can see it similar to the Mumbai or the Kenya Mall attack. You know they have people here already and weapons wouldn't be a problem. Something iconic like Macy's or Waldorf here in NY.

 

[Lord of the Rings]

I was in Denver on Sept. 10, 2001 for the Monday night game between the Broncos and Giants. It was the opening game of the season and the first game at the new stadium. I remember sitting there and just gawking at the 75,000+ fans packed into the stadium. I also remember not seeing a ton of security, police, etc. There were a ton of planes (pulling advertisements) and helicopters flying over us pretty much the whole game. I got home at about 4:00 in the morning after the game. 4 hours later our world changed. As I watched the coverage on T.V. of what was going on in New York, I couldn't help but think about the night before and what kind of statement would have been made by terrorists if they had taken the same planes and crashed them into our stadium that night. The losses would have been catastrophic and I don't think it would be too far fetched to say 5x worse than what happened in New York/DC/Pennsylvania. And it all would have been on National T.V. for the world to witness.

 

[Doug B]

Over 50 years for another attack like that... Why do you feel that way? 9/11 planning wasn't even close to that in length.

???

Didn't meant to imply that it took fifty years to plan something like 9/11. I just feel it will take deacdes before something of similar scale actually "succeeds". There have always been bad guys planning stuff ... there are some doing so now. Sometimes, they get away with "sub 9/11" plans (e.g. 2013 Boston Marathon bombing).

I think events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are in a class by themselves, as far as terrorist events go (I udnerstand that the former is rarely considered "terrorism").

 

[fantasycurse42]

I can see it similar to the Mumbai or the Kenya Mall attack. You know they have people here already and weapons wouldn't be a problem. Something iconic like Macy's or Waldorf here in NY.

I think this would be the easiest to pull off... This is kinda what I think too.

 

[jon_mx]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

Expected stupidity.

 

[Freelove]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

Expected stupidity.

Because to your iron mind, acts of international terrorism on American soil have historically outnumbered acts of domestic terror, or because the domestic state of affairs looking forward seems so likely to be peaceful and non-divisive?

 

[Fat Nick]

suicide bombers in a suburban shopping mall.. gonna happen eventually- way too easy a target

I've said since all the post-9/11 security went into place that if a terrorist's goal was to disrupt life in the US, the best way to do it would be to stop attacking high-value targets and start blowing up Starbucks.

Seriously. We get paralyzed more than most nations when these things happen. If a terrorist organization started just randomly targeting suburbia, it'd really have a cultural impact on the US people. Look at the impact John Mohammed and Malvo's DC Sniper rampage had on people...I remember being in Northern VA and seeing people afraid to pump their gas.

 

[Fat Nick]

Truthfully, my biggest fear would be the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels...

 

[NCCommish]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

Expected stupidity.

It's stupid to ignore domestic terrorism given the history.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Truthfully, my biggest fear would be the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels...

The loss of life wouldn't be that large a number, but the problems this would cause the city would be almost unmeasurable... There is a huge security presence in the area at all times, which is somewhat comforting.

 

[Fat Nick]

Truthfully, my biggest fear would be the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels...

The loss of life wouldn't be that large a number, but the problems this would cause the city would be almost unmeasurable... There is a huge security presence in the area at all times, which is somewhat comforting.

Agreed re. the loss of life...I can't even begin to think of the impacts though. I used to take NJT into the city every day. It was crowded and a pain as it was. If the tunnels were out, trains would become unbearable. If I had to do that, I'd probably buy a kayak and park in Jersey City or something. Not even kidding. So glad I don't have to do that commute anymore.

re. Security there...I see lots of cops, but it's not like they actually stop anyone. I know they make random box trucks stop, etc, but I've often wondered how hard it would be to load up a normal minivan with explosive and get it through there. I just don't feel that it's THAT secure.

 

[NCCommish]

Truthfully, my biggest fear would be the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels...

The loss of life wouldn't be that large a number, but the problems this would cause the city would be almost unmeasurable... There is a huge security presence in the area at all times, which is somewhat comforting.

Agreed re. the loss of life...I can't even begin to think of the impacts though. I used to take NJT into the city every day. It was crowded and a pain as it was. If the tunnels were out, trains would become unbearable. If I had to do that, I'd probably buy a kayak and park in Jersey City or something. Not even kidding. So glad I don't have to do that commute anymore.

re. Security there...I see lots of cops, but it's not like they actually stop anyone. I know they make random box trucks stop, etc, but I've often wondered how hard it would be to load up a normal minivan with explosive and get it through there. I just don't feel that it's THAT secure.

It's is nearly impossible to stop one determined individual from doing just about anything. There is no way to fully secure any place like those tunnels and still get traffic through it.

 

[tjnc09]

Bridges like the Bay Bridge scare the crap out of me now. Cause some kind of accident/diversion to stop traffic, ambush from front and back. Absolutely no where to go except the freezing water below. Hate being stuck on them now

 

[Sarnoff]

Truthfully, my biggest fear would be the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels...

The loss of life wouldn't be that large a number, but the problems this would cause the city would be almost unmeasurable... There is a huge security presence in the area at all times, which is somewhat comforting.

Agreed re. the loss of life...I can't even begin to think of the impacts though. I used to take NJT into the city every day. It was crowded and a pain as it was. If the tunnels were out, trains would become unbearable. If I had to do that, I'd probably buy a kayak and park in Jersey City or something. Not even kidding. So glad I don't have to do that commute anymore.

re. Security there...I see lots of cops, but it's not like they actually stop anyone. I know they make random box trucks stop, etc, but I've often wondered how hard it would be to load up a normal minivan with explosive and get it through there. I just don't feel that it's THAT secure.

It's is nearly impossible to stop one determined individual from doing just about anything. There is no way to fully secure any place like those tunnels and still get traffic through it.

This is my feeling about "school shootings". Some mentally unstable kid gets angry enough and there's really no way to stop it.

 

[butcher boy]

NYC subway is my guess.

 

[fantasycurse42]

NYC subway is my guess.

I ####### hate this thought! I ride the most crowded subway line almost daily.

 

[urbanhack]

NYC subway is my guess.

I ####### hate this thought!

Maybe you shouldn't have started the thread?

 

[Otis]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

 

[Otis]

NYC subway is my guess.

 

[fantasycurse42]

NYC subway is my guess.

I ####### hate this thought!

Maybe you shouldn't have started the thread?

I'm curious about public opinion, guy... If you dislike it so much I think there might be one or two other threads to view

 

[butcher boy]

NYC subway is my guess.

I ####### hate this thought! I ride the most crowded subway line almost daily.

I recently watched a documentary on Grand Central Station and they mentioned that if the subway's hidden control center and power stations were taken out, it would cripple the city.

 

[Sarnoff]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

 

[Apple Jack]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

Expected stupidity.

Right, because something like that could never happen in Oklahoma city in a country where people commit mass murder on elementary school children or yahoos in huckleberryville get brainwashed into thinking all that is good in the universe is collapsing and that it's them and their guns who need to save it. Never.

 

[jon_mx]

Almost certainly, no idea on time scale, and I'll take the field on location.

I'll also go with domestic before foreign.

Expected stupidity.

Right, because something like that could never happen in Oklahoma city in a country where people commit mass murder on elementary school children or yahoos in huckleberryville get brainwashed into thinking all that is good in the universe is collapsing and that it's them and their guns who need to save it. Never.

'

Expected stupid defense of expected stupidity. Let's play a game. Name a domestic organization who is planning such an attack and I will name a foreign one. The first one who runs out of legitimate threats loses.

 

[Norman Paperman]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

I can't imagine a scenario where a nuclear attack would ever be an appropriate response to a terrorist act.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons of revenge - the ostensible reason they were used in the first place was to eliminate for a pro-longed land battle, costing hundred of thousands if not millions of lives. You simply don't have that scenario is a terrorist attack - you are not going to find any leader willing to sacrifice civilian lives of another nation, if if the leaders are responsible.

 

[Freelove]

I was willing to give you credit for having not thought it through, but didn't think you weren't capable of thinking it through.

You don't have a ####### clue who might be planning what, so you're already out of ammo on that front.

But historically, most terror attacks have been domestic in nature, and the groups that are quite willing and happy to put aggressive anti-American, anti-Government, anti-Corporate, anti-Establishment rhetoric out are domestic, international, conservative, liberal, anarchist, whatever-the-hell-Alex-Jones junkies are, and from lots of other points on the spectrum. Of those, the ones that would have the easiest time organizing, carrying out, and getting away with a terror attack are -- by several orders of magnitude -- domestic.

Perhaps the problem is that you only get your propaganda from sources that have a vested interest in promoting a worldview where anti-American threats from abroad demand constant military vigilance, and where all people who aren't demonstrably like their viewers are to be regarded with suspicion at all times, huh?

The actual number of foreign terror attacks on US soil, ever, is trivial. That you're ready to challenge forum-goers to "name that terror organization" challenges to support your point only speaks to your penchant for paranoia, not to your grasp of history or probability.

And for you to parlay that into a multi-post insult of ANYBODY else's intelligence is, of course, laughable.

In short, I don't think much of your view, nor your mind. The good news is, now I have another person whose opinion I know I can dismiss as trivial and unconsidered. That can only be a good, time-saving thing.

 

[Sarnoff]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

I can't imagine a scenario where a nuclear attack would ever be an appropriate response to a terrorist act.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons of revenge - the ostensible reason they were used in the first place was to eliminate for a pro-longed land battle, costing hundred of thousands if not millions of lives. You simply don't have that scenario is a terrorist attack - you are not going to find any leader willing to sacrifice civilian lives of another nation, if if the leaders are responsible.

I'm just saying it shouldn't be off the table, in some rare situations.

Let's say, the government of North Korea acquires several nuclear bombs. They train 3 state-loyal terror squads to sneak 3 nukes across the ocean in shipping containers and detonate them in ports of Los Angeles, San Franscisco, and Seattle all in the same day. The government of North Korea claims responsibility, and announce that the North Korean army, all 10 million of them, are ready to reclaim South Korea and will cross the DMZ and invade by force. If the US military in the area tries to stop them, additional bombs will be detonated in other ports, New Orleans, New York, and Baltimore, perhaps.

Maybe a nuke used against the army within the DMZ would be appropriate. Maybe even one at the capital. If it kills a few of North Korea's brainwashed "citizens", who may be conscripted into military service soon anyway, I'm not going to complain.

 

[Slapdash]

The latest in a string of awful polls

 

[Otis]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

That would be new shtick. Based on all current and recent forms of terrorism, nukes make zero sense. You drone them to smithereens and then send in the troops to mop up.

 

[Sarnoff]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

That would be new shtick. Based on all current and recent forms of terrorism, nukes make zero sense. You drone them to smithereens and then send in the troops to mop up.

Drones only work if you know exactly where the target is. Like, which window to fly in. Sometimes, you just gotta blow up a whole lotta stuff at once.

 

[Otis]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

That would be new shtick. Based on all current and recent forms of terrorism, nukes make zero sense. You drone them to smithereens and then send in the troops to mop up.

Drones only work if you know exactly where the target is. Like, which window to fly in. Sometimes, you just gotta blow up a whole lotta stuff at once.

We have bombs that'll dust up a city block. You don't need to nuke a whole city to get this done.

 

[msommer]

How the hell do you respond to this with a nuke? That's a ridiculous non option.

OP didn't mention a specific scenario. Just "terrorism". I could conceive of some, albeit likely rare, state-sponsored terrorist attacks in which a nuclear response would be appropriate. North Korea, Iran, China, etc., providing training, support, and nuclear weapons of their own to a state-run terrorist group to attack the US.

I can't imagine a scenario where a nuclear attack would ever be an appropriate response to a terrorist act.

Nuclear weapons are not weapons of revenge - the ostensible reason they were used in the first place was to eliminate for a pro-longed land battle, costing hundred of thousands if not millions of lives. You simply don't have that scenario is a terrorist attack - you are not going to find any leader willing to sacrifice civilian lives of another nation, if if the leaders are responsible.

I'm just saying it shouldn't be off the table, in some rare situations.

Let's say, the government of North Korea acquires several nuclear bombs. They train 3 state-loyal terror squads to sneak 3 nukes across the ocean in shipping containers and detonate them in ports of Los Angeles, San Franscisco, and Seattle all in the same day. The government of North Korea claims responsibility, and announce that the North Korean army, all 10 million of them, are ready to reclaim South Korea and will cross the DMZ and invade by force. If the US military in the area tries to stop them, additional bombs will be detonated in other ports, New Orleans, New York, and Baltimore, perhaps.

Maybe a nuke used against the army within the DMZ would be appropriate. Maybe even one at the capital. If it kills a few of North Korea's brainwashed "citizens", who may be conscripted into military service soon anyway, I'm not going to complain.

That scenario is not called "terrorism". It's called "War"

 

[Christo]

October 13, 2014, mustard gas attack, Great Falls, MT.