Is Chicago about as vulnerable as Mumbai to a Rivereen Style Attack? Abusive sarcasm is no answer. Answer!!?

Question

I didn't post the question to catch sarky rhetorical answers. Of course I went to NCIS 8 years ago at the request of SECNAV. Of course I laid out a harbor security radar system for them for perimeter control after the USS Cole attack. Please don't teach me the security business as it regards giving ideas to the enemy. What's important here is that we generate some ideas of our own. Assume the enemy will attack -- what can we do to defend. Censorship is not an option because it doesn't help solve the problem. Only readiness counts. Keeping Chicago safe is a matter of engineering, and not of fake "national security pseudo-secrecy". Public policy should be responsive to public needs and public opinion.

They didn't keep the recent Kodiak based anti-missile test secret just so the North Koreans and Iranians wouldn't get any ideas. We assume they have those ideas. We talk to each other fairly transparently about how to foil the bad guys. We know the bad guys are smart enough to find our vulnerable places.

Our paralysis by non-feasance is 100 times more of a security risk than any idea that an open society might give to potential attackers by free and open discussion of national security problems.

Go to a seminar at West Point National Security Institute sometime, you will see, they talk openly about dangers with the idea of heading them off. Well so do I. Always have, and have headed off a few.

Answer 1

President Kennedy once said that anyone can kill a president if he is willing to die himself. The same is true for anyone who wants to perform a coordinated terrorist attack on a major city, anywhere in the world.



Security precautions deter casual threats, but are minor obstacles for committed terrorists. If someone with the desire and resources wanted to kill Americans, whether in the US or abroad, they could do so.



If you were to impose security precautions sufficient to prevent terrorists from successfully taking action in major cities, you would interfere with the innocent civilian population to such a degree that normal commerce would end. If a major city is to exist and function, the routes of entry for terrorists will have to remain open.



The solution, then, must be to prevent terrorists from ever having the desire or the resources in the first place.



What's more, a Mumbai-type attack is not the worst thing that terrorists could do to Chicago. There are far worse things, things that cause more, longer-lasting fear, than a series of killings in the past. It is the fear that death is lurking around the corner that can cripple a city. If a terrorist really wanted to hurt Chicago, he could cause the people to believe that anthrax, radioactive Cesium, or poison gas, were in the city and would continue to be there for years. Causing continuing fear is what distinguishes a terrorist from a murderer. Nothing would hurt a city's economy or a people's feeling of security more than people beleiving it is not safe to leave their own homes.

Answer 2

Yes, it's vulnerable. It lies at the edge of Lake Michigan, and it has the Sears Tower and multiple luxury hotels.



Let the libs under Obama lower their guard.



I sure as hell won't.

Answer 3

Stop living in fear people.

And if it happens life goes on.

Get your army out of the peoples land.

It's not the 1800

Answer 4

Nukes kill a lot of people.







North Korea and Iran has nukes.

Answer 5

In theory, any large city might be hit. See: London, Madrid, Dublin, etc, etc