|
lurkette, it doesn't sound like I'm going to convince you that the odds of any attack at all happening are really that low, so let's assume that an attack does happen.
First, let's get in the plane. It's possible that someone will blow the plane up, or that it will be shot down. But what's the point? Looking at it from a terrorist's point of view, you're only killing off a handful of people, and not in a really spectacular matter. Plane crashes, although rare, are quickly forgotten. No, if I was a terrorist with a surface-to-air missile, I think I'd have bigger fish to fry.
As for hijacking, I think we can rule that one out. People used to roll over in a hijacked plane, because they figured the plane would land, they'd sit out some negotiations, and they'd be released, so no point making trouble. But now that the possibility of becoming a terror attack is known, nobody's going to let the plane get hijacked. Anyone who makes the slightest attack on anyone (or quietly tries to ignite his foot) will find him (or her) self pretty quickly overpowered by a lot of pissed off passengers.
OK, so we've survived the flight. Now, let's survive San Fransisco. First of all, why would anyone launch a major attack on SF in the first place anyway? There are a lot of better targets...Berlin, London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo...they're all major economic centres. If they're in California, even LA would be a better target than SF.
But let's suppose some crazy has chosen to attack SF. He (or she) has got three main options: a conventional bomb, a chemical/biological attack, or a nuclear device.
There's not a lot you can do about the conventional bomb, but let's be realistic. Even a truly huge conventional bomb has a pretty small blast radius. At most, it would destroy one or two buildings. If you're not in a government office, then, we can rule any harm coming to you from a conventional bomb out right away. If you are in a government office, you'll be pretty unlucky to be in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time.
Now, the nuclear device: they make a big bang. But I can guaruntee you that there will not be a nuclear device in SF while you're there. Whatever you may have learned from 24, it is very, very hard to get your hands on 7kg of weapons grade uranium or plutonium and a nuclear technician willing to put the device together without anyone noticing. It's even harder to sneak that kind of stuff into the US. So if a terrorist organisation has the resources to do all that, they also have the resources to put it in whatever city they want. Would you waste a perfectly good nuke on SF when you can have NY, LA, Washington DC, or somewhere international?
And the idea of a terrible chemical/biological attack is all media hype. You're probably thinking of the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack in Tokyo. That killed 12 people, but a bomb the same size as the canisters holding the gas would have done more damage. Gases also do a lot of silly things. They don't float around in big green clouds, like in the movies; they spread out and follow the wind. Which means that even the best-planned gas attack could turn into a monumental fizzer with even the slightest change in the weather. And even if the weather's fine, cities are hot things. Air rises off cities pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take long for any gas that got released to work its way up to the upper atmosphere and stop being a problem. Chemical weapons are also ridiculously hard to transport, store and deploy, making them far from the weapon of choice for the discerning nutcase.
__________________
Strewth
|