An attack on DC- Do you believe it's coming?

[eodx9000]

So, do you believe Washington DC will be attacked directly in the future? Either by a terrorist strike or an army marching against it?

 

Basically, it's a simple question.

 

Nope, or at least not in any manner people think about... the real question that should be asked is how it'll be attacked.

 

The civil war was a revolution of sorts where one side beleived in certian things while the other did not.

May want to check your history better. In the beginning of the American Civil War, most of the north didn't care very much about the issue of slavery, and still maintained prejudices against African Americans for a fairly long time after that. The war, for the most part, was about Succession. A portion of the country deciding to break off and govern itself. While the ideals related to slavery were part of it, it was primarily more about economic concerns as part of industrialization and an unpopular president (or rather political backers) who was initially trying to slowly ween the South from human power towards industrialization as a means of staying ahead of Great Britain in hopes of establishing itself as a global power. Given that, having a substantial portion break off, form its own government, and launch a surprise attack on your capitol while meeting with rival nations tends to be reason enough to change your plans for awhile.

 

The Emancipation Proclamation actually didn't accomplish much when it was made since it had no effect on things in the Confederacy because they were their own governing body at the time. Northern slave owners were able to continue as normal. About the most it did do was secure the route to freedom for any slaves in reclaimed lands, should the Union win, dramatically limiting the likelihood that the South could use them for willing soldiers or support (more than half the population). It was mostly a strategic move, than a political one or one based in humanitarian purposes. The humanitarian purposes were just a side-effect.

 

The stuff they don't tell you in school because it's easier to explain "Slavery is bad".

 

Additionally, we weren't all that interested in fighting in WWII either, even with knowing about the genocide. We were even doing our own share locally as part of the Eugenics movement... A movement which arguably allowed for the great deal of intellectual advancement, reduction of disease, and being more physically attractive/fitness in the 50 years following. They don't talk about that part either.

 

Well we as in the populace, of course not. Americans were not interested in allying themselves with foreign entities and they trusted government even less; they even felt "if they aren't waging war on us, it ain't our problem" - something many view as selfish today. It took an attack to get Americans even remotely interested in WWII - an attack that was and still is considered a provoked attack, Pearl Harbor.

[eodx9000]

We have the un remember? No one exept for the government would dare to attack Washington and it would be pretty stupid to attack your own Capitol, there is no country in Europe that would have a reason to, since 9/11 it's a lot harder for terrorists to plan such a big attack, and china sell all it's manufactured goods to the us and would surely not want to have war with theme. There are only 2 countries in the world that could have reason to do so. N-Korea and Iran. Of course they wouldn't do so because they might be very strong countries, but by attacking the us they would get the entire west + possibly Japan against them.

But of course, seen that I'm a thirteen year old Dutch kid, I probably have not much understanding on this issue.

 

Would it really be stupid for your government to attack their own capitol when they know they can have it blamed on an outside organization while increasing the sense of nationalism through massive programming in the media that would cause millions of men/women to sign up for a war? Not when you can get away with it.

 

Like the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C. is a high-risk/low-reward target for any invading/terrorist force and everyone knows it. If you really wanted to cripple a country so bad, it'd be much wiser to attack high-reward/low-risk areas such as the Mall of America and Hoover Dam (Atlanta too, perhaps). It simply makes no sense to attack Washington, D.C., the Pentagon, or WTC unless you are completely 100% sure about your success when you can do far more crippling damage elsewhere.

[Ihoe]

So, do you believe Washington DC will be attacked directly in the future? Either by a terrorist strike or an army marching against it?

LOL

:facepalm:

Sorry, I Couldn't Help myself, it was too dam funny.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Ihoe

[brokenergy]

Only in CoD or BF multiplayer modes. The security increase since 2001 or even eariler makes it more difficult to attack. The only way I see is by a missile strike by a enemy nation, which isn't going to happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[HeyYou]

Only in CoD or BF multiplayer modes. The security increase since 2001 or even eariler makes it more difficult to attack. The only way I see is by a missile strike by a enemy nation, which isn't going to happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

Or terrorists smuggling in some flavor of dirty bomb. The area is much too large to be completely secure.

[mizdarby]

Whether through a terrorist attack, or some sort of civil disturbance (say a civilian uprising of some sort), the odds of Washington suffering an 'attack', is probably no higher or lower, than a similar attack on any other US city, in all likelihood a terrorist attack would probably prefer a 'softer target' such as Dallas or Miami. In any case, the odds are staggeringly low, which to my mind means, any attack on Washington DC is a probable NO but it's not completely impossible.

 

Just as a rough guide to the likely odds, I quote the following vaguely related though not identical statistics.

 

'So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in 1,000,000 or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.'

 

The odds against dying in a terrorist attack on DC, due to being in a specific location, would be increased to roughly one in 275,000, which means there is next to no chance at all of any individual dying in a Washington DC attack (although this doesn't allow for non-terrorist attacks).

 

And quoting the same statistic site, the odds of dying in an asteroid impact is roughly one in 200,000, (which means you are more likely to killed by an asteroid, then killed by a terrorist attack on a specific city). I think I'll take my chances of not worrying to much.

[Vagrant0]

Only in CoD or BF multiplayer modes. The security increase since 2001 or even eariler makes it more difficult to attack. The only way I see is by a missile strike by a enemy nation, which isn't going to happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Security is hardly as tight or foolproof these days. If an organized group wanted to cause panic or destruction there are dozens of ways that it could be done.

 

Why it hasn't happened in the last few years is because of one or more of the following reasons:

 

1). An organized group has not had an ability to remain organized because powers granted by the patriot act have led to portions of that group being tracked down and stopped.

 

2). An organized group cannot take root because terrorist factions have enough trouble trying to operate in their own countries.

 

3). Because the list of targets probably include parts of Europe, so the focused effort required to get past any of the above issues becomes much harder to maintain.

 

4). Because the methodology being employed has changed and has required several years of planning and sacrificing cells in order to feel out viable courses of action.

 

 

There is no such thing perfect security when you have a human element as part of the equation. There are always people who either don't do their job right, who miss things because of fatigue, who overlook things because they aren't significant enough, or who get so wrapped up in abusing one aspect of authority that they don't notice obvious problems.

 

But, terrorist movements also have a limited lifespan and have a much harder time keeping devoted members when those members can't remain isolated from the society they are trying to attack. Funny thing, when your methods involve people committing suicide for a cause... You quickly run out of members who are batshit crazy enough to follow through.

[Ihoe]

Whether through a terrorist attack, or some sort of civil disturbance (say a civilian uprising of some sort), the odds of Washington suffering an 'attack', is probably no higher or lower, than a similar attack on any other US city, in all likelihood a terrorist attack would probably prefer a 'softer target' such as Dallas or Miami. In any case, the odds are staggeringly low, which to my mind means, any attack on Washington DC is a probable NO but it's not completely impossible.

 

Just as a rough guide to the likely odds, I quote the following vaguely related though not identical statistics.

 

'So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in 1,000,000 or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.'

 

The odds against dying in a terrorist attack on DC, due to being in a specific location, would be increased to roughly one in 275,000, which means there is next to no chance at all of any individual dying in a Washington DC attack (although this doesn't allow for non-terrorist attacks).

 

And quoting the same statistic site, the odds of dying in an asteroid impact is roughly one in 200,000, (which means you are more likely to killed by an asteroid, then killed by a terrorist attack on a specific city). I think I'll take my chances of not worrying to much.

 

Those odds only appeal to the theorem of all people having equal chances of being under any of those terms, which is certainly not the Same as different chances of happening taken into account ergo IRL. a mix of intuitive and inductive reasoning instead of a solid deductive one is what it is if you ask me, and certainly not quite accurate, better for fooling purposes. So worry! a lot! vote for Mit Romney and bombard the middle east to keep world peace!

[HeyYou]

Whether through a terrorist attack, or some sort of civil disturbance (say a civilian uprising of some sort), the odds of Washington suffering an 'attack', is probably no higher or lower, than a similar attack on any other US city, in all likelihood a terrorist attack would probably prefer a 'softer target' such as Dallas or Miami. In any case, the odds are staggeringly low, which to my mind means, any attack on Washington DC is a probable NO but it's not completely impossible.

 

Just as a rough guide to the likely odds, I quote the following vaguely related though not identical statistics.

 

'So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in 1,000,000 or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.'

 

The odds against dying in a terrorist attack on DC, due to being in a specific location, would be increased to roughly one in 275,000, which means there is next to no chance at all of any individual dying in a Washington DC attack (although this doesn't allow for non-terrorist attacks).

 

And quoting the same statistic site, the odds of dying in an asteroid impact is roughly one in 200,000, (which means you are more likely to killed by an asteroid, then killed by a terrorist attack on a specific city). I think I'll take my chances of not worrying to much.

 

Those odds only appeal to the theorem of all people having equal chances of being under any of those terms, which is certainly not the Same as different chances of happening taken into account ergo IRL. a mix of intuitive and inductive reasoning instead of a solid deductive one is what it is if you ask me, and certainly not quite accurate, better for fooling purposes. So worry! a lot! vote for Mit Romney and bombard the middle east to keep world peace!

 

 

How is bombing the middle east going to bring peace? Iran has flatly stated they have ballistic missiles that could cause a ruckus for most of our bases in the area, not to mention our allies. I fail to see how starting yet another war is going to bring about peace. ESPECIALLY when a war in that area would cause energy prices to SPIKE in a major way.

[brokenergy]

Only in CoD or BF multiplayer modes. The security increase since 2001 or even eariler makes it more difficult to attack. The only way I see is by a missile strike by a enemy nation, which isn't going to happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Security is hardly as tight or foolproof these days. If an organized group wanted to cause panic or destruction there are dozens of ways that it could be done.

 

Why it hasn't happened in the last few years is because of one or more of the following reasons:

 

1). An organized group has not had an ability to remain organized because powers granted by the patriot act have led to portions of that group being tracked down and stopped.

 

2). An organized group cannot take root because terrorist factions have enough trouble trying to operate in their own countries.

 

3). Because the list of targets probably include parts of Europe, so the focused effort required to get past any of the above issues becomes much harder to maintain.

 

4). Because the methodology being employed has changed and has required several years of planning and sacrificing cells in order to feel out viable courses of action.

 

 

There is no such thing perfect security when you have a human element as part of the equation. There are always people who either don't do their job right, who miss things because of fatigue, who overlook things because they aren't significant enough, or who get so wrapped up in abusing one aspect of authority that they don't notice obvious problems.

 

But, terrorist movements also have a limited lifespan and have a much harder time keeping devoted members when those members can't remain isolated from the society they are trying to attack. Funny thing, when your methods involve people committing suicide for a cause... You quickly run out of members who are batshit crazy enough to follow through.

 

I would assume that intel would be gathered before an attack would happen. I would also assume that more than one person is in a group when investigating possible attacks. Besides, there are other factors into why there wouldn't be attack on DC besides security as you so nicely put it but the question was "do you believe an attack on DC is coming?" to which I replied no.