What is Digg?76 Comments
- cybortrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28yeah seriously... i live within the blast zone and i crapped my pants after reading the article (although i have to admit the crapping my pants part had little to do with the article and more to do with the indian food i had for lunch).
stuff like this makes me wonder how far off we are from living in a post-apocalyptic world. i mean to say if we were to get nuked, they wouldn't just nuke 1 city, they'd nuke every major city. a massive black cloud would loom over us and block all sunlight. there would be total darkness. the only light would come from laser blasters being fired by automatrons. these things will look just like terminators (not the skeleton looking robots, but rather the arnold schwarzenegger looking robots).
while many of you are too ignorant and scoff at the notion that these events are unfolding before our eyes, others are gathering arms and preparing for war. i for one, stand by waving a white flag and welcome our new automatron overlords. - antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Anyone who works/lives in DC knows how dangerous it is to be there. And I'm not talking about the terrorists.
- jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This must be disconcerting news for all you D.C. folks...
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15IF DC did get wiped off the map and we had to start over, and probably never build as big a federal government as we had before, would we be better off or worse off?
- MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The Library of Congress should be digitized.
- caution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I have lived in and worked in this area for a total of about 9 years.
I am happy that the Federal Government is moving some of their operations away from the "geopolitical center" of the US.
It will save taxpayer money in the long term (meaning high cost to move, great savings over 50 years or so). In the off chance some terrorists get lucky again, it's also a smart move.
Outsiders have no idea how much their taxes are paying for cost of living allowances, housing allowances, civil service grade inflation -- not to mention all the other high costs of operating within 25-50 miles of DC.
Lost time on the 14th street bridge alone is worth the move, heh. - zweben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8But who's to say they won't just nuke rural virginia now?
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"You don't think this is a wise move?"
In this day and age, we shouldn't even need to congregate in person. A wiser move might have been to improve technology infrastructure and just get rid of the mega-office complex to begin with.
That said, this is more paranaoia than anything. This doesn't really solve anything. Anyone able to blow up CD with a nuke can likely find a way to blow up the rest with a second nuke in VA. - crpietschmann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Seems like a strategically good move that they should have done in the beginning.
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Or maybe it's how ridiculously dangerous it is becoming to live and work in the DC Area. Plus, less traffic in VA.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yeah, they know people like you respond to fearmongering.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hence our plans for a moon colony...DUH!
- Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Decentralization is a smart (and rational approach), Helliflno, regardless of political perspective or what you assume the motives are. Without any context, your comment seems odd.
Don't put your eggs in one basket. Bet on diversity. Etc. - LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's what I was referring to, wasn't it July that had so many deaths?
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Soviets thought that it was a document distribution center, because every day at noonish a lot of people would come and get boxes and boxes to take back to the offices. Turns out they were full of hot dogs and hamburgers, but pretty funny.
- HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Just to add to my geek factor:
Most nuclear warheads nowdays are set to detonate before they hit the ground. The reason for this is to eliminate radioactive fallout, which is caused by detonation at or below ground level.
I find it really funny that the agency moved 50 miles away to avoid "fallout". 50 miles is a pittance, and it all depends on wind direction and how near the ground was to the explosion. Or how near the explosion was to the ground. Take your pick ; ) - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So are they emptying the Pentagon too? I hope so 'cause that would make a kickass apartment block.
- HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Well, no, Middle. It makes no sense at all. It only makes sense if the capital was expecting to be hit by a high-yield (ok, moderate-yield) nuclear device. A "dirty" bomb strike just makes for more fear, there's not really that much danger if you're not in the initial blast radius.
Oh, I'm being rational again. Sorry. I'll try to stop that. - mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Several.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A smaller target? So it would be easier to destroy the whole thing at once?
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4must be a hell of a friend for you to capitalize the "F" but not State of the Union.
- Portwineboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I read the article 2 times and couldn't find any mention of an agency moving their HQ outside of D.C. FBI is moving an archives operation, FEMA is moving the accounting department, etc.
- mbondr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4They just want to move out of the "traffic zone". "Rural" Virginia has some of the highest priced most beautiful land in the world. They're probably getting subsidies to "relocate". It's a scam.
- Veritate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just goes to show they were pretty sure the Russians weren't going to nuke us. The terrorists will be more than happy to.
I disagree that they'd nuke "every major city" though, cybortrip. Chances are the terrorists (or even NK/Iran) won't have enough nukes to do that. They'll probably hit NY, Washington, LA, maybe Chicago. And I'm betting they'll hit a city in Europe first, since it will be somewhat easier to get the nuke there. Nuclear weapons have a way of being kind of obvious when stowed on carry-on luggage. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting historical trivia: It would have taken more than one circa-1960 strategic nuclear warhead to destroy the Pentagon. Some people forget just how BIG that building is. Plus the fact that it's made entirely out of reinforced concrete.
It is believed, though I doubt anybody really knows for sure, that the USSR had a great many warheads targeted on the Pentagon and the surrounding parts of Arlington County. Particularly the nearby National Airport, now Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport which, seriously, has gotta be the longest airport name in the world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"A "dirty" bomb strike just makes for more fear, there's not really that much danger if you're not in the initial blast radius."
"Oh, I'm being rational again. Sorry. I'll try to stop that."
You do realize that DC isn't huge, right? Even a small dirty bomb could render a large percentage of the city as useless for some time. There is really no reason to not move infrastructure out of a target area. - BobbyShaftoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Somebody's been watching too much Jericho.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most nukes which have any likelihood of being exploded at the heart of a major city nowadays will be set to detonate with a deadman switch at four or five feet off the ground in the back of a delivery truck.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ground zero is (or was ) the name of the snack bar in the court yard of the Pentagon
- DblnoGO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This article leaves out a lot of info. Take for instance that GOVT has been moving into Rural VA for over a decade because THERE IS NO MORE SPACE to put anything. Every GOVT bldg is either too old or overrun to add new departments too, or to add new technology to. The GOVT already owns most of Eisenhower in Alexandria where everything from the Department of the Army to Homeland Security is located, and don't get me started on the secret warehouse bldgs I just found out about for DHS and others. There are so many branches and departments in the GOVT now that they just move into buildings and don't put up signs and no one knows that they are actually operating out of there.
This article honestly looks like nothing more than a propaganda stunt by the media outlet or GOVT. They have been moving for years and will continue to do so.
Besides, the real fear for a nuke is the EMP effect that will kill most of the major ISPs and networks that run the east coast. Dulles, Reston Corridor, Sterling are all home to some major Internet intersections.
For me, there is no need to run, I will just go up to the roof and sit down and have the best seat in the house for the end of days; no use in running. - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@HellifIno
So you are assuming the nuclear device will be modern, and configured in the way you explained. This is why you are flipping burgers at Mooby's instead of protecting US citizens. (Note: In many cases, the government we currently have isn't much better at it than you are.)
I would say it's much smarter to assume there will be fallout and hope their isn't, rather than relying on the attackers to use the fallout-friendly version of a nuke. - zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Won't really save that much money, because many agencies are now maintaining their 'working' HQ, as well as *multiple* alternate sites (at varying distances away from the District) which must be up and running 24/7 so they are immediately available when needed. In some cases these sites are also used for telecommuting, so at least there's some short-term benefit, even if an emergency never occurs.
And while it's certainly good that all the eggs will no longer be in one basket, all this planning really begs the question: when a nuclear event (or whatever) occurs, how will you get the people from DC and the close-in suburbs (esp Maryland if the everyone's COOP site is in rural VA) out to these areas? Will they be forced to abandon their families? If not, how can they possibly accommodate the workers and scores of their tagalongs? - thewatchman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if strategic targets are removed from the D.C. area, wouldn't that make the city a less attractive ground-zero?
- LaueOfficer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Damn right, but for the record, Pentagon=VA
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait, wait, wait...is the Federal Government 'preparing' for a nuclear attack?
- Gustave5436, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nuclear weapons are set to blow up in the air to make the explosion more destructive, not to eliminate fallout. I doubt someone fighting in a nuclear war is going to care about how much fallout is dumped on their enemy.
And if terrorists had a nuclear device, one, well, they would want fallout, and two, they wouldn't exactly have a missile or bomber to drop the bomb onto a city with. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nuclear bombs are airburst not just to minimize fallout (though that's a nice side-effect) but to maximize destruction. The majority of a nuclear explosion's energy is released as light, and depending on the yield that light is sufficient to start fires many miles beyond the absolute blast radius. Airburst explosions have a greater line of sight.
And it's not new. The very first (and so far only) atomic bombs used in anger were airburst. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How this decision was _really_ made:
A: Damn, this city is for sh*t! If I wasn't making money hand over fist I'd move to somewhere out in the boonies, or at least in some nice rural suburb.
B: No kidding! What I wouldn't give to not have to worry about the crime in this murder capitol of the world, to be able to send my kids to public school, to get away from all this damn traffic...
C: And God forbid that some terrorist should explode a nuke, or some kind of nerve gas bomb!
A: [Ding! Looks at B.]
B: [Ding! Looks at A.]
C: What? Wha'd I say? - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Less traffic? Are you nuts? Ever been on 395 during the morning rush? Or, God help you, the Beltway?
Plus, most of inside-the-Beltway Virginia has no mass transit worth talking about.
Think about this: Something like 25,000 people work at the Pentagon every day, and there are about 8,000 parking spaces. How do they make this work? Easy. There's a metro station in the basement. - edrift101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Interesting. I guess I'll be footing the bill for this as well. F'ing federal government loves spending my money...
- denied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You bring up a good point that I think a lot of people don't get. DC is godawful expensive (176% national average cost of living in my zip code) if you want to live somewhere that you won't get shot.
Federal employees don't make much money.
Moving out to the sticks just makes sense, bomb or no bomb anyone who lives on a federal employee salary and commutes into DC will tell you that -anywhere- is better than DC. - zeero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i think the government is planning another scare attack... the immense fear of terrorists is dying down, we need to give up more rights..so watch DC get hit "by terrorists"
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They know fear works as a political tool.
This governmet has cried wolf enough times. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or they could just fire half of those useless ***** and the price of housing would fall, too.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3precisely. or use two nukes.
- chatty82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some Senators, new to the concept of "shopping" think that the department stores in downtown DC should be removed to remote rural Virginia in case of "looting by barbarians", who might also be able to find jobs. They themselves prefer to loot the wardrobes of the constituents...
- mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unless you live there, it's a agonizing drive into and from DC.
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While the Pentagon is contained within the state of Virginia, the grounds of the Pentagon Reservation are under federal jurisdiction. So while you're in the Pentagon or on its grounds (or in the metro station beneath it) you're technically not in the commonwealth of Virginia.
- marcstinebaugh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also, just because they move government facilities outside of DC, doesn't make it any less attractive for a nuclear attack. It's not about destroying the government, it's about creating fear in the public eye, just like 9/11 did. It gives the US government a reason to take full control, a reason to say, forget the constitution, we need security and if you want it you cant have those rights. You might be a terrorist, and we dont know anymore who is, so if you want to prove you're not, give up your rights and let us control everything. The federal government is behind it all, not some lousy terrorists. First off, there are no terrorists, none but those who disagree with the US government. Anyone who is against what they do is a terrorist. Read their own documents. You dont have to be some muslim in the desert of the middle east to be one. You don't even need a weapon. All you have to do is disagree. They said the war IS going to move to our homeland. And it will, because people know it is all a load of crap, and they are going to stand up against it and fight back, whether they should or not. It's all about a one world government. The US is taking over the middle east, just like the Bible said it would. Iran is next. Lots of countries will be overthrown in mere hours as this thing escalates. DC is a prime target because it will scare the crap out of people worldwide. The Pentagon already got "attacked" and its the most defended building in the WORLD! So, when DC gets attacked, EVEN after the heightened security, people will feel like there is no other option but to surrender to the federal government. This isnt about external terrorism, its about weeding out the dissidents here, and building support for a world takeover with the help of other nations that want the same. Its been a long time in the making, but go on Youtube.com or google video and seach for bush NWO or something similar. On Sept 11 1990 or 91 Bush Sr. announced the New World Order, where there would be "The rule of law." Where diverse nations would come together for a common cause. The Pope recently called for a one world religion, just like the Bible said the "False Prophet" would do. The Pope is no doubt a false prophet already, he is a Catholic, not believing in Jesus as the source of salvation, not believing in the Bibles authority. He teaches a different doctrine, making him AN antichrist, and a false prophet. The Bible warns of "wolves in sheeps clothing" on many occasions. They seem to be good, religious people on the outside, but inside they are "ravenous wolves" the Bible says. The end is here. Stand up with The Lord your God, Jesus came to save you from Hell, not to send you there. But if you decide you want that, and there are only two choices, God or no God, then he will let you go there, a place free from God. Keep in mind "God is love", "God is good", without God, there is no good, no love, nothing but the opposite. - Marc Stinebaugh
- spencenaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Geeze, I am glad at least one person picked up on that. It's not like DHS is moving it's HQ to a farm.
"Yeah, FEMA HQ got hit pretty hard by the blast. But, thank god our accounting department is still intact. Otherwise, how would we get paid?"
This article is much ado about nothing. When The J. Edgar Hoover building is closed and moved to VA, that might be something. This is more likely a way to find cheaper rent per square foot than for safety or national security reasons. -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is