Interesting point made...

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Like I said we can debate our readiness but to use Katrina as proof we arent ready is foolish. Unless AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles there will be little in common with how our reponse was to Katrina to a terrorist attack response.

I guess when you invest money you just take your stokebrokers word for what to invest in and don't bother looking at the fund's past preformance??

You exxageration of 90,000 square miles being laid to waste is also ridiculous. A large area was affected, but not laid to waste.

The area quote by FEMA as seeing substantial damage was 90,000 square miles.

And what do they call substanial damage? Some bridges out and power lines down? There are pockets of areas with substanial damage and they are spread out over a large area, but I don't believe for a minute that there are 90,000 square miles of substanial damage out there.

I also believe this event is a very good indicator of what would have went wrong if we had a real terrorist attack. Instead of arguing about it, we need to be learning from it.

The pictures I saw from missippi ranged from downed powerlines to entire neighborhoods erased.

 

[piasabird]

The Low Lying areas in New Orleans are not worth protecting. It is basically swamp land. NO is just an accident waiting to happen.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
The difference between Katrina and a Terrorist attack is that we had a warning about Katrina. Wow just imagine the time it would take to get aid in for a Terrorist attack of any significant magnitude!

Exactly! We'd enjoy the same sort of federal inneptitude that we experienced in New Orleans and Mississippi. Just think, all those billions upon billions of dollars on homeland security utterly wasted. We're no better prepared for a major terrorist attack than we were pre-9/11.

Pathetic.

The difference is that the hurricane is treated differently. The federal govt stays out of the state's business until the state requests it. If this were a terrorist attack it would be considered an act of war on the US and the federal govt would be involved from the get go. The response would be entirely different.

If Bush had gotten involved before the state requested it, the media would have said he should mind his own business.

You have a crystal ball that tells you that? Wow, you're amazing!

 

[Pliablemoose]

All I know is that the response to Katrina was too slow and my daughter can't carry needlenose pliers to make reeds for her bassoon on a plane.

They need to get freaking real here, what a huge waste of resources & what a sad display of the lack of common sense.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think they could have handled this thing in five minutes but waited so to get some practice for a big one.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Scribe
As a 'letter to the editor' in a Reno newspaper..

"Suppose there had been no hurricane Katrina, but instead al-Qaida had breached levees and flooded New Orleans. Doesn?t the aftermath demonstrate that our self-proclaimed ?war president? has failed to prepare for terrorist attack?

Bush says nobody foresaw flooding. Not so. Numerous newspapers warned of it over the past five years (nine articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune alone); of course, Bush says he doesn?t read newspapers. Assistant Army Secretary Mike Parker, a Republican from Mississippi, was fired in 2002 when he refused to accept Bush?s cuts in the Corps of Engineers? flood-control budget. Sen. Landrieu asked for $27 million for Lake Ponchartrain flood control this year; Congress allowed $5.7 after Bush offered only $3.9. Why? So he can spend $250 billion (and counting) in Iraq while pretending that we can still afford tax cuts.

While the TSA confiscates fingernail clippers, cargo containers go uninspected and we prepare to send nuclear waste through our cities on vulnerable trucks and railcars. While Bush obsesses with the irrelevant war that he started thousands of miles away, ?homeland security? is the emperor?s new clothes".

I thought it was an interesting point, comparing the hurricane to a terrorist attack, and our preparedness should technically, have been the same for both. And it worries me it's this bad

Feel free to discuss.

I think the idiots in this country fail to realize that NO is but a small area of destruction that has been laid by this storm. I agree that the next time AQ lays waste to 90,000 square miles we will be completely unprepared to deal with the situation.

The media has sucessfully made people forget about the other 89000 square miles of destruction and focused in on a levee failure that was predicted days before the storm hit. Hell Discovery channel had a show on this very subject years ago. Everybody knew a CAT 5 hurricane would breach the levees.

I don't consider 80% of NO to be a small area, do you? That's right 80% of the city is flooded, is that small? Gen?

Actually, the Hurricane itself didn't cause that much damage it was a barge that crashed into to leeves and broke them.

How many square miles is 80% of the city?

Compare that to 90,000 square miles and tell me how big it is?

The city itself is about 122,200 and 80% of that is 97,760.

Not that what you've said has any relavance at all, the vast majority of the city is flooded contray to what you've said.

The county of Orleans is 182 square miles. Where did you come up with 122,000 square miles?

http://www.lapage.com/parishes/orlea.htm

Greater New Orleans is about 350 square miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans

And yes what I have been saying has relevance on this subject. People are focusing on NO as if the rest of the area affected by this natural disater doesnt exist and doesnt calculate into the reponse by FEMA.

For reference of the destruction. Minnesota covers ~86000 square miles.

Okay? N.O is a high populated area, of course the news media is going go there first. Not mention, it's not like they're going to focus on the positive areas that didn't get hit, either. Why would they? The fact was that this is a disaster when you've got a major city in the united states that is now flooded, this isn't small by any means.

You can't expect the media to go ignore that bad news, it's not realistic at all.

I never said they should, however they have apparently made many people forget the sheer magnitude of the disaster area. As witnessed by the letter to the editor that started this entire thread.

You cant say because our response to this was lackluster that the response to a terrorist attack will be also. We are talking about an area of destruction bigger than Minnesota. Quite simply it is very possible that the beuracracy was overloaded due to the sheer magnitude of the situation. I dont expect a terrorist attack to lay waste to the state of Minnesota. Thus I dont know if our system is any worse or better than pre-9-11 and using this as a basis for my decision would be foolish.

Still trying to figure out why you thought the land area of NO was 122,000 square miles.

Actually, part of me would agree that a lot of went wrong with NO was too much beurcracy, simaller too 9/11. Not enough communication between organizations that deal with these kinds of issuses. I still think the whole bunch is to blame not nessicarrly Bush, but he isnt making the situation better.

I don't expect anyone to make an exact comparrison between the flooding of N.O and the subject of Terrorist attacks, however you can learn quite a bit from it. We knew the hurricane was coming and our respone was rather, poor. A surprise attack from terrorist is different, but with our response towards a catastropic event can't possibly be any better than one we knew was coming.

My, math sucks. Whatever the sq root of that is how much was flooded.

 

[arsbanned]

Furthermore, the terrorists should PLEASE give us MORE THAN 48 hours to even begin preparing a response to an attack.
I honestly saw this argued on this very forum.
"They only knew 48 hours in advance exactly where the hurricane would stirke and the sort of damage it would do! Surely you can't expect any sort of meaningful response with such an inadequte warning.

 

[Deudalus]

And what do they call substanial damage? Some bridges out and power lines down? There are pockets of areas with substanial damage and they are spread out over a large area, but I don't believe for a minute that there are 90,000 square miles of substanial damage out there.

Well being that I live there I can give you some semblance of what is going on.....
Mapquest link

You will see Houma, Louisiana near the southern coast of that map. I went to college just outside there at Nicholls State University and I was there the Saturday before Katrina hit.

They have downed power lines, downed telephone poles, trees pushed down, roof damage, and some homes had roofs that were ripped off. On a scale of 1-10 I'd say Houma is about a 5.

Everything in Louisiana southeast of New Orleans is gone. I don't say that to sound dramatic or anything, it is simply fact. Grand Isle, Pilottown, and everything in between all the way up to Oakville is completely GONE.

Shell beach is gone, Chalmette which is just northeast of New Orleans is still under about 25 feet of water according to some college buddies who live over there. That whole town is completely whiped out as is Slidell north of the Lake.

You have all seen footage of the damage to Gulfport. Biloxi, and Pascagoula they are completely whiped out so I assume you realize that the damage extends that far.

So to put it into perspective, look at it like this.

On a scale of 1-10:

Damge in Houma: 5
Damage in New Orleans: 10
Damage in Gulfport: 10
Damage in Biloxi: 10
Damage in Mobile: 5

So basically you have heavy damage for 200 miles with 150 of those miles being very, very severe damage the likes of a major tornado.

I also believe this event is a very good indicator of what would have went wrong if we had a real terrorist attack. Instead of arguing about it, we need to be learning from it.

The area effected by this is basically the same as a nuclear attack.

Very very heavy damage was sustained 100-200 miles northwards across 3 adjoined states about 220 miles wide.

We don't have the fallout and radiation, but we do have impassable roads due to debris and flooding. We also have health concerns due to all types of bacteria and pollution in the water.

It isn't as bad as a nuclear attack, but its really the only thing you can compare it to because that is the only thing outside of a hurricane that could produce this much damage over this large of an area.

 

[MisfitsFiend]

Unfortunately, I think that Bush would have done a better job regarding response had it been a terrorost attck. This still pulls on more heartstrings - it's all about his image as a "terrorist fighter."