Worried about Seattle.

I work about 7 miles south of the Seattle Waterfront so depending on the size of the nuke and the wind direction I should be OK. On the other hand, I only work about 2.5 miles south of Boeing Field, so if it's nuked I have maybe a 50/50 chance? Seattle probably wouldn't be much of a target though, would it? I can't really seem to get too worried about this.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


Anxiety, while Seattle may be way overdue for a large quake, Mount Rainier is the most monitored mountain in the world (I believe). We would have weeks of advanced warning before Rainier blew. Here's the view from my front porch and I have never been worried.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e6b6d448acb.jpg[/atsimg]

Even back in 1980 when St. Helens blew her top, we had considerable warning. That's why there wasn't a lot of lives lost.

theres nothing to worry about. this whole penninsula is watched by several agencys. in 2007 when i joined the military one of the guys in my unit said there was a japanese family that was arested for spying on lewis, mc chord and banger. what got them caught was taking photos of banger and trying to get on. within 3 days of that they were arested and everything they owned seized withing 12 hours of there arest and havent been seen or herd of since. theres to many people watching for sompthing like that to happen to seattle especialy near so many military bases. id be more woried about biological stuff that can be airborn or even worse things that could happen

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
For some reason it's very easy for me to imagine Seattle being attacked by nukes. More than any other city.

Does anyone else also feel this? And do you think it would be the city North Korea would choose to attack?

Well, considering we have an army base, an air force base and a ship yard/submarine base all around the Seattle area, does kinda make it a good target. Of course there are a LOT of us here manifesting personal safety too, so that will help, just like that big earthquake a while back. I am certain that it didn't do much damage because of the many people here manifesting that such events won't.

alphbet agencies and firepower aren't going to stop a nuke... especially if it is shipped, or fed-exed even.

a nuke attack probably will not happen. but that isn't the question. the question is if Seattle is a target or not. you can bet your sweet britches it is. the population density alone makes it a target.

the city where i live is considerably smaller, but is a target because its a large transportation hub, and a lot of freight going to and coming from Seattle passes through.

if you were that guy, (big red button scenario) wouldn't Seattle be a prime target? why not? if we are talking about a briefcase bomb... surely a more political target will be chosen, but in terms of mutually assured destruction where superpowers have full nuclear arsenals, Seattle is near the top of the list.

I'm right up here on Capitol Hill. We'd probably be among the first to go.

I've been worried about the bomb since they held air raid drills at my school in the Berkeley (CA) hills in the 1960's.

But it hasn't happened yet.

We each have 3 basic choices:
1) Trust that sanity will prevail, and keep writing posts to that effect!
2) Join the military-industrial complex and try to get into a high-security program designed to protect the Northwest from attack and do everything you can to help them out.
3) Find a way into the NWO so you can get a reserved place in one of those underground cities and ride it all out in safety and comfort.

I guess you know which one I chose.

What are you worried about exactly? That you'd die? Either reach God or rot in the ground with no knowledge of the difference.
Or that you'd live irradiated, youd be far better off dead.

N Korea is not stupid enough to randomly nuke the US if anything theyd go after the US bases in Korea. Where they can attack by land.

Stop worrying about it life's not so great, and if there were a nuke on US soil the subsequent loss of freedom and police state would be far worse than the nuke

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


I don't know about MOST likely . . .

I do believe Seattle is pretty vulnerable from volcanoes to nukes to quakes.

. . . though . . . actually, there's so many clueless liberal globalists there . . . seems suicidally stupid to me for the oligarchy to engineer an attack on Seattle.

We shall see.

Have long felt it was going to go early on once the festivities start.

NKorea could certainly hazard Seattle . . . as could some other . . . actors on the stage.

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by anxietydisorder
Even back in 1980 when St. Helens blew her top, we had considerable warning. That's why there wasn't a lot of lives lost.

There is not always a "warning time" with eruptions or the warning time may be only 30 minutes or less. Google it to find many instances.

reply to post by BSG75

McDonald-Douglas does more for military aircraft not Boeing.


Bottom of the line, it is possible out technology will fail us and we may not be able to intercept a missile. Especially if they launch a large number of them at random times from various locations on ships parked in the Pacific. One could get through. If they did launch from ships at sea then Seattle may not be the only target. Any coastal city would be candidate. Think about it. If they launched 100+ nukes from various locations it is possible that 1 could slip through our defense. I would hope not and I do think our defense system has backup defense systems to minimize this possability.

Hopefully, N Korea is all smoke and no fire.

[edit on 6/25/2009 by Amaxium]