Engage, Interact, Debate with Life & Times RSS 
- About the Story
- A nuclear attack on Southern California is hard to imagine. Some people are paid to imagine it and to come up with a response. But as Toni Guinyard found out, just figuring out who should be in charge is a challenge. (TRT: 8:09)
- Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism
- Center for International Security and Cooperation
- Franklin Avenue’s “Back Then, Air Sirens. Now, Rusty Street Decorations.” Blog
- Greg Szymanski’s Arctic Beacon’s “All Signposts Lead to Imminent Nuclear Attack in America” Article
- KCET’s Life & Times Blog’s “A Life & Times Special: When Terrorists Strike” Article
- LAPD
- Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
- Markle Foundation
- Never Yet Melted’s “Report: Bin Laden Planning Nuclear Attack on U.S. Soil This Month” Blog
- Ready.gov
- Secrets of Survival’s “2007: Nuclear Attack and Invasion of the United States” Article
- Wikipedia’s “Terrorism Early Warning Groups” Article
- Tags: Government, Military, Police, Science & Technology, Terrorists
Nuclear Attack Plan
Last updated: December 12, 2007
Reporter's NOTES
Toni Guinyard
While talking to Lt. John Sullivan with the Terrorism Early Warning Group, he mentioned the phrase “warning fatigue.” It’s what happens when the public receives so many warnings about potential threats that we stop listening and/or caring when we’re told that we may be in danger.
Scientists, academics, public-health and law-enforcement officials meet on a regular basis. They analyze potential threats, hold so-called “Day After” drills and plan how to respond if we’re ever targeted.
I was both comforted and disconcerted to learn that this has been taking place with little notice. But in some ways, that’s the point. I’m told that we should be informed, but not alarmed.
We invite you to tell us your thoughts about this topic.
COMMUNITY VIEWPOINTS
It is absurdly disappointing that Life & Times chose to play the “scare them into reaction” card on us all on Monday’s [10/9/07] “double-no-header:”
* A what-if report on “a nuclear attack on Southern California”
* And then “Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI And the Origins of 9/11″
Both are simply crude attempts to continue to divert us all with band-aids from our real American problems in dealing with terrorists. First, our real problem in L.A. isn’t dealing with the aftermath of a nuclear attack here–it’s our incompetence in global diplomacy and the derailing of U.S. leadership for global nuclear disarmament, now under the Bush years, that makes all preparation for a nuclear aftermath here now a sickening sop for all our children.
Similarly, the intelligence problems that led to the attacks of 9/11 had nothing to do with the CIA or the FBI. Richard Clarke, who was the White House terrorism expert leading up to 9/11 clearly knew attack warnings requiring a White House response were all over the place and lays clearly where “intelligence” failed: again, President Bush.
Describing the Clinton years, Clarke noted in an MSNBC interview: “We had Iraqi-sponsored terrorism against the United States. He [Clinton] used military force, and they stopped. We had Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the United States. He used covert action against them, and they stopped…We had Al-Qaeda attempts to blow up things in the United States during the millennium period, attempts to blow up embassies around the world, attempts to take over Bosnia during the Jihad in Bosnia. And all of those attempts were thwarted…The president of the United States was active on these issues in the Clinton administration. The president of the United States was not active on these issues prior to 9/11 in the Bush administration.”
Life & Times shouldn’t be giving us these Band-Aids and red herrings on these issues of our, and our children’s, safety. The safest thing for L.A. will be when George Bush, his incompetent Administration–and those neo-con ideologues with him who want to distract us with this kind of misdirection–are out of government and out of leadership in our media.
It’s simple: The neo-con “Project for a New American Century” advocated that America could only respond to 21st-century challenges by a galvanizing terror–that would unleash American force. Reporters who are following that line also still want to keep us focused on preparing for terror–instead of reporting on the community and government leadership in diplomacy that would be much more gratefully received by all to prevent it. It would have been much more balanced if one of those segments would have talked about that.
D.B. - Los Angeles, California