With all this concern for West Coast bridges, have our “powers that be” given equal thought to NYC bridges, etc? Of course, there are big bridges across the US, but those crowded during rush hour would be most susceptible, wouldn’t you think?
- Jinx
Reasonable. There’s the bridge over Tampa Bay that would seem to be a good target. Then there are the bridges over the Mississippi and other rivers. A barge full of explosives could do a lot of damage.
Personally, I’m torn between the idea that we must be open to these ideas, because it is better than sticking our heads in the sand and how it is such negative (gloom and doom) thinking.
It’s sad we are forced to start thinking this way…
Hope our USA bridges stand forever more!
- Jinx
I suspect that the warning was based on some sort of evidence that the West Coast bridges were the particular targets, not that some U.S. wonk thought to himself, “The last hit was on the East, what would they target on the West?”
If it was just “bridges,” then there are lots all up and down the East Coast, along the Ohio/Mississippi/Missouri river system, along the Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence system, and scattered around other locations, as well.
Around the same time of the 1993 WTC bombing, the FBI caught some guys who were planning to set off a truck-bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel. Ever since, I have tried to avoid it during rush hour, and take the trains instead. . . It would be very easy to bomb (even with today’s so-called “checkpoints”), and they’ve already thought of it, nearly ten years ago.
…or bridges crowded with people during the marathon. Though I’m going with my “the club” theory of attack, that although New York City security still isn’t good enough to prevent another attack, it’s good enough for them to jimmy open the door on the next car.