ext_13337 ([identity profile] fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] pecunium 2005-08-03 11:20 pm (UTC)

That's odd, because I thought it was pretty much a standard precaution nowadays.

Nightmares? TK, at least once a week, as I drive to work, crossing the Cumberland River on my way, I think: There are three interstate highways passing through Nashville, and a major railroad (CSX). Only one interstate route does not require you to cross the river (I-40 E-W/W-E), and only one rail route (South to East). How much would it mess up transportation to remove not just the interstate and railway bridges, but the local route bridges as well? Only one of them was built to earthquake standards; not all have been well-maintained. Dropping a bridge is not an exercise for amateurs, but it's a fairly well-documented procedure for military engineers, and I'm sure Al-Quaeida could find someone with hands-on experience, if they wanted to. You wouldn't even have to aim for casualties--removing the bridges in off-peak hours would still have a calamitous effect on the city, and a bad one on nationwide transportation. Do I think this is a novel idea? No. Do I think we have adequate security for bridges in major river cities, like Nashville, Louisville, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and so on? No. I suspect it's not flashy enough for our friends at DHS.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting