Why are so many federal agencies all bunched up together in Washington D.C. where they could potentially all be put out of business by one nuclear weapon?
You probably realize that no one will lob a single nuke at Washington and call it a day. If Washington gets hit at all we are probably talking about a full exchange where at the very least a couple hundred warheads are flying.
So the main thing you are accomplishing by moving these 50 or so agencies to other cities is - besides making the administration less efficient - painting a big red cross hair on 50 or so additional cities. Under certain assumptions about enemy strategic goals and warhead count this may be worth it, but that is a nuanced discussion and not a slam dunk.
The administrative efficiency thing otoh. makes it a slam dunk. In the other direction.
Thanks for engaging Marcel, and apologies for the quibble, but terrorists might very well hit Washington D.C. with a single nuke as suggested in the article (see the videos). Washington Is a VERY inviting target for any group wishing to do us harm. Given the concentration of important assets, it's hard to think of a more inviting target.
If nothing else, the concentration of assets leaves us wide open to crippling blackmail. If a group could make a credible nuclear threat they could disrupt the government for weeks without even having a bomb.
Terrorists did hit the Pentagon with a plane on 9/11, and were hoping to hit another target in Washington too. But somehow, we didn't seem to learn anything from that. More apologies, but um, you seem to have forgotten 9/11 too.
You probably realize that no one will lob a single nuke at Washington and call it a day. If Washington gets hit at all we are probably talking about a full exchange where at the very least a couple hundred warheads are flying.
So the main thing you are accomplishing by moving these 50 or so agencies to other cities is - besides making the administration less efficient - painting a big red cross hair on 50 or so additional cities. Under certain assumptions about enemy strategic goals and warhead count this may be worth it, but that is a nuanced discussion and not a slam dunk.
The administrative efficiency thing otoh. makes it a slam dunk. In the other direction.
Thanks for engaging Marcel, and apologies for the quibble, but terrorists might very well hit Washington D.C. with a single nuke as suggested in the article (see the videos). Washington Is a VERY inviting target for any group wishing to do us harm. Given the concentration of important assets, it's hard to think of a more inviting target.
If nothing else, the concentration of assets leaves us wide open to crippling blackmail. If a group could make a credible nuclear threat they could disrupt the government for weeks without even having a bomb.
Terrorists did hit the Pentagon with a plane on 9/11, and were hoping to hit another target in Washington too. But somehow, we didn't seem to learn anything from that. More apologies, but um, you seem to have forgotten 9/11 too.