Boise Ranked 10th in Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack (Eagle: neighborhoods, earthquake)

[Anchorless]

For some strange reason we're ranked 10 out of 132 urban areas studied. The studies cites "the risks of flood and wildfires" as the reason why.

Here's the article:

Vulnerable to terrorism? Boise ranks No. 10 in U.S. | News Updates | Idaho Statesman (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/316820.html - broken link)

[Niners fan]

Interesting. I think this statement sheds the most light on the ranking:

"It's not probability of being a target," he said. "It's vulnerability."

But this one is the most curious:

"If the terrorists were smart enough to say, 'I'm going to take out the dam in Boise,' you guys would be in trouble," he said.

I can think of a lot of negative words to use about terrorists but dumb and impatient are not words I would use for them.

[Anchorless]

I love how these reports tend to be a blueprint for terrorist activity anyway.

"Hey, come blow up and the dam and there is nothing we could do about it" *wink* *wink*.

[Torrie]

Doesn't worry me one bit. I'm sure this is published for shock value, the same reason it's being posted on the forum. Hardly a reason for people to be concerned. As we all know, papers don't sell if something shocking isn't printed. I haven't even looked at the paper this morning and I'll bet this article is somewhere on the front page if not the main headline.

Boise's built on benches so flooding isn't even an issue in most parts, and sure if someone wants to do destruction on the dam that could be a concern for flooding, but we don't have as large of a population as areas that might typically be targeted for terrorism. As far as wildfires go, I can see fires in the surrounding areas, but unless we have the right conditions, and that's a big "if", it would be hard to imagine the whole metro area going up in smoke if not impossible. Like the article says, the rating doesn't mean that the city of Boise is a target.

As you like to point out, the comments are more interesting than the article itself.
voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_316820

IMO, it's sad to see something like this put in print more less posted on a public forum. I have to agree with some of the posters, why would you? Regardless, I highly doubt you will see a flood of people leaving because of this report. Like someone said, "paranoia will destroy ya".

[Anchorless]

Originally Posted by Torrie

Doesn't worry me one bit. I'm sure this is published for shock value, the same reason it's being posted on the forum. Hardly a reason for people to be concerned. As we all know, papers don't sell if something shocking isn't printed. I haven't even looked at the paper this morning and I'll bet this article is somewhere on the front page if not the main headline.

Lol.

You're the one who continually posts articles about how "safe" Boise is, yet now you're the skeptic in regards to news articles?

Look, I don't disagree with you in the slightest that this is mainly hype, but it's a genuine study conducted by an impartial source. I can't see any agenda here by their conclusion of Boise's relative ranking - it's certainly not to make money or stimulate an industry.

I will acknowledge that the whole "terrorist alert level" issue is a tool to deflect attention from other stories, and that in general these reports have little impact on our day to day lives. But there is substance here, and if you read the report it is merely our [u]vulnerability to attack[u], and not a level or degree of threat.

Originally Posted by Torrie

Boise's built on benches so flooding isn't even an issue in most parts, and sure if someone wants to do destruction on the dam that could be a concern for flooding, but we don't have as large of a population as areas that might typically be targeted for terrorism.

Try checking out the 100 year floodplain maps/data, and look at the population loci for the Boise area - a good deal of Boise is subject to flooding should a dam burst/explode, so this is very much an issue.

Whether or not a terrorist - either foreign or domestic - should target Boise is another issue. I agree that I hardly see the point, but there are areas of vulnerability, which is all this study is suggesting.

Originally Posted by Torrie

As far as wildfires go, I can see fires in the surrounding areas, but unless we have the right conditions, and that's a big "if", it would be hard to imagine the whole metro area going up in smoke if not impossible. Like the article says, the rating doesn't mean that the city of Boise is a target.

Arson is and has been a problem in the Boise area, but I certainly agree our metro wouldn't be torched to the ground.

The lingering effects of a large, close fire are another story. Were you not here during the 8th St. fire?

Originally Posted by Torrie

As you like to point out, the comments are more interesting than the article itself.
voices.idahostatesman.com/idaho_story_316820

Agreed - I always like to see public discussion on an issue, and you tend to get a deeper sense of the issue by hearing other opinions.

Originally Posted by Torrie

IMO, it's sad to see something like this put in print more less posted on a public forum. I have to agree with some of the posters, why would you? Regardless, I highly doubt you will see a flood of people leaving because of this report. Like someone said, "paranoia will destroy ya".

Why? Because it's a "negative" story?

I apologize that I have no interest in simply posting happy fluff pieces, but any stories of concern and interest to the Boise area, especially if they're stories that might spark some discussion.

[Niners fan]

I hate to agree with Anchorless twice in one day but...

I think this was a good topic for a thread. I can only hope that the authorities have a better way of hearing about vulnerabilities and threats than from the news media!

[Syringaloid]

The people who put together this "another dumb/boring list of cities" even admit that Boise is out of the norm for being on this list, they were scratching their heads. But then the list is only making news because the Statesman needed a cover story.
I don't think this as negative becuase Boise is one of the safest places to live-period. Boise has been ranked one of the safest cities numerous times, and this ranking is mainly appealing to people who like sensationalism and negativeness.

[Niners fan]

Originally Posted by Syringaloid

The people who put together this "another dumb/boring list of cities" even admit that Boise is out of the norm for being on this list, they were scratching their heads. But then the list is only making news because the Statesman needed a cover story.
I don't think this as negative becuase Boise is one of the safest places to live-period. Boise has been ranked one of the safest cities numerous times, and this ranking is mainly appealing to people who like sensationalism and negativeness.

You are probably right. But I have long wondered when terrorists would strike a "middle" America city like Boise. I think an attack there would do more to terrorize more Americans than an attack on a big city like NYC or DC.

[Anchorless]

I want to reiterate the report, while sensationalistic (as the Statesman is wont to be) isn't about risk, but rather vulnerability.

Meaning, simply, we have certain features about our city that are prone to massive destruction, should it ever happen. It's alright to know about this - not really much to do about it, though, and most people are probably smart enough to figure out there's no need for fear.

But you know, it was printed in the local rag, and so there's probably a contingent of readers here that are interested in reading it.

[boi2socal]

Well, I do have to agree flooding, in general, or an attack on any of the dam's above Boise could have serious consequences. The same scenario could apply in a large earthquake. Which isn't that likely BUT still POSSIBLE. Look at the random earthquake in Northern Nevada. I sometimes wonder if that pile of rocks called Lucky Peak Damn could handle it.

As far as fire...Boise is pretty well protected and has a quite a bit of resources. No, the whole city may not burn down but it could have a significant impact on foothill neighborhoods from Eagle to Hidden Springs to Boise. Look at how fire spread in fairly dense Southern California under the right conditions. Obviously, winds as strong and as long lasting as the Santa Anas are not common but Boise can get fairly windy.

I don't think it is in the best interest of anyone to think, "well, Boise was ranked safest city so I'm safe." But I also don't think because of this article anyone should live in fear or run for the hills. Just be aware.