Is anyone thinking DC may be too unsafe to stay in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If DC is unsafe, our country and region have much bigger problems.

I grew up in DC and figured we would be in the crater if a nuke hit. Same for any potential terrorist activity, though with Trump dismantling the FBI and much of our security apparatus, who knows. It isn't something I am going to lose sleep over.

That's not the right thinking. LA and NYC are the targets. Even east texas oil fields would be bigger targets. DC is just nothing but paper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL yes by all means move closer to Langley, Quantico or Andrews. Move closer to the Naval Academy, or the NSA. Get closer to NASA Greenbelt or all the Army presences near Fort Belvoir.

Good thinking, OP. Very logical.

There’s no need to shame OP. These are questions that genuinely weigh on people, and what’s happening in this country is very traumatic.

OP, I don’t think moving to the suburbs would necessarily make you safer. If something catastrophic were to happen in the city, the surrounding areas would likely be at risk as well.

[Anonymous]

Maybe OP should move to Weat Palm Beach

[Anonymous]

I have to laugh at these posts (sorry OP) but we are from the Middle East with a lot of family and friends in the Gulf, Lebanon, Jordan and they are all reporting their homes shaking, explosions going off, and missiles being intercepted over their homes. And none of them are freaking out because this is sadly, normal for them. For you to be freaking out is not based in reality right now.

[Anonymous]

If you mean safe from protest-related violence or a shooting on metro, sure.

If you mean from a nuclear blast or bio-weapon or something, you should move to Maine. 10 miles outside of DC buys you nothing but "futher to walk to get to family" when IT happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC is unsafe, our country and region have much bigger problems.

I grew up in DC and figured we would be in the crater if a nuke hit. Same for any potential terrorist activity, though with Trump dismantling the FBI and much of our security apparatus, who knows. It isn't something I am going to lose sleep over.

That's not the right thinking. LA and NYC are the targets. Even east texas oil fields would be bigger targets. DC is just nothing but paper

An attack in DC would be largely symbolic. However, those are often the ones with the most impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If DC is unsafe, our country and region have much bigger problems.

I grew up in DC and figured we would be in the crater if a nuke hit. Same for any potential terrorist activity, though with Trump dismantling the FBI and much of our security apparatus, who knows. It isn't something I am going to lose sleep over.

That's not the right thinking. LA and NYC are the targets. Even east texas oil fields would be bigger targets. DC is just nothing but paper

An attack in DC would be largely symbolic. However, those are often the ones with the most impact.

There's no symbolism in DC. Vegas had more symbolism than dc

[Anonymous]

I thought you were talking about teen mobs and brawls in Navy Yard and across the river in Pentagon City. I avoid those areas now.

[Anonymous]

You would have to move 100 miles away. Never venture closer. Else you will be trying to drive Beltway and jammed roads to reach family to say goodbye before the fallout or bioweapon does. We thought about this after 9-11 and anthrax.
Decided better to go fast than linger in agony.

Might want to decide on meetup protocols for family or survivors including what to do weeks late

[Anonymous]

OP, you're not crazy. Certainly, aggressive military actions that retaliatory actions raise the question you are asking.

But I think any (unlikely) episode of risk would be somewhat delimited in time, and whether the risk is short-term or long-term, you need to move away from the most major cities and their suburbs to secondary cities or smaller.

fwiw, the fall-out from a nuclear bomb extends less far geographically than many people assume.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather be dead without even knowing it was coming than live in Gaithersburg or Fairfax and have to live though the aftermath.

This might be the most DCUM commet ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'd rather be dead without even knowing it was coming than live in Gaithersburg or Fairfax and have to live though the aftermath.

This might be the most DCUM commet ever.

Yes! It really is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're not crazy. Certainly, aggressive military actions that retaliatory actions raise the question you are asking.

But I think any (unlikely) episode of risk would be somewhat delimited in time, and whether the risk is short-term or long-term, you need to move away from the most major cities and their suburbs to secondary cities or smaller.

fwiw, the fall-out from a nuclear bomb extends less far geographically than many people assume.

I watched a documentary call Chernobyl that definitely said Moscow, 608 miles away, could have been destroyed if the reactor went up.

[Anonymous]

Shit blows in the wind gets you in the end.

[Anonymous]

We get the same thread when every single time a new war start. I still remember when Russia attached Ukraine and the people going away for weeks because DC was not safe.