On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:11:38 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in _mOFe.25$PX4.1@trndny08::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
missing something?

In addition, one of the articles I read (I posted the link in another
thread) strongly implied that the batteries are moved in only during periods in
which the security level is heightened (IIRC, "orange" or higher), so evacuation
would've made sense during most of the last year.

So it would seem that the best way to prevent evacuations would be to
have the missile batteries in place all the time.

Evacuation strategy is also imperfect. If the evacuees are told to scatter, you
reduce the possibility of large numbers of people being killed while increasing
the chance that some people will be killed if the plane hits off-target. Having
everyone move in the same direction decreases the chance that the plane will hit
anyone while increasing the chance of large numbers of casualties if it does hit
them.

That's a reasonable analysis, but it says nothing of the loss of
dignity the evacuation policy imposes on the leaders of our noble
nation, nor the loss of productive work accomplished. There's got to
be a better strategy.