Pentagon says if we get nuked it IS ready to respond-just not quickly, efficiently or effectively

[kpete]

Pentagon rejects report, says ready for WMD attack By Kristin Roberts
Fri Feb 1, 4:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Friday insisted it is ready to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear attack inside the United States, rejecting an independent panel's criticism of its preparations.

But the Pentagon conceded it is not yet satisfied with its plans to respond to some of the 15 catastrophic attack scenarios that federal agencies have been ordered to prepare for, such as a nuclear attack or a series of chemical attacks throughout the country.

Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said plans to respond to those scenarios would be improved this year.

"We are prepared to respond," McHale said. "We are not prepared to respond with the speed, the efficiency and the effectiveness that we intend to achieve."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080201/pl_nm/usa_military_guard_dc_1

[tekisui]

1. Oh, so it would be like the Katrina response.

great.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Just what is the Pentagon's response to...

any sort of major disaster supposed to be? The Guard is under state control in an emergency (unless that's changed) and the rest of it is largely civilian medical, fire, etc. The military's role is largely transport

What could a B1 or aircraft carrier do to help if someone drops a bag of Anthrax on Chicago? Do submarines have any deterrent effect on some unhinged asshole with a suitcase bomb in Philadelphia? Or the next earthquake?

Looks like most of the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and other heirs of the Cold War will be as useful as they were in New Orleans or the California forest fires.

[Xenotime]

3. Words are easy. Actions are harder.

Example: Katrina