Russian Dashcam Meteor
-
@thanksaj it scared me pretty badly when it happened in Dallas.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj it scared me pretty badly when it happened in Dallas.
Wait, what?! WHEN?!
-
Probably 2012 or 2013. Was commuting down the GB when it went straight overhead heading roughly south. Was pretty surprising.
So one out on I81 a decade or so too. If you drive a ton at night you are much more likely to run into them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Probably 2012 or 2013. Was commuting down the GB when it went straight overhead heading roughly south. Was pretty surprising.
So one out on I81 a decade or so too. If you drive a ton at night you are much more likely to run into them.
It looks like of like a nuclear blast at first, which is why I'd be so terrified...that's one thing I never had to worry about in Syracuse. If some major attack from <insert whoever here> is gonna happen on US soil, it ain't gonna happen in a city like Syracuse. However, Dallas? VERY likely target.
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Probably 2012 or 2013. Was commuting down the GB when it went straight overhead heading roughly south. Was pretty surprising.
So one out on I81 a decade or so too. If you drive a ton at night you are much more likely to run into them.
It looks like of like a nuclear blast at first, which is why I'd be so terrified...that's one thing I never had to worry about in Syracuse. If some major attack from <insert whoever here> is gonna happen on US soil, it ain't gonna happen in a city like Syracuse. However, Dallas? VERY likely target.
That one was far away. I actually saw the meteor streak across the sky. A bit scarier because it came from behind me and went straight overhead. It looks like an alien invasion and it is FAST.
-
@thanksaj said:
However, Dallas? VERY likely target.
Not at all. No military significance, not a coastal (e.g. easy to hit) city, very sprawling (i.e. not an decisive target) and not a supplier of critical infrastructure to take out in case of a war. Houston, completely different story. It's coastal, has the energy heartbeat of the nation and is not nearly as sprawling. One hit there cripples the US easily ten times more than a hit to Dallas even though the DFW is technically larger and richer.
NYC, Boston, DC, Philly, Houston, LA, San Diego, San Fran, Seattle... those are the primary non-military targets in the US.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
However, Dallas? VERY likely target.
Not at all. No military significance, not a coastal (e.g. easy to hit) city, very sprawling (i.e. not an decisive target) and not a supplier of critical infrastructure to take out in case of a war. Houston, completely different story. It's coastal, has the energy heartbeat of the nation and is not nearly as sprawling. One hit there cripples the US easily ten times more than a hit to Dallas even though the DFW is technically larger and richer.
NYC, Boston, DC, Philly, Houston, LA, San Diego, San Fran, Seattle... those are the primary non-military targets in the US.
The one that I always found fascinating was that a very small town that I live near was on the Soviet strike list. The primary reason was it was the main power transfer station between the great lakes and the rest of the east coast. It is now defunct probably for that reason.
-
Lots of odd places are on strike lists because they are strategic in a war but don't make sense to normal people because we are normally thinking of big names, not critical infrastructure. Syracuse has the highway connection of I90 and I81, for example. Westchester has the water supply for NYC. Things like that.
-
Even Omaha, NE is a higher target than Dallas
-
