next »

[aardvark]

Just for the heck of it, here's a topic:  in this whole wide world, which major city would be best prepared to respond in case of a major disaster ranging in seriousness from tsunami to nuclear attack?  Hundreds of thousands of casualties, water and food supplies disrupted, fear-induced chaos in the streets:  which city responds the best?

My initial vote is for Hong Kong, Seoul, or Tokyo.

[prytania3]

NYC.

[spork]

Judging by what happened in Japan during the Kobe earthquake, I would not pick Tokyo.

What's more important than emergency response plans, in my opinion, is simple geography, population density, and infrastructure.  A few examples:

New Orleans -- poor, below sea level, in a hurricane zone.  Duh.

San Francisco Bay Area -- fault lines, a water supply that can be disrupted by blowing a dam or two.  The city of San Francisco is surrounded on 3 sides by water; if the Golden Gate and Bay Bridge go, there's only one way out.

The best way a person can prepare for disaster is to have 3 days worth of water and food in their residence and a full tank of gas in their car.

[aardvark]

I'm surprised about the NYC pick.  What's the story with Tokyo, though-- since the Kobe earthquake was some 300 miles away, how bad did it get in Tokyo? (this is a genuine question).

Of course the full tank of gas in the car is a good idea if you live in Huntsville, AL, or Spokane, WA, but I don't think it will help out most people in the big Asian cities-- easy enough to buy the gas, but no car to put it in!

[prytania3]

I just realized the OP included nuclear attack. It won't really matter what city you're in--everyone will be dead within, I think, what, a 20 mile radius? And anyone within a 60 mile radius will die the next year from leukemia. I don't think there are many supplied fall-out shelters out there anymore.

[expatinuk]

I think that NYC did an EXCELLENT job with the 911 World Trade Center... I also think that London did an excellent job with the tube bombings.

I would NOT want to be in Paris for any major disaster because I don't think that the authorities would be able to handle it.

[prytania3]

I think that NYC did an EXCELLENT job with the 911 World Trade Center... I also think that London did an excellent job with the tube bombings.

I would NOT want to be in Paris for any major disaster because I don't think that the authorities would be able to handle it.

LOL. The French would run around tightly in circles.

[schoolmarm]

Or go on strike!

[illuminata]

I'd vote for the Germans or the Swedes. Their trains are spotless and on time. How about Munich or Berlin or Stockholm?
Paris seems to me to be in a state of emergency all the time. It's one of the quirky things I love about it, but would certainly not want to be there after a real one.
Italy is another bad idea for the same reasons. Italians can't seem to get things to run smoothly ever. And let's not discuss the Italian government. Of course, you'd eat well while recovering there, but still. I'd go with the Germans.

[walker_percy]

Then surrender.

[spork]

To answer the Kobe/Tokyo question:  the response to the Kobe earthquake, or lack thereof, pointed out serious deficiencies in Japan's ability to deal with a disaster at the national level.  I'm sure some of the problems have been remedied, but the Japanese government is not known for quick, innovative solutions in times of crisis.  A natural disaster in Tokyo could very well paralyze the entire government since Tokyo is the national capital.

[notaprof]

Precisely because of the earthquake in Kobe, Japan may be more prepared than anywhere else.  The city of Kobe has been studying the issue of disaster preparedness ever since the 1995 earthquake and investing in making efforts to improve.  There will be conference in August to consider this even further and they hope to provide the benefit of their years of work to other cities around the world. 

How do you plan for chaos and the failure of all systems of communication and transportation.  On 9-11 in New York, one large failure was the inability to communicate with the firefighters and police in the tower.  Imagine that multiplied across the entire 5 burroughs of New York with no electricity, or water or ATM access and collapsed freeways and subway tunnels.  People need to be individually prepared, have their own provisions to last for several weeks, not just a three day supply.  We here in California all go out and get prepared immediately after an earthquake hits somewhere but then we slack off and use up the supplies and forget to replace them.  I have my flashlights stored all over the house and in the car and a few extra jugs of water laying around but otherwise, I am certainly not prepared for the big one.   Katrina hasn't really taught us anything except not to be poor when disaster strikes. 

[untenured]

Pyongyang, hands down.  North Korea is basically a repressive, starving armed-camp.  Pyongyang is it's center.  That's why the one-stop Pyongyang subway is very, very, very deep underground.

Untenured

[prof_viola]

I'd be pretty worried about the prospects in any major American city--and I suspect that in rural areas, people are simultaneously more self-reliant, better prepared, and more willing to help and share with others.  (Having said that, though, NYC showed its true colors in coming together in the aftermath of 9/11--I'm originally from NY, btw--so maybe my generalization is as far off as many in my students' papers. . . .) 

This might be thread-hijacking, but has anyone visited the Dept. of Homeland Absurdity's website and seen the "plan" for handling an avian flu epidemic?  Now that's scary. . . . http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/pandemic-influenza.html

One of my "world enough and time" ambitions is to move beyond just being a first responder and actually get an EMT certification.  Maybe after tenure. . . .

[dolljepopp]

The NYC response to 9/11 was of course remarkable.  However, some of the communication problems between the NYPD and the Port Authority and the NYFD have still not been completely resolved.

And, in the years I lived there, Police and Ambulance response time was not fabulous.

I'd vote for a place that regularly deals with extreme conditions -- coastal areas,  maybe, or tough winter cities (Denver?  Minneapolis/St. Paul? Boston?).