Billionaire Predicts Nuclear Attack Sun May 5,10:28 PM ET By JOE RUFF, Associated Press Writer OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - Investment guru Warren Buffett (news - web sites) offered a bleak prediction for the nation's national security, saying a terrorist attack on American soil is "virtually a certainty." Envy and dislike of the United States have fueled rage against the country even as the ability to build a nuclear device has spread, Buffett said Sunday at the final day of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s annual meeting. "We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," said Buffett, the firm's chief operating officer. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years ... it's virtually a certainty." Washington and New York would be the top two targets because terrorists want to traumatize the country and kill as many people as possible, Buffett said. Chemical or biological attacks are similarly high risks, Buffett said. Buffett is the second-richest man in the world with holdings in Coca-Cola Co., American Express and The Washington Post, but his main business is insurance. Berkshire Hathaway's insurance companies — particularly General Re Corp. — took a $2.4 billion underwriting loss because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The companies are now writing policies on terrorism but limiting their liability in any nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Only the federal government can ultimately insure property and other damage from a major terrorist attack, Buffett said. The 71-year-old Buffett and vice chairman Charlie Munger met with the news media the day after they spent six hours answering questions from some of the more than 10,000 Berkshire shareholders gathered for the annual meeting.
He wouldn't happen to have any put options on companies that own a lot of Washington real-estate would he? I shouldn't joke, because he's probably right.
wow, that kind of stuff is really hard to predict. an attack will happen eventually, even if it takes 100 years. wish i had that kinda foresight.
I don't think that it's an unreasonable position to take given the trends in the world over the last 30+ years. Of course, there could be some sort of radical shift in the world landscape, but you can only go on what you know today.
Glad an INVESTMENT EXPERT can predict what military strategists can't. I wonder how much defense contractor stock he has in his portfolio. Hmmm...
Maybe military strategists have predicted it and just didn't have the name recognition to get quoted. Which person can you identify more easily? 1) Warren Buffett 2) Anthony Cordesman Mango
Don't Worry About Warren Buffet, he's one of the greatest businessmen/financier's of our time and a master salesperson. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, is heavily weighted in insurance holding companies. I could see him planting seeds of this nature to lobby for further increases in Insurance Rates. Looking at how his firm will actually profit from September 11th shows you why he would make these sort of claims about nuclear conflict and its inevitability. The total cost of the September 11th disaster will run in the upward range of $100 billion dollars. Now the % of that attributable to Berkshire is about 4%. That means about $4 billion at the upper end. The General Re Acquisition in 1997 leaves the firm with over $60 billion in float, so that amount can be paid off easily, but the kicker is that this has already been used to lobby to raise insurance rates. If the rates increase my 10%, then it will take less than 3 quarters to make that money back, PLUS every day after that will be icing on the cake of the profits made by the insurance industry based on September 11th. Corporate America plans and/or takes full advantage of every situation. Warren should stick to finance and leave the Political theory to others.
I would wager that many terrorism experts have predicted it. And Jeff, Warren Buffet is a little more than just an 'investment expert'.
Wow....a person making an outrageous comment to benefit himself, isn't that what Mike Tyson is doing? DaDakota
Then again, Economics is the key to 90% of conflicts over the history of time. Maybe Warren has some insight. Only Economically deprived people are easily driven to War. That is why people in Afghanistan are more inclined to go to War than Americans because we enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in which we have a higher opportunity cost for our time and efforts.
Khan, That is right on the money. This is why we need to be more active in bringing the rest of the worlds standard of living up to par. People that are happy and content rarely go to war over what wine to drink at dinner. DaDakota
I know who he is but I'm wondering why anyone should care. "Experts" of all kinds said that nuclear war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. I grew up PLANNING on dying in a nuclear attack. I spent many a night wide awake after a nuclear nightmare because of these predictions. Ooops! I'm just not sure what the motivation is for someone like Buffet is to say something like this. He's not an idiot. He knows that it will get press. He knows it will freak people out but that really isn't his job. You don't get to be where he is without being very calculated about what you say to the media. This sounds like hype more than prediction.
Relax, he was taking questions from the annual stockholders meeting and someone asked him a question and I think he gave an answer that was his "opinion". The media made more out of this then any of the stockholders. Warren is asked questions ranging from war and terror to who he likes in the Super Bowl at the annual Q&A and he gives candid answers on what he thinks.
Japan made that mistake. Somebody else will too, but whoever makes that mistake will do their cause more harm than good.
You shouldn't. Does he know something you don't about nuclear attacks? No. If I asked you before this silly Buffett thing, "Jeff, do you think it is a virtual certainty that there will be a nuclear attack of some sort in America in the next century?" what would you say? Maybe 'virtual certainty' would be a little too unequivocal, but I bet most people would say 'probably.' Why it would get press, I don't know.
