Originally Posted by mjm

Oh dear. Now this is just getting silly, er, absurd. I went out and looked at the storm a number of times, not just from the window, and I too, like anyone else, have access to radar images of weather. Very easy to see what is going on with reasonable accuracy. Not perfect, but certainly sufficient to estimate the response appropriateness.

The TRACON building in Chicago was built 74 years ago, rather somewhat before modern technology. Was the structure up to the challenge the storm presented? I do not know, but I can hazard a very educated guess. Is the building sufficiently grounded?? I would expect so as this an be easily retrofitted. Is the equipment in a protected (from weather, earthquakes, floods, etc.) location? I doubt it as the building would not need to be as tall as it is.

Tokyo Tower is such a poor example I will not even address it, but Station Tower is a good one. Do you know where the electronics systems are located in the building? On what floor in general? Do you know what systems are on place should the Tokyo power grid go down? Here is the thing. I do. Completely. With that knowledge, to compare a building which opened in 2023 to a building completed in 1950 to the very different standards of buildings in the US and Japan, or to suggest that the latter would be of a higher standard than the former, demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of the examples offered. I appreciate the intention, but without the knowledge it just comes across as a typical armchair quarterback.

With the proffered anecdotal evidence giving rise to a greater sense of personal security provided by things done here, might I suggest that rather than trying to pick at others' statements, an argument might be offered as to why specifically the actions taken here that day were the best? Specifically though, based on actual knowledge and experience, not just because the "people equipped with weather radars covering the relevant areas in and around Haneda" say so.