Dirty Bombs:

Quote :

"skokiaan:dirty bombs - less lethal than conventional bombs, take a shower to wash off any nuclear junk"

I think it's a little more complicated of a decontamination process than that. Plus the device and tactics which surround it are more useful for inspiring irrational fear in a population rather than mass destruction. *shrug* it could still happen, but the death toll will be relatively small

Biological Weapons:

Quote :

"skokiaan:biological weapons - hard to make, hard to deliver, less lethal than conventional bombs"

See, I disagree on some parts of this. The two hardest parts of developing a biological weapon is finding some viral experts and finding base strains to develop from. However, with the growing number of PhD holding scientists (specifically in the fields of biology, genetics, etc.) moving to SE Asia (Singapore, China, India), I doubt it'd be TOO tough to find someone close to a terrorist organization in the Middle East. The viral strains is a whole different problem that I don't want to get into right now cause I've gotta hop in the shower and goto class soon. Lemme get back from that, and I'll be happy to expound on the topic a little more.

Chemical Weapons:

Quote :

"hooksaw:I strongly believe that a chemical attack in the United States is the most likely possibility. The attack could be as simple as poisoning a major food and/or water supply, or it could involve crashing a vehicle into a giant chlorine tank. Unfortunately, there are numerous scenarios that would not be very difficult to execute."

While some forms of chemical attacks here would be easy to execute, simply because the chemicals are already here, I do have to look at the track record around the globe of chemical terrorist attacks and conclude that I'm not that worried about a mass casualty situation. Also reference chlorine tank car accidents like the one in SC in 2005, where multiple chlorine tank cars ruptured, and the death toll didn't even reach double digits.

Do they even allow tank cars of toxic and dangerous chemicals to travel through heavily populated areas? I have no idea, but it would seem logical to me to not allow this to happen for a number of reasons.

Quote :

"skokiaan:Conventional bombs are much more effective at killing people than any equivalent amount of chemical, radiological, or biological material."

Meh, too big a generalization to make. Correctly executed, a biological attack could kill millions. We could argue the effectiveness of 'correctly executed' *insert terror weapon* attacks all day long, but how often does anything go exactly to plan?

Quote :

"hooksaw: TOMMY THOMPSON, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY [December 6, 2004]: I for the life of me cannot understand why the terrorists have not, you know, attacked our food supply. Because it is -- it is so easy to do. And we're importing a lot of food from the Middle East."

I've looked and can not find it, so I will ask you to provide the evidence of your and Mr. Thompson's claim. What food products do we import from the Middle East (of all places), and what percentage of those products makes up the whole pie of consumed food in the US? I'm gonna guess it's insignificantly small.

I'm not arguing that our food supply isn't vulnerable to tampering. Yes, it can happen. It just doesn't seem very likely or very effective.

Going back to the topic at hand:
Thinking about who should ever be allowed to hold and control nuclear weapons (ie: countries, terrorist groups) it occurred to me that while I'm totally fine with countries possessing nuclear weapons, organizations/groups should never be allowed them. Not just terrorist organizations, but corporations. Could you conceive a time when we might be arguing the rights of IBM or Wal-mart to hold a couple ICBMs?

Going to class, be back to argue later.

5/24/2007 7:08:07 AM

hooksaw:

Adding to what I said earlier about the effectiveness of a chemical attack..

In addition to the logistical problems of executing the attack itself, you also have to factor in the unpredictable force of nature. A big lesson military strategists in numerous countries learned about using chemical weapons on the battlefield was dealing with the wind. Wind speed, direction, intensity etc. change constantly. Even if a chemical attack at a refinery or in a crowded city took place, the direction and speed of the wind could make an attack extremely deadly or pitifully unsuccessful.

Since there is no way to control the wind, and thus no way to guarantee you kill anyone with an attack, wasting time, resources, energy and money on such an attack wouldn't be an sound strategic decision.

As I argued in another thread about possible terrorist attacks, a great chemical attack would be to flood the stairwells of a skyscraper with a nerve agent and pull the fire alarm, or set a bomb off. Force people into a crowded space with lots of gas, make them perform an activity where they are breathing heavily (running down stairs), watch them die.

hope no turrists are reading this

5/24/2007 9:53:00 AM

Quote :

"but others just need to be treated like children because they act like them."

sad, but true

5/24/2007 10:51:44 AM

Quote :

"Do they even allow tank cars of toxic and dangerous chemicals to travel through heavily populated areas? I have no idea, but it would seem logical to me to not allow this to happen for a number of reasons."

Sayer

Jesus, man. If you'd bothered to read the link I posted, you would know the answer to your question. YES! Hazardous chemicals are transported through densely populated areas every day--and by law they must be clearly marked (BTW, there is a pat on the back for a high-profile Democrat in the quotation--I guess the naysayers [no pun intended] missed that):

Quote :

"Chlorine and anhydrous ammonia are not stored in the vast quantities that hydrofluoric acid is at oil refineries, and the biggest threat from these chemicals may be during their transport in tank cars. To prevent these well-marked tank cars from injuring or killing tens of thousands of people, hazardous shipments must be routed away from densely populated areas [emphasis added]. But when Washington, DC, tried to do just that in January 2005 by passing a bill preventing hazardous shipments in its downtown, it was sued by the rail company CSX Transportation, which got help, incredibly enough, from DHS. Although a federal judge ruled in favor of the city in April 2005, a three-judge appellate panel reversed this decision a month later. Why does CSX oppose the city’s desire to make its citizens safer? Rerouting in this oligopolistic industry, where many customers have one option, would sometimes require handoffs of shipments between companies. If that practice became widespread, it would eat into rail industry profits. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has introduced legislation that would force the rerouting of hazardous rail shipments away from likely terrorist targets. It lies dormant."

In his laughable posts, the rabid left-wing Kool-Aid drinker skokiaan presents a glaring either-or logical fallacy: "Conventional bombs" and a chemical or radiological attack are not mutually exclusive--such bombs could be used to initiate either a chemical or radiological attack. In addition, concerning the body count, it would not have to be as high as, say, 9-11 to produce a significant psychological and economic effect on our society. Apparently, the smart guys didn't even consider this.

I can only hope that skokiaan and his sycophantic gaggle of circle-jerkers are attacked by a giant cloud of fart gas. Not you, Sayer; you've been fairly reasonable--in this thread.

PS: Concerning the food/water supply, I have presented evidence that government officials believe it is vulnerable, I believe it is vulnerable, and I think most rational people experientially know that it is vulnerable--I mean, how hard would it be to poison a milk truck or a water supply? You and anybody else that cares to should provide evidence that our food and water supply is not vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Sayer.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 1:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2007 12:45:31 PM

Quote :

"nice post"

drunknloaded

"Oh, by the way, I agree! Can I hang with you cool kids now? No? "

5/24/2007 1:14:03 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: Jesus, man. If you'd bothered to read the link I posted, you would know the answer to your question. YES! Hazardous chemicals are transported through densely populated areas every day--and by law they must be clearly marked"

I glanced through it, missed that part. Wish I'd seen it though, cause yeah, that's kinda a common sense thing. Even though it will cost consumers in the end, eventually that policy will change. But even then it's a moot point, the weather makes this type of attack a gamble at best, and there are better ways to spend manpower and money, like tampering with the food supply . Possibly better ways to inflict terror too, depending on what's your primary objective; kill or frighten.

And in regards to said food supply, I guess I'm not trying to say it isn't vulnerable. I agree with you and those with the same opinion. It'd be easy to mess around with a food truck, or mass ingredient. Where I split with you and the rest is the seriousness of such an attack. Look at the past reaction times of foodborn illness outbreaks like the E. Coli outbreak in NJ last year. I think it was from eating at Taco Bell. 40ish people got sick. Or the other E. Coli outbreak from ConAgra(that name kinda makes me laugh a little given the situation), I think 18 or 19 people got infected on a national distribution level before the problem was realized and action was carried out effectively. In contrast, the worst case scenerio I can remember in recent past was the spinach fiasco where a couple of hundred people got sick and 3 or 4 people died.

Where I'm going with this is that people getting sick and people dying suddenly and for no reason raise two different levels of alarms. If the reaction times of the health administrations for illness like E.Coli catch the problem at this level of efficiency, does it seem like they'd respond even faster if people started suddenly dying?

I remember last fall when there was that E.Coli strain found in the water supply in Cary. They shut down everything in that entire town almost instantly. All restaurants closed, it was all over the news, only a couple people got sick.

So, I'd argue that food contamination happens all the time even without the terrorists. We've had lots of experience dealing with these problems, and have reasonably effective measures in place to address problems as they arise.

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

5/24/2007 2:38:22 PM

^^^The more you type, the more you reveal how poor you understand the issue. Your insults are getting longer, too -- you are really desperate to hide the fact you can't address any one of my points. I'll post my argument again, since you seem to be trying so hard to forget it:

Radiological, chemical, and biological weapons aren't as dangerous as conventional weapons

Quote :

"hooksaw: In his laughable posts, the rabid left-wing Kool-Aid drinker skokiaan presents a glaring either-or logical fallacy: "Conventional bombs" and a chemical or radiological attack are not mutually exclusive--such bombs could be used to initiate either a chemical or radiological attack."

Thank for the concession in the above quote. You couldn't prove that radiological/chemical/biological weapons were more dangerous, so you think you can still prove your point by saying they could also be good conventional weapons. There's only one problem with that, dimwit: chem/bio/radiological weapons aren't delivered with conventional explosives BY DESIGN, not because I am forcing you to accept a false dichotomy.

The larger the conventional explosion of a bomb, the poorer it is at dispersing chemical or biological agents. That's because the conventional explosive destroys the chemical or biological agent that the bomber intends to spread in the first place. That's why weapon designers -- you know, actual engineers -- design chemical and biological delivery systems to have small explosions or none at all.

I hope that someone with even your childish grasp of science and engineering can understand this.

Quote :

"hooksaw: In addition, concerning the body count, it would not have to be as high as, say, 9-11 to produce a significant psychological and economic effect on our society. Apparently, the smart guys didn't even consider this. "

Ah, beaten on the engineering and science discussion, so you are retreating to psychology and economics. It's understandable that someone with such a feeble grasp of reality would retreat to an arena where he can more easily make wild claims. Anyway, it seems that the country's "psychology" and economy recovered just fine from 9/11. Unfortunately for you, you can't separate the 9/11 effect from the economic slowdown that we were already experiencing at that time.

Quote :

"hooksaw: PS: Concerning the food/water supply, I have presented evidence that government officials believe it is vulnerable, I believe it is vulnerable,"

Translation: I have provided highly politicized, biased, and unscientific quotes about possible threats, but not a single shred of scientific evidence.

Quote :

"hooksaw: and I think most rational people experientially know that it is vulnerable"

Translation: I didn't actually do any work, but I'm going to assert that my position is true.

Quote :

"hooksaw: --I mean, how hard would it be to poison a milk truck or a water supply?"

Translation: I can't actually provide any evidence, so I am begging the question

Quote :

"hooksaw: You and anybody else that cares to should provide evidence that our food and water supply is not vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Sayer. "

Translation: I can't actually prove that unconventional attacks would be all that harmful, so I am going to try to change the argument and hope that no one notices. (FYI: No one has disputed that the food or water supply can be attacked easily -- I and the scientific evidence just show that any such attack would not be that harmful ).

[Edited on May 24, 2007 at 7:10 PM. Reason : kl]

5/24/2007 7:05:36 PM

Quote :

"drunknloaded "Oh, by the way, I agree! Can I hang with you cool kids now? No? " "

lol wtf is wrong with some of you wolfwebbers...you seriously make me wonder

the dude put this:

Quote :

"If you take 40 more years, you might actually come up with a clever insult! It'll take more than a lifetime for you to come up with a rational defense of your position, though."

which is an excellent post, because he not only clowns on this guys lame insults, but then the second line even makes the first line better, and this hooksaw dude puts some shit like that...i swear, you people

5/24/2007 7:27:28 PM

Even NC State understands that chemicals on trains are dangerous. The following quotation is from this week's Technician:

Quote :

"An After-Action Report analyzing a train derailment exercise reported issues that needed to be improved in communication, both internal and external, and evacuation procedures that the University uses."

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2007/05/24/News/Disaster.Report.Highlights.Need.For.Improvement-2907218.shtml

Even the Democrats, CBS News, and other news outlets understand that chemical plants are targets:

U.S. Plants: Open To Terrorists
60 Minutes Finds Lax Security At Many U.S. Chem Facilities

Quote :

"'This is one of the main thoroughfares for commuters who come in and out of New York City every day,' says Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., who says there’s very little security at this plant. 'You know, looks to me like you could drive a truck through some of these fences if you wanted to pretty quickly.'"

Quote :

"'We're looking all over Iraq for biological and chemical weapons. We don't have to look for 'em very hard, they're right here, right here in our backyards,' says Corzine."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/60minutes/main583528.shtml

Quote :

"Government studies of the chemical industry found security against terrorists to be 'fair to poor,' while a terrorist attack triggering an industrial toxic release remains 'a clear and credible threat.' Around some chemical plants, a chemical release could harm many thousands of people. The industry claims security has improved, but news reports detail more than 100 instances of chemical plant security failing to keep out uninvited reporters, thieves and security test personnel. Voluntary industry security codes are no substitute for federal chemical security standards and safer technologies that reduce or eliminate the threats that chemical plants pose to our communities."

http://www.crtk.org/detail.cfm?docID=26&cat=spills%20and%20emergencies

Yeah, those right-wingers Biden, Corzine--and 60 Minutes (?!)--should stop with the "scaremongering bullshit," am I right?

^ PS: Obviously, your bar for "excellence" is set quite low. Isn't it time for you to masturbate again?









[Edited on May 25, 2007 at 5:48 AM. Reason : .]

5/25/2007 5:25:24 AM

Well, I'll leave you two to continue whatever it is that you are doing, but since we've strayed so far from the original topic the conversation has lost its luster for me.

hooksaw: The horse is dead dude, both skokiaan and I have already openly agreed with you about the vulnerability of the industry. Yet, you continue to pound the issue home like we haven't heard you.

The only thing I don't agree with you on is the potential of an attack. The wind and the weather make a successful attack a very big gamble, and considering the tactics of guerrilla/terrorist warfare you don't waste men and money on gamble attacks.

If you'd like to move this into a thread about potential and largely unrecognized terrorist targets, I'm sure we could get some interesting discourse going. As it is, I'll probably only be back if this thread returns to a discussion about nuclear proliferation.

5/25/2007 7:06:09 AM

^ I shall ponder this.

5/26/2007 1:07:33 AM

Yeah, but I'm sure the FBI director doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm gonna go ahead and trust a couple of A-holes on TWW instead.

Small Nukes, Big Threat
FBI Director Tells CBS News: Small Devices Sought By Terrorists Could Unleash Destruction Worse Than 9/11

Quote :

"'It's not hype. It's something we deal with day in and day out,' Mueller said. 'When you are talking about an improvised nuclear device, it is something that would be horrifying if it fell into the hands of terrorists or terrorists were able to manufacture such a device — and we can not let that happen. We just can not let that happen.' An unthinkable threat — not an impossible one."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/eveningnews/main2925463.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2925463

And the 450 officials from 30 countries that attended a conference this month obviously don't think such an attack can occur--they just wanted a free vacation to Miami, am I right?

NUCLEAR TERRORISM
Talking Prevention in Miami

Quote :

"This week in Miami, representatives from nearly 30 countries have gathered to talk shop on how to combat nuclear terrorism in a first-of-its-kind international conference led by the FBI and its Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate The 'Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Law Enforcement Conference'—attended by some 450 public and private sector officials from law enforcement, intelligence, border control, nuclear security, and related professions—is an outgrowth of an agreement signed by Russia and the U.S. last summer to build multinational cooperation on the issue."

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june07/nuclear061107.htm



[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:12:02 PM

Quote :

"'It's not hype. It's something we deal with day in and day out,' Mueller said. 'When you are talking about an improvised nuclear device, it is something that would be horrifying if it fell into the hands of terrorists or terrorists were able to manufacture such a device — and we can not let that happen. We just can not let that happen.' An unthinkable threat — not an impossible one."

good lord, hooksaw. have you checked under your bed? communists just might be hiding there,
waiting for you to fall asleep.

lets think up the most horrific scenario possible. never mind how unlikely it is. then we'll go ask the
FBI director, who says "yeah, that would suck, wouldnt it", then we can congratulate ourselves
and run around squealing about how "it could happen, dude... it so could happen... and then we'd
all be like serious toast. I mean .... like woah dude!"

do you not have any concept of scale, no concept of feasibility? sure such a thing is "possible"
-- as distinct from "impossible" -- because just you cant have the FBI director going around
saying "nope, impossible" to anything regarding terrorists.

Quote :

"And the 450 officials from 30 countries that attended this conference obviously don't think such an attack can occur--they just wanted a free vacation to Miami, am I right?"

yeah, thats a part of it. you dont see these conferences being held in Des Moines or Omaha.
ever wonder why?






[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2007 11:23:09 PM

What a big surprise! Look, everyone, it's joe_shithead trolling again. Please terminate this asshole already.

6/21/2007 11:35:47 PM

cry more pls. or maybe you could try and refute me without crying. your choice.

oh, wait. your rhetorical strawmen and red herrings, by their very nature, prevent anyone from expressing any meaningful disagreement with your position. its either: "agree with me or troll me".

how clever of you.




[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2007 11:43:14 PM

hooksaw, we get back to the my main point with your two posts: capability.

'Never say never' is a lesson which has broad application. Humanity has shown its ability to build nuclear weapons, so saying it would be impossible to build a weapon like the one the Director of the FBI discussed is foolish.

However, as we've already discussed, terrorists lack the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Additionally, if a nation were to construct a new weapon like this, they'd have to test it. The resulting test would alert the world of it's existence. Then, said terrorist organization would have to somehow acquire the weapon, learn how to use it, deliver it to a target without detection, and successfully detonate it without a failure(bomb could be a dud).

The steps I just outlined above represent a VERY long and difficult set of conditions to be met. Therefore the likelihood of such an event occurring while not impossible, is very improbable.

Recognizing the potential of a threat is responsible, and reaching an understanding that one day such a threat could exist shows foresight. It makes me happy to know they're at least thinking about these things. But for right now, nuclear attacks on US soil by terrorists remain extremely unlikely.

6/22/2007 11:19:10 AM

^ exactly. that was my point also

Quote :

"sure such a thing is "possible" -- as distinct from "impossible" -- because just you cant have the FBI director going around saying "nope, impossible" to anything regarding terrorists. "

maybe hooksaw will actually try and refute this point. or maybe he'll just cry "troll" and continue refuse to address anything of substance, like our favorite resident of Salisbury.

i know where my money is.

6/22/2007 2:24:08 PM

Quote :

"However, as we've already discussed, terrorists lack the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. "

Sayer

Yeah, you obviously know every goddamn thing, Sayer. Do you understand that necessity is the mother of invention? Nobody really thought terrorists could/would fly airplanes into buildings--until they did it. And stop--for fuck's sake--acting like I'm talking about a Hiroshima-type bomb here. More than likely, as I've posted, it will be some type of dirty bomb or low-yield weapon.

And joe_shithead can crawl off and die somewhere.

6/22/2007 2:52:42 PM

no other countries do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons. that is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"dirty bomb or low-yield weapon. "

dirty bomb, i could see that

low-yield weapon, highly doubtful.... unless they purchase one.... it takes a very high level of control to even put together a nuclear device. to make one from scratch requires huge installations and lots of time....

the larger something is the less likely over time that it can remain hidden

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : s]

6/22/2007 2:58:33 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw: Do you understand that necessity is the mother of invention? Nobody really thought terrorists could/would fly airplanes into buildings--until they did it."

You're comparing two absolutely different things. Building a category of weapon which 60 years after its initial production remains the most expensive, technologically complex, and difficult to construct weapon humanity has built to kill itself... vs... hijacking a plane and flying it into a building? Are you kidding me?

A nuclear weapon is not a necessity for a terrorist organization. There are plenty of more efficient ways to kill and inspire terror. A nuclear weapon is a luxury.

Quote :

"And stop--for fuck's sake--acting like I'm talking about a Hiroshima-type bomb here. More than likely, as I've posted, it will be some type of dirty bomb or low-yield weapon."

Again, two different things.

Dirty bombs use conventional explosives to disperse already radiological material over an area. Such a device, while potentially terrorizing in its own right, would not produce the same amount of death and destruction as a nuclear weapon. Plus you have to get said radioactive material from somewhere. While it wouldn't be as difficult to get as an actual nuclear warhead, it's not available on Ilse 3 of Eckerds either.

Low-yield weapon? Low, high, suitcase... it doesn't matter. You can't just build this shit. It takes years of time, incredible infrastructure, hundreds if not thousands of extremely educated people, and access to resources which are almost impossible to get. The cost of the Manhattan Project through 1945 alone cost the US $20billion. Terrorist cells do not possess the capabilities.

As for buying what you can't build yourself, again we're likely to know. Assuming you could find a country DUMB enough to actually sell a warhead to a terrorist group, the cost of the transaction would be noticed by the intelligence community.

Furthermore, you're playing around with the philosophy of use, something which even a terrorist organization has to deal with. Lets say a terrorist group detonates even a small nuclear weapon against a western country. The resulting international backlash would probably come close to wiping the Islamic religion off the face of the earth. There would be no politics, there would be nothing to negotiate. The coalition of international military force which would assemble would engage those even distantly responsible in total, unchecked war. It would be wholesale death and destruction on a level that has never been seen. And no one will feel guilty. This kinda runs against the idea of spreading the Islamic religion to the world.

In the extremely unlikely event a nuclear attack by a terrorist group or fundamentally extremist nation ever occurred, it would happen once, and then the rest of the world would make sure it never happened again.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 6:06 PM. Reason : faces]

6/22/2007 6:06:02 PM

Who's the expert. . . ^ this guy or this guy V? I know who I'm going to listen to--the rest of you believe whatever the fuck you want, k?

Small Nukes, Big Threat
FBI Director Tells CBS News: Small Devices Sought By Terrorists Could Unleash Destruction Worse Than 9/11

Quote :

"'It's not hype. It's something we deal with day in and day out,' Mueller said. 'When you are talking about an improvised nuclear device, it is something that would be horrifying if it fell into the hands of terrorists or terrorists were able to manufacture such a device — and we can not let that happen. We just can not let that happen.' An unthinkable threat — not an impossible one."

Quote :

"'Terrorists — al Qaeda, bin Laden — have sought nuclear materials for a number of years now,' FBI Director Robert Mueller told CBS News correspondent Bob Orr in an exclusive interview. Mueller says terrorists would like nothing better than to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/eveningnews/main2925463.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_2925463

6/25/2007 10:15:34 PM

Allow me to quote from your article. The emphasis in the quote was added by them, not by me.

Quote :

"Officials say it would not be easy for terrorists to get a nuke or enough material and know-how to make one of their own."

I think this is pretty much what I've said repeatedly.

Your first quote boils down to a statement affirming that it's not impossible. Duh. No one is saying its impossible.

Your second quote outlines intentions, which one one here has disputed either, so I fail to see how it is relevant.

Again.. capabilities are lacking. Something like this, while possible, is highly improbable.

6/26/2007 11:27:53 AM

^ Keep fooling yourself.

Dangerous radioactive devices disappearing in Canada
At least 76 in last 5 years, some usable in terror attacks

Quote :

"OTTAWA — At least 76 radioactive devices — several of which could be used in a terrorist attack — have gone missing in Canada over the last five years, newly compiled figures show. They’re stolen from cars, disappear from construction sites, fall off trucks and generally go astray at an alarming pace."

Quote :

"The eye-opening data emerge as anti-terrorism experts warn it’s a matter of when — not if — readily available material will be used to craft a crude radioactive explosion, or dirty bomb, that could sow panic and cost billions of dollars to clean up."

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/07/03/4309813.html

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Progress Made in Improving Security at Russian Nuclear Sites, but the Long-term Sustainability of U.S.-Funded Security Upgrades Is Uncertain

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d07404high.pdf

Nuclear Terrorism Expert Answers Viewers' Questions
Responses to Questions About ABC News' 'Loose Nukes' Series

Quote :

"In response to ABC News' investigative series on the threat of a nuclear attack, some viewers had questions about the nation's preparedness and what to do in the event of an attack. Below are answers to some of the questions from nuclear terrorism expert Graham T. Allison. Allison is a professor of government at Harvard University and the director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. During the first term of the Clinton administration, Allison served as assistant secretary of defense for Policy and Plans, where he coordinated Department of Defense strategy and policy toward states of the former Soviet Union."

Quote :

"Question 6. Ed asks: It has been reported that there are suitcase nukes from the Russian Cold War days missing from their inventory and that they may be already in the United States to be used by terrorists. Can they still be used? If this were true, what would the average Joe do to prepare for such an event? What do I tell my daughter who is going to school in the city of Tampa, Fla., where such an event would be very likely to occur with McDill (Southern Command) being in the blast zone. Answer: In 1997, General Alexander Lebed, Boris Yeltsin's national security advisor, acknowledged to CBS News' '60 Minutes' that 84 of 132 KGB 'suitcase' nuclear weapons were not accounted for in Russia. Lebed later recanted his statement. The Russian line has remained that no such weapons were made and that all their nuclear materials are secure. The bottom line is that it is likely Russia made small-yield nuclear weapons that could be carried by one person, and that we cannot say with any certainty that such weapons did not go missing. If a suitcase nuclear weapon were stolen it might have locks and environmental sensing devices, which nuclear thieves could likely overcome in a few days. It is possible that the weapon would fail to detonate because it would not have been serviced recently. Terrorists could still cannibalize the weapon for the fissile material with which they could make a crude nuclear bomb."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LooseNukes/Story?id=1206659&page=1

7/21/2007 3:18:07 AM

Quote :

"The intent [of terrorists] is. . .radiological or even nuclear--to include a nuclear yield. I would add, what we see currently is primarily a focus on explosives, explosives that can generate a large explosion, but they're put together with commercially available material."

Admiral Mike McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Meet the Press
July 22, 2007

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks

I told you so.

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 1:18:47 PM

Quoted from your first article:

Quote :

""Within the terrorist community, the intent is there,” said Ted Sykes, who manages a portfolio of federal research projects to better deal with radiological and nuclear threats. “But their ability to carry out the intent is questionable based on all the security considerations that have been put in place. That said, if they did succeed the impact would be relatively high. So consequently we do the work that we do."

Translation: They have the intent, but not the capabilities.

Your second link does nothing to address the content of the pdf, which basically says we're doing a good job working with the Russian govt in securing nuclear sites. Our ability to hold up on our end depends on continued funding and continued cooperation from the Russians.

Article #3:

Quote :

"In 1997, General Alexander Lebed, Boris Yeltsin's national security advisor, acknowledged to CBS News' '60 Minutes' that 84 of 132 KGB 'suitcase' nuclear weapons were not accounted for in Russia. Lebed later recanted his statement. The Russian line has remained that no such weapons were made and that all their nuclear materials are secure. The bottom line is that it is likely Russia made small-yield nuclear weapons that could be carried by one person, and that we cannot say with any certainty that such weapons did not go missing."

So we've got one guy, just one, who has said both "we made them" and "we didn't make them". And we've got our expert saying we don't know if some of these weapons that may not even exist are missing or safe and sound. We don't know shit do we?

I also love how you omit the very next question...

Quote :

"Question 7. Richard writes: Hello Graham -- Having been born on 8/6/45, I have a more than passing interest on the subject of nukes. I have read articles by certain scientists minimizing the danger of a so-called "dirty bomb," stating that in fact the danger is primarily psychological rather than physical. What is your opinion? Answer. I agree. Experts call dirty bombs a weapon of mass disruption. Those who die from dirty bomb will be killed by the bomb, e.g. the dynamite, not the radioactivity."

Even your expert thinks the danger of a "dirty bomb" is pretty minimal.


--===--

When are you going to post something new rather than regurgitating the same old scare articles?

7/23/2007 2:28:08 PM

^ WTF? Meet the Press was from yesterday, man. Face it, you lose, Sayer.

Who are YOU, the reader, going to trust? The director of national intelligence or some guy on the Internet? The answer is self-evident.

PS: You've really got the DNC talking points scaremongering thing down pat, don't you?

7/23/2007 2:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Intentions are subjective. No country with significant nuclear power is dumb enough to use them except in the most desperate situation. "

they are subjective but you can make a decent subjective decision based on facts that are present

7/23/2007 4:11:42 PM

I love how you skew your quotes. How about a more accurate transcription from the interview:

What you quoted:

Quote :

""The intent [of terrorists] is. . .radiological or even nuclear--to include a nuclear yield. I would add, what we see currently is primarily a focus on explosives, explosives that can generate a large explosion, but they're put together with commercially available material.""

The actual dialogue:

Quote :

"Question: Is it biological and chemical, or have they achieved nuclear? They have not achieved nuclear, based off our current understanding. The intent is either chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear. I would add that what we see currently is primarily a focus on explosives, explosives that generate a large explosion but they're put together with commercially available materials."

This tells us 3 things.
#1)They don't have nuclear weapons.
#2)They'd like to get any of the big-4 terrorist weapons.
#3)They are focusing on building bombs out of components they can get easily.

#1 is a relief and backs up what I've been saying the entire time.
#2 tells us something any idiot could figure out and we already know. Duh, of course they'd like any of those. They're terrorists.
#3 shows us what they're doing. They concentrating their efforts on building easy to build/easy to hide explosives. They're not researching nuclear physics.

Do you read/listen to the sources you pull from and actually pay attention?

Quote :

"Who are YOU, the reader, going to trust?"

I'd hope they'd trust neither YOU (ambiguous internet nobody) or ME (ambiguous internet nobody), look at the information themselves and form their own conclusions.

Quote :

"Face it, you lose, Sayer."

I lose? I was unaware this was a volley of internet wit. When have you made a single valid point? I was under the assumption that you were tossing up clay pigeons and I was shooting them from the sky. Where have you actively disproved any assertion I have made?

I love how every time you try to reference something to support your case, you provide me with all the ammo I need to show you why you shouldn't be afraid. You're doing my research for me, I don't even have to try.

Seriously, why are you so scared that a nuclear weapon is going to be detonated tomorrow in Cary? Wilmington Or Charlotte? Or Cleveland, Detroit, Austin, Phoenix, Miami, DC, or New York City? Do you understand how small a target you are as an individual or even as a city? How many other potential target cities/countries/enemies exist outside the US? Can you even conceive how insignificantly small the chance is that you will be directly affected by a nuclear terrorist attack?

Will there ever be a nuclear weapon detonated in a major population center in the history of the earth? Probably, yes. Saying it will never happen is ignorant. Something like this is bound to happen at some point in time if we make it that far. Does that mean it can't happen tomorrow? No. But looking at the information the event still doesn't seem very likely.

Will it change everything? Probably for a while. It sucks, but that is just the nature of the thing. Fervently panicking governments will restrict some civil rights, and those rights will probably disappear forever. Government structures in countries around the world will shift the balance of power both internally and globally. Most likely it will catalyze a LARGE regional military conflict if not a global war. Economies will do 180s. That's how these sorts of civilization changing events work. Everyone but a few key players bends over.

Does it really matter where it happens? No. Israel, Japan or South Korea, just about anywhere in Europe, and of course America. A nuclear attack executed by terrorist in any of the listed places would produce just about the same result. Any terrorist organization who uses a nuclear weapon is naturally going to claim they have more and are ready to use them. Why would you tell your enemy you are out of bullets? As a result everyone is going to panic that they might be next, and poof, back to the same results listed in the prior paragraph.

But dude, you don't have to live in paranoia. Terrorists are always going to want nuclear weapons and we(other countries included) are always going to try and stop them from getting them. The Native American's got their hands on horses and firearms, thugs in the streets got automatic and assault weapons, and the Soviets got the bomb. Eventually the terrorists will probably get it too. But I've never said and will never say we don't need to keep up the effort of keeping nuclear weapons away from terrorists. We must always try to do that.

Are we going to see it happen in our lifetime? I'd say it's possible. But I think a vast majority of us will be spectators. We're ok for a while. There is room for improvement, but we're definitely taking care of the situation and there are no current threats. The near future looks good too.

So, rest easy, chill out and don't come back until you have something new to present.



[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 9:53:13 PM

Quote :

"The intent [of terrorists] is. . .radiological or even nuclear--to include a nuclear yield."

Admiral Mike McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Meet the Press
July 22, 2007

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks

Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned
Official Cites Resemblance to Warnings and Intelligence Before 9/11
By BRIAN ROSS, RHONDA SCHWARTZ and RICHARD ESPOSITO
July 1, 2007

Quote :

"A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror 'spectacular' this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document. 'This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001,' the official told ABCNews.com."

Quote :

"As ABCNews.com reported, U.S. law enforcement officials received intelligence reports two weeks ago warning of terror attacks in Glasgow and Prague, the Czech Republic, against 'airport infrastructure and aircraft.'"

Quote :

"Unlike the United States, officials in Germany have publicly warned that the country could face a major attack this summer, also comparing the situation to the pre-9/11 summer of 2001."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3336148

It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you, Sayer. And your lengthy diatribes, superior tone, and DNC talking points can't change that fact.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2007 12:29:33 AM

Quote :

"I love how every time you try to reference something to support your case, you provide me with all the ammo I need to show you why you shouldn't be afraid. You're doing my research for me, I don't even have to try. "

Hooksaw doesn't usually read what he posts (or doesn't interpret it accurately).

7/26/2007 12:35:15 AM

7/26/2007 1:54:18 AM

hooksaw, you double-post the same interview, and you don't even quote the interview correctly. You sir, are brilliant.

And then you move on to quote an article from ABC claiming the US will be attacked soon.

Do me a favor, scroll up. Up, up, up. At the top of this page you'll see something that looks like this:

Message Boards > The Soap Box > The Topic We Are Talking About

Ok you can scroll back down now.

Your quoting of the last ABC article you linked completely side-steps the discussion. Watch out! We might get attacked! No shit.

You still haven't posted anything that lends itself to the discussion of terrorist actually having nuclear weapons. That is, other than the Director of National Intelligence interview you double-posted for our enjoyment where he explicitly says they DON'T HAVE NUKES.

Jesus dude. You're a grad student? Where are your logic and reasoning skills?! You'd you sleep with/pay off to get yourself into post-grad? I hope it was worth it. Grats on cheating the system.

7/26/2007 7:56:04 AM

Quote :

"Question 6. Ed asks: It has been reported that there are suitcase nukes from the Russian Cold War days missing from their inventory and that they may be already in the United States to be used by terrorists. Can they still be used? If this were true, what would the average Joe do to prepare for such an event? What do I tell my daughter who is going to school in the city of Tampa, Fla., where such an event would be very likely to occur with McDill (Southern Command) being in the blast zone. Answer: In 1997, General Alexander Lebed, Boris Yeltsin's national security advisor, acknowledged to CBS News' '60 Minutes' that 84 of 132 KGB 'suitcase' nuclear weapons were not accounted for in Russia. Lebed later recanted his statement. The Russian line has remained that no such weapons were made and that all their nuclear materials are secure. The bottom line is that it is likely Russia made small-yield nuclear weapons that could be carried by one person, and that we cannot say with any certainty that such weapons did not go missing. If a suitcase nuclear weapon were stolen it might have locks and environmental sensing devices, which nuclear thieves could likely overcome in a few days. It is possible that the weapon would fail to detonate because it would not have been serviced recently. Terrorists could still cannibalize the weapon for the fissile material with which they could make a crude nuclear bomb.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LooseNukes/Story?id=1206659&page=1

Quote :

"Jesus dude. You're a grad student? Where are your logic and reasoning skills?! You'd you sleep with/pay off to get yourself into post-grad? I hope it was worth it. Grats on cheating the system."

This might matter if I gave a flying fuck what you think, dick. Piss off.

7/26/2007 5:47:06 PM

You can add Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) to the list of "scaremongers," I guess. He said in the This Week debate on Sunday, and I'm paraphrasing, that "loose nukes" are a bigger threat than a nuclear attack.

Since Richardson doesn't have an R after his name, you left-wing moonbats didn't happen to notice this comment, did you? Typical.

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 1:46 PM. Reason : PS: ]

8/20/2007 1:45:57 PM

The following is from PBS, which is hardly part of the right-wing scaremonger machine, as some of you have it.

Quote :

"What does it take to make a bomb? It is much less difficult to make a nuclear bomb than many people imagine. The great expense of the Cold War weapons research effort leads one to suspect that the mechanism of an atomic bomb is arcane and intricate. The Cold War scientists did develop very complex designs for powerful bombs, but that doesn't mean that early nuclear bombs of the 1940s were any less servicable. The level of technology which was used in the Manhattan Project is now readily available to almost anyone with a personal computer. In fact, even during World War II, the scientists at Los Alamos were so certain that their design for a uranium bomb would work that they didn't even test it before it was dropped on Hiroshima, because they didn't want to waste the limited amount highly enriched uranium that they had. (The plutonium bomb was more complex and there was a test blast in New Mexico before it was used on Nagasaki.) The example of the Manhattan Project also illustrates that the main determinant of the speed of an atomic weapons project is how quickly one can obtain the necessary fissile nuclear materials. If it were possible to obtain highly enriched uranium on the black market, the time necessary for a country to develop a nuclear bomb would be cut from years to weeks."

Quote :

"How easy is it to smuggle nuclear materials? Contrary to common belief, it is not necessarily very dangerous to handle fissile materials when certain precautions are taken. In fact, the radiation hazard posed by weapons grade uranium is relatively low. Plutonium has been produced in a nuclear reactor and therefore is more radioactive and more dangerous to handle. But a smuggler may be less interested in plutonium anyway, because it is more difficult to build a crude plutonium bomb than a uranium bomb. The material most attractive to nuclear smugglers is highly enriched uranium (HEU) because it is easier to use and easier to handle. HEU can be shielded to reduce the radiation to a level which would be very difficult to detect by the standard tools available to most customs agents. As in drug smuggling, interdiction of illicit nuclear materials is unlikely unless authorities have prior knowledge of the materials' whereabouts. Plutonium and uranium may be even more difficult to detect than drugs because they have no odor, so the dogs used to find drugs are of no use. In Russia, most customs points are equipped with no more than a hand-held radiation meter which provides a very low probability of detection in high traffic areas. New technical systems sensitive to far lower fields of radiation are being developed; Russia plans to implement them over the next few years, but for now a smuggler would have a good chance of passing through undetected. Even without technological solutions to this problem, there are indications that standard customs control could be more effective. The smuggler in the Munich case testified that he got past controls in the Moscow airport by kicking his bag with his foot past the x-ray machine at customs. The smuggler in the Prague case hid his uranium canisters in his pants as he crossed international borders by train."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nukes/stuff/faqs.html

8/20/2007 7:11:04 PM

bttt by request

7/17/2008 1:54:27 PM

Quote :

"The single most important national security threat that we face is nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists."

--Barack Obama, "scaremonger"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIjsMeUUJFScXcuo4_O64YJgRQwwD91UEAN84

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/15/american-leadership-new-obama-ad/

7/17/2008 1:58:37 PM

Terrorists and countries are not the same, nevertheless I'm glad to see you coming to our side hooksaw

7/17/2008 2:02:03 PM

^ STFU.

Quote :

"ANALYSIS: Obama placed this commercial into his ad rotation in 18 states to complement a major speech Tuesday on national security. Obama is devoting a great deal of attention to national security, illustrating his campaign's recognition that Republican rival John McCain stands even or slightly ahead of Obama on that topic with the public. Obama wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times Monday describing his plans for the war in Iraq. The speech Tuesday touched on that war, the conflict in Afghanistan, the threat posed by Iran and the potential access by terrorists to nuclear weapons. In 2005, Lugar, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Obama traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan to examine the former Soviet Union's stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., were the authors of legislation in 1991 to provide money and expertise to those countries to safeguard and dismantle those stockpiles and their delivery systems. Obama and Lugar teamed up to sponsor legislation to expand the Nunn-Lugar effort to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. Lugar has been a leading force in the Senate on nonproliferation issues, often working across party lines to win support for legislation."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIjsMeUUJFScXcuo4_O64YJgRQwwD91UEAN84

7/17/2008 2:12:28 PM

Quote :

"the threat posed by Iran and the potential access by terrorists to nuclear weapons."

You realize that grammatically these are part of a list and are considered separate issues, correct?

7/17/2008 2:53:26 PM

logically yes

7/17/2008 3:03:23 PM

1. That had occurred to me.

2. It is an example of the importance of and need for the Oxford comma.

3. The last two items in the series at issue are not mutually exclusive.

7/17/2008 4:06:59 PM

bumps

4/13/2010 9:36:01 AM

On this subject, we need to stop referring to "radiological weapons" as "nuclear weapons".

4/13/2010 12:13:07 PM

Quote :

"Should the US let any nation develop nuclear weapons, or only ones that we approve of"

lol at this. Maybe you should first ask the question: Should the US be allowed to dictate to other nations what they can and cannot have? You're jumping the gun there, buddy, one step at a time to New World Order.

4/13/2010 12:38:27 PM

No one should be able to destroy the entire world.

4/13/2010 12:55:29 PM

'This Week' Transcript: Panetta
Jake Tapper Interviews CIA Director Leon Panetta
June 27, 2010

Quote :

"[Jake] TAPPER: What -- this is my last question for you because we only have about a minute left -- what terrorist threat are we as a nation not paying enough attention to? Or forget terrorist threat, what threat are we not paying enough attention to? [Leon] PANETTA: I think the one I worry about is, again, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fact that one of those weapons could fall into the hands of a terrorist. I think that's one concern. And there is a lot of the stuff out there, and you worry about just exactly where it's located and who's getting their hands on it."

http://tinyurl.com/2blfcno

[Edited on June 28, 2010 at 5:05 AM. Reason : Add another "scaremonger" to the list, right? ]

6/28/2010 5:05:01 AM

Bttt

3/3/2015 1:53:00 PM

Yes, and other countries have a right to try and stop them from getting nukes.

3/3/2015 2:31:10 PM

Ok, so Iran has said in the past that they would like to wipe Israel off the map. Could they do that if they had nukes? Sure. But I have a couple of problems with the argument that they would use nukes on Israel.

1. The missle defense system that Israel has set up is pretty good, as evidenced by the latest conflict they were in. I don't know the numbers, but only a very small percentage of missiles made it to their targets in Israel. A nuke from Iran would probably be a decent payload, so it isn't like they could just sneak it over the border, so their defense system would more than likely take care of it.

Would Iran really be able to produce enough nukes to get through? Doubtful.

2. Why would Iran want to ruin, for a number of years, one of the holiest parts of the world? I guess it wouldn't matter if they truly thought they would bring on armageddon, but who knows.

Sure I think we should flex our muscle with this deal with Iran, but I just don't know why we're making such a big deal about it.

3/3/2015 4:10:10 PM