Al-Qaeda looking for dirty bomb
Representative Jane Harmon (D-Cal) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Me) report that al-Qaeda and other terror organizations continue to seek materials with which to make a dirty bomb. Those materials are available in just about every hospital in the Western world (for those without Journal access, full article also here). Should a dirty bomb or multiple dirty bombs be detonated in any American city, port complex, airport or train station, the result could be loss of life and widespread panic. Billions of dollars would be spent in clean-up and medical costs, not to mention lost wages and serious interruptions in the flow of commerce and everyday life.Hmmm.
We know that terror groups remain highly interested in such devices. Al Qaeda's senior leadership has publicly expressed a desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including radiological weapons, with which to attack the United States. Since September 11, U.S. officials have recovered many documents detailing al Qaeda's pursuit of these weapons.
...
President Obama has rightly focused on the threat of nuclear terrorism by pledging to locate and safeguard loose nuclear material in the world within four years. This critical goal served as the theme of an April Nuclear Security Summit convened by the president in Washington with over 40 countries in attendance.
But an exclusive focus on "loose nukes" could mean missing the threat we face in our own backyard: the dirty bomb, which is far easier to assemble from ingredients that are widely available in this country. Highly dispersible radiological materials like cesium-137 or cobalt-40 are used every day in medical procedures at hospitals and in universities. These components of modern medicine are underprotected.
Many hospitals are eager to upgrade security for these radiological elements—provided they receive the resources to do so. But the clock is ticking. Entry to most hospitals is easy. Radiology departments usually control access, but a basic tool kit can be used to break into a blood irradiator and seize a substantial amount of radiological material. Once combined with a simple explosive device, you've got a crude radiological weapon. While there have been a handful of successful pilot projects to secure these ingredients, they simply don't go far enough.
Despite those chilling facts, the White House has slashed the domestic radiological protection budget over the past few years. The current budget proposal would cut these domestic resources by half. At the same time, it would more than double the funding for "loose nuke" programs.
This policy is pennywise and pound foolish. We cannot allow a dirty bomb to become America's Achilles' heel because we've lost sight of that threat.
I was in someone's house Thursday night who may be a Chernobyl survivor. It seemed like all of the Russians in the room had lost a family member to cancer, God forbid. Scary thought.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:45 PM
4 Comments:
The only way to stop AQ is by applying enormous pressure on those that support and enable it. Those people are Moslem and likely quite devout.
Demotivating them from supporting AQ won't be easy, but it doable – just find something that they value more highly than AQ's existence and acts, and be able to credibly threaten to destroy it.
What might that "something" be? It is likely NOT the life of any one human being, or even those of many. We’ve killed many of them, and will kill many more - without stopping AQ. What else? My guess is a Moslem holy site, like the Kaaba in Mecca. I don’t know if the credible threat to destroy it would work, but I’d bet that no such threat has been made - we'd have heard about it.
Should we make such a threat? Well, the threatened action is quite harsh but, then again, so is the result of a WMD attack. We clearly have a choice to make: Are we willing to be called all kinds of names, suffer condemnation, etc., in an effort to stop a catastrophic attack on ourselves...or not? Since Israel has made - and carried out - harsh threats against various state and non-state actors in the area, and suffered harsh rebukes and condemnations (and survived all of them, by the way) the saying "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" applies. Were I the President, with the responsibility to guard American lives and the basis for our way of life (a safe, stable society operating under the rule of law - something quite difficult or impossible to preserve with cities under threat of attack), then I’d do it. This wouldn't be unusual at all – every President from Truman through Bush 43 (and, presumeably, Obama, but who knows with this putz) have explicitly or implicitly threatened entire blocks of nations with nuclear attack if they hit us with nuclear weapons. The idea is to deter and, so far, it has worked. The only difference here is one of scale.
Do you make the threat public? I’d follow the logic in "Dr. Strangelove," to wit: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" This is true especially since we aren’t dealing only with foreign governments, with whom we can speak directly and quietly. We're also dealing with several rich princes or others that aren’t privy to government secrets. We wouldn't have to mention the Kaaba itself, just be sufficiently vague to have everyone involved understand what is meant while preserving some deniability. Then, if and when such an event happened, no one would be too surprised. Outraged, yes, but not surprised...and that's the whole objective - to get the key supporters of AQ to back off, to put the more extreme elements of AQ into a box (by whatever means, including literally putting them in a box - we simply don't care about how, our only objective is to preserve our cities, our lives and our way of life). Make them uncertain, the way they have made US uncertain. Put the fear of Allah into them. We don't care if these people love us or not (they never will), we only care that they leave us alone...just like Israel.
I think that the case for this suggested course of action is very strong, but one more question remains: can it be done credibly? By this particular President? Not in my opinion. By a Romney or Palin? Yes. By Hillary Clinton? Maybe - we all know the fury of a woman scorned, but the Moslems generally don't view (or treat) women the same way as we do, and they are (at best) unfamiliar and unprepared to think about women in positions of such power.
Anyhow, in a very short conclusion: The best way to stop a WMD attack against American cities is to let the SOBs who fund and otherwise support AQ know that if AQ sets off a dirty bomb or a nuke in one of our cities, then starting about 1/2 hour later they won't have to face Mecca 5 times a day to pray, because Mecca will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
The only way to stop AQ is by applying enormous pressure on those that support and enable it. Those people are Moslem and likely quite devout.
Demotivating them from supporting AQ won't be easy, but it doable – just find something that they value more highly than AQ's existence and acts, and be able to credibly threaten to destroy it.
What might that "something" be? It is likely NOT the life of any one human being, or even those of many. We’ve killed many of them, and will kill many more - without stopping AQ. What else? My guess is a Moslem holy site, like the Kaaba in Mecca. I don’t know if the credible threat to destroy it would work, but I’d bet that no such threat has been made - we'd have heard about it.
Should we make such a threat? Well, the threatened action is quite harsh but, then again, so is the result of a WMD attack. We clearly have a choice to make: Are we willing to be called all kinds of names, suffer condemnation, etc., in an effort to stop a catastrophic attack on ourselves...or not? Since Israel has made - and carried out - harsh threats against various state and non-state actors in the area, and suffered harsh rebukes and condemnations (and survived all of them, by the way) the saying "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" applies. Were I the President, with the responsibility to guard American lives and the basis for our way of life (a safe, stable society operating under the rule of law - something quite difficult or impossible to preserve with cities under threat of attack), then I’d do it. This wouldn't be unusual at all – every President from Truman through Bush 43 (and, presumeably, Obama, but who knows with this putz) have explicitly or implicitly threatened entire blocks of nations with nuclear attack if they hit us with nuclear weapons. The idea is to deter and, so far, it has worked. The only difference here is one of scale.
Do you make the threat public? I’d follow the logic in "Dr. Strangelove," to wit: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" This is true especially since we aren’t dealing only with foreign governments, with whom we can speak directly and quietly. We're also dealing with several rich princes or others that aren’t privy to government secrets. We wouldn't have to mention the Kaaba itself, just be sufficiently vague to have everyone involved understand what is meant while preserving some deniability. Then, if and when such an event happened, no one would be too surprised. Outraged, yes, but not surprised...and that's the whole objective - to get the key supporters of AQ to back off, to put the more extreme elements of AQ into a box (by whatever means, including literally putting them in a box - we simply don't care about how, our only objective is to preserve our cities, our lives and our way of life). Make them uncertain, the way they have made US uncertain. Put the fear of Allah into them. We don't care if these people love us or not (they never will), we only care that they leave us alone...just like Israel.
I think that the case for this suggested course of action is very strong, but one more question remains: can it be done credibly? By this particular President? Not in my opinion. By a Romney or Palin? Yes. By Hillary Clinton? Maybe - we all know the fury of a woman scorned, but the Moslems generally don't view (or treat) women the same way as we do, and they are (at best) unfamiliar and unprepared to think about women in positions of such power.
Anyhow, in a very short conclusion: The best way to stop a WMD attack against American cities is to let the SOBs who fund and otherwise support AQ know that if AQ sets off a dirty bomb or a nuke in one of our cities, then starting about 1/2 hour later they won't have to face Mecca 5 times a day to pray, because Mecca will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
The only way to stop AQ is by applying enormous pressure on those that support and enable it. Those people are Moslem and likely quite devout.
Demotivating them from supporting AQ won't be easy, but it doable – just find something that they value more highly than AQ's existence and acts, and be able to credibly threaten to destroy it.
What might that "something" be? It is likely NOT the life of any one human being, or even those of many. We’ve killed many of them, and will kill many more - without stopping AQ. What else? My guess is a Moslem holy site, like the Kaaba in Mecca. I don’t know if the credible threat to destroy it would work, but I’d bet that no such threat has been made - we'd have heard about it.
Should we make such a threat? Well, the threatened action is quite harsh but, then again, so is the result of a WMD attack. We clearly have a choice to make: Are we willing to be called all kinds of names, suffer condemnation, etc., in an effort to stop a catastrophic attack on ourselves...or not? Since Israel has made - and carried out - harsh threats against various state and non-state actors in the area, and suffered harsh rebukes and condemnations (and survived all of them, by the way) the saying "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" applies. Were I the President, with the responsibility to guard American lives and the basis for our way of life (a safe, stable society operating under the rule of law - something quite difficult or impossible to preserve with cities under threat of attack), then I’d do it. This wouldn't be unusual at all – every President from Truman through Bush 43 (and, presumeably, Obama, but who knows with this putz) have explicitly or implicitly threatened entire blocks of nations with nuclear attack if they hit us with nuclear weapons. The idea is to deter and, so far, it has worked. The only difference here is one of scale.
Do you make the threat public? I’d follow the logic in "Dr. Strangelove," to wit: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" This is true especially since we aren’t dealing only with foreign governments, with whom we can speak directly and quietly. We're also dealing with several rich princes or others that aren’t privy to government secrets. We wouldn't have to mention the Kaaba itself, just be sufficiently vague to have everyone involved understand what is meant while preserving some deniability. Then, if and when such an event happened, no one would be too surprised. Outraged, yes, but not surprised...and that's the whole objective - to get the key supporters of AQ to back off, to put the more extreme elements of AQ into a box (by whatever means, including literally putting them in a box - we simply don't care about how, our only objective is to preserve our cities, our lives and our way of life). Make them uncertain, the way they have made US uncertain. Put the fear of Allah into them. We don't care if these people love us or not (they never will), we only care that they leave us alone...just like Israel.
I think that the case for this suggested course of action is very strong, but one more question remains: can it be done credibly? By this particular President? Not in my opinion. By a Romney or Palin? Yes. By Hillary Clinton? Maybe - we all know the fury of a woman scorned, but the Moslems generally don't view (or treat) women the same way as we do, and they are (at best) unfamiliar and unprepared to think about women in positions of such power.
Anyhow, in a very short conclusion: The best way to stop a WMD attack against American cities is to let the SOBs who fund and otherwise support AQ know that if AQ sets off a dirty bomb or a nuke in one of our cities, then starting about 1/2 hour later they won't have to face Mecca 5 times a day to pray, because Mecca will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
The only way to stop AQ is by applying enormous pressure on those that support and enable it. Those people are Moslem and likely quite devout.
Demotivating them from supporting AQ won't be easy, but it doable – just find something that they value more highly than AQ's existence and acts, and be able to credibly threaten to destroy it.
What might that "something" be? It is likely NOT the life of any one or more people. We’ve killed many of them, and will kill many more, and that hasn't stopped AQ. What else? My guess would be the Kaaba in Mecca. I don’t know if such a threat would work, but I’d bet that no such threat has been made - we'd have heard about it.
Should we do it? Well, the threatened action is quite harsh but, then again, so is the result of a WMD attack. We clearly have a choice to make: Are we willing to be called all kinds of names, suffer condemnation, etc., in an effort to stop a catastrophic attack on ourselves...or not? Since Israel has made - and carried out - harsh threats against various state and non-state actors in the area, and suffered harsh rebukes and condemnations (and survived all of them, by the way) the saying "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" applies. Were I the President, with the responsibility to guard American lives and the basis for our way of life (a safe, stable society operating under the rule of law - something quite difficult or impossible to preserve with cities under threat of attack), then I’d do it. This wouldn't be unusual at all – every President from Truman through Bush 43 (and, presumeably, Obama, but who knows with this putz) have explicitly or implicitly threatened entire blocks of nations with nuclear attack if they hit us with nuclear weapons. The idea is to deter and, so far, it has worked. The only difference here is one of scale.
Do you make the threat public? I’d follow the logic in "Dr. Strangelove," to wit: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" This is true especially since we aren’t dealing only with foreign governments, with whom we can speak directly and quietly. We're also dealing with several rich princes or others that aren’t privy to government secrets. We wouldn't have to mention the Kaaba itself, just be sufficiently vague to have everyone involved understand what is meant while preserving some deniability. Then, if and when such an event happened, no one would be too surprised. Outraged, yes, but not surprised...and that's the whole objective - to get the key supporters of AQ to back off, to put the more extreme elements of AQ into a box (by whatever means, including literally putting them in a box - we simply don't care about how, our only objective is to preserve our cities, our lives and our way of life). Make them uncertain, the way they have made US uncertain. Put the fear of Allah into them. We don't care if these people love us or not (they never will), we only care that they leave us alone...just like Israel.
I think that the case for this suggested course of action is very strong, but one more question remains: can it be done credibly? By this particular President? Not in my opinion. By a Romney or Palin? Yes. By Hillary Clinton? Maybe - we all know the fury of a woman scorned, but the Moslems generally don't view (or treat) women the same way as we do, and they are (at best) unfamiliar and unprepared to think about women in positions of such power.
Anyhow, in a very short conclusion: The best way to stop a WMD attack against American cities is to let the SOBs who fund and otherwise support AQ know that if AQ sets off a dirty bomb or a nuke in one of our cities, then starting about 1/2 hour later they won't have to face Mecca 5 times a day to pray, because Mecca will be part of the planet's atmosphere.
Post a Comment
<< Home