Mideast Biochemical Terror Scenario

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 21, 2002 | Joe Katzman

[katman]

Let's imagine that Hizbollah's stated policy of "mega-terrorism" bears fruit, and a second Pi Glilot attack succeeds. Alertness and sharpened contingency plans mean that the blast and oil-fed fires kill fewer Israelis than expected, and "only" 2,500 die. Two weeks later, Hamas' new strategic direction bears fruit and they manage chemical attacks at several points in and around Tel Aviv. A couple thousand people are hospitalized, a couple hundred die. The total for both attacks is now 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured, many severely.

[mhking]

This is a believable scenario with one exception - I refuse to believe for a moment that Saddam would sit by idly and watch as an Iranian city or three were vaporized, let alone watching the Saudi "aquastructure" fall apart. That latter act would probably drag Egypt into the fray as well, although they might sit back for fear of something being lobbed their way.

Hussein would toss something - chemical or nuclear - at Israel; Saddam doesn't give a flying fart about fallout, as long as he gets to be the one to destroy Israel. This would obviously drag us in, kicking and screaming all the way down the slippery slope. The chilling part about that is that it could happen as soon as tomorrow.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Again, it's not a question of "if", only "when". I prefer it to happen sooner rather than later. The more WMDs that the Islamists have, the worse for the rest of us.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Why is the link listed as the Wall Street Journal, when the actual link to the rest of the article is another website, Winds of Change?

[Sabertooth]

Why is the link listed as the Wall Street Journal, when the actual link to the rest of the article is another website, Winds of Change?

Why is the article with the bogus links written by Joel Katzman, and posted by the very new Freeper, katman?

This cat is curious.

[Ancesthntr]

...let alone watching the Saudi "aquastructure" fall apart. That latter act would probably drag Egypt into the fray as well, although they might sit back for fear of something being lobbed their way.

Egypt won't get involved in something this big for one reason: the Aswan High Dam is an incredibly vulnerable and dangerous target. If they go to war when Israel is tossing around nukes (esp. in view of their peace treaty obligations), then they can expect to lose the dam and have a flood of radioactive water flowing throughout the Nile Valley. In other words, good-bye Egypt. It ain't gonna happen - Mubarak and Co. aren't suicidal.

[katman]

katman is Joe Katzman's FR user name.

The Wall St. Journal article was the foundation for a blog post that sketched out the kind of thing Mrs. Thatcher was talking about, and the risks. Hence the category of "extended news"

It's one thing to have it as a one-sentence throw-away in a WSJ article, quite another to have the potential consequences fleshed out vividly. The latter is more likely to lead to emotional as well as rational comprehension, and so enhances the original source while justly pointing to it so people can see for themselves (the blog post did this too).

NOTE TO ADMIN: Technical mistake... I first associated this with the "Moderate Muslims Under Siege" thread by accident (clicked up top not down below). Could you kindly remove the reply there? Thanks.