Chertoff warns of nuclear terror

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 8/1/05 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Man50D]

Issuing yet the latest warning of the threat of nuclear terrorism in the U.S., Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said there are far worse security problems facing the country than bombings of mass-transit systems.

In comments during a visit to Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California this week, Chertoff said the foremost concern for the nation's security now is the threat of a larger chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Chertoff joins the growing list of public officials – including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chertoff's predecessor at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge – who have strongly hinted that nuclear terrorism has moved center stage as the No. 1 security threat facing the U.S.

Last month WND and its sister publication, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, reported increasing evidence suggests al-Qaida not only has nuclear weapons in its arsenal, but has smuggled them into the U.S. along with thousands of sleeper operatives.

Referring to the London bombings, Chertoff said: "We can't let what happened two or three weeks ago beguile our concerns about what could happen in the future."

Technology that the Livermore lab and other public and private groups are developing could help make the country safer, Chertoff said. The secretary was shown what the lab has done to provide more portable ways to detect nuclear, biological and chemical devices that terrorists could use.

"We want to show the secretary how we are working very aggressively to help win the war against terrorism," said laboratory director Michael Anastasio.

The work by the Livermore lab shows the enormous capabilities the country is bringing to bear against terrorism, Chertoff said.

[johnny7]

All we need are video surveillance cameras that can sustain temperatures of 4000+º.

[CDHart]

"It will be much more convincing if they gave a damn about closing the open border."

Absolutely! Until that happens, it is difficult to take them seriously.

Carolyn

[Man50D]

It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farh's "G2 Intel Bulletin".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your are being sarcastic with this statement.

[verity]

"Thoroughly scary."

IMHO, the probability of developing cancer is more worrisome.

[Man50D]

My point is that he would make the same statements whether he was worried about an attack next week or whether he didn't think there was any possibility of attack (or any point in that contiuum).Therefore, it is not logical to infer what you did, that Farah was correct and we are in grave danger. We may or may not be. You cannot tell it from what he says. And what he and the administration DOES augers against them really feeling great danger.

You could only know what he is thinking if he or someone close to him told you what he is thinking. Other wise you are only assuming what he is thinking and saying. It is not reasonable for anyone to assume law enforcement officials are going to tell the public every bit of information.

I did not make any statement in my post #17 to you regarding Joseph Farah. Therefore you misinterpret my statement. The point is it is reasonable and prudent to consider at least the possibility terrorists could use a WMD in the form of nuclear weapons and prepare accordingly given that they have already used WMD's in the form of commercial jetliner fully loaded with jet fuel to kill large number of Americans on our own soil.
|
It's also reasonable to assume Chertoff has more knowledge of what terrorists are planning given the numerous intelligence resources under his authority.

[Man50D]

IMHO, the probability of developing cancer is more worrisome.

I'm sure people thought cancer was more of a concern prior to 9/11/01 than terrorists using planes as WMD's by flying them into buildings.

[Mad Mammoth]

It may mean nothing more than Michael Chertoff subscribing to Joe Farah's "G2 Intel Bulletin".
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being sarcastic with this statement.

Actually, I'm wondering if Chertoff got the special discount rate for government subscriptions to WorldNutDaily and other Farah-fearmongering publications...heh.

Seriously now, there is no doubt a threat of future terrorist events taking place, and they may involve chemical, biological or radiological devices.

That does not mean that a chemical attack will be anything greater than the anthrax letters we saw post-9/11, biological threats are (IMHO) the greatest threat because once unleashed, the viruses have to run their course and that can mean hundreds of thousands, even millions of victims.

But an actual nuclear weapon? While it is within the realm of possibility, it is the most remote of all threats due to:

a. if terrorists attempt to utilize a so-called "suitcase nuke" from decades ago (as other posters far smarter than I am have already pointed out), those devices are very likely inert by this time.

b. a home-brewed device is going to be shaky at best, with no guarantees that it will even detonate. al Qaeda cannot risk a major failure of that magnitude, their own concerns over their dwindling credibility will probably steer them away from trying to assemble their own weapon.

c. a new weapon, provided to terrorists by North Korea or Iran is the most likely, although North Korea is more prone to be the supplier because once Iran gets itself a nuke, they're going to keep it for their own use. But getting a nuke, any nuke, into the U.S. is not going to be as easy as it might seem on 2-hour TV dramas.

If a radiological attack takes place, it will more likely be a "dirty" bomb, i.e., conventional explosives with radioactive material jacketing the device, probably obtained from the industrial sector, or perhaps colleges with small reactors. The damage will not be based on the actual explosive yield, but on the psychological effect such an attack would have on the public.

Ironically, Bob Just over at WorldNutDaily must have had anchovies on his pizza before turning in to bed the other night, because he's got a scary scenario about terrorists attacking the U.S. with 'black' smallpox, and other nefarious schemes, and his only defense to this seems to be to "encourage" the public not to lose their nerve if and when such an attack takes place.

Now as for Chertoff, he is correct to point out the possible threats that we are facing, but remember that even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets had thousands of nukes aimed right at us, had a big bolt from the blue taken place, America would have responded in kind, with massive retaliation, and the Soviets would have ceased to exist as a society. If Islamic terrorists somehow defied the odds and managed to detonate a nuke anywhere on U.S. soil, the whole of the Islamic world would soon be glowing green glass, because if the U.S. did NOT respond that way, we might as well run up the white flag and surrender. That's what Yomama bin Crawdaddin thought we would do after 9/11.

He thought wrong. Just ask the Taliban and/or Saddam, and ask the Afghan and Iraqi people who are now breathing free air.

[verity]

Cancer is still more of a realistic concern.

[rwfromkansas]

Chertoff mentions the nuclear threat because he is visiting a facility that's purpose is to STOP one.

Note he hasn't warned of an increased nuc danger any other time.

Politicians and officials always make their comments fit the places they visit.

It doesn't mean jack squat.

[IamConservative]

I believe it was just last week it was reported the WH has dropped the term "war on terror."

The conflict between Islam and the Infidel is over 1400 years old, I don't think they will be dropping the term "jihad" anytime soon.

[jammer]

I did not make any statement in my post #17 to you regarding Joseph Farah. Therefore you misinterpret my statement. The point is it is reasonable and prudent to consider at least the possibility terrorists could use a WMD in the form of nuclear weapons and prepare...

Horsefeathers. Our entire conversation has been about post #1, in which you said:

Many people were skeptical because of the messenger was Joseph Farah. Now the messenger is Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff. I hope the new messenger will help people understand the threat is legitimate and heed his advice.

That non-sequitor was skewered and you're squirming away. What advice do you want us to heed? Run around screaming that the sky is falling? Or do something useful, like go to the border and try to stop real threats--and when are you going?

[rwfromkansas]

I somehow doubt that.

[1234]

likely an event causing at least 100,0000 U.S. casualties will be needed before the BIGWIGS start talkin up racial/ethnic profilin....

[Man50D]

Maybe Chertoff is a silent partner of WorldNetDaily(joke). I agree the possibility of a chemical attack may not be any greater than the anthrax letters but we, the public, have confirming the odds. We also don't know if the possibility of a nuclear attack is any less or greater than other threats. I'm sure there are posters more knowledgeable regarding nuclear suitcase bombs than you or I. It may very well be missing something,but I can't help but wonder how those posters would have more knowledge if terrorists are planning to use nuclear suitcase bombs more than the head of Homeland Security?

Keep in mind the terrorists defied the odds on 9/11/01. I doubt anyone know automatically discounts terrorists using planes as WMD's. We shouldn't rule out nuking Mecca if terrorists employ a nuke attack against the U.S.

[hineybona]

Don't worry , Al Gore said they are just playing on our fears , right ?So why worry ?

[hineybona]

Don't be so sure. It's not impossible that the terrorist have a more serious plan than 9/11 was and that they can pull it off. 9/11 was just the opening act in my opinion.

[Lazamataz]

By that line of reasoning we should discount similar statements made by other people who are credible because one person made the same statement who is not credible.

Precisely!

If you can find one person who isn't credible who makes a statement of fact, that fact is automatically proven untrue.

[Mad Mammoth]

Maybe Chertoff is a silent partner of WorldNetDaily(joke).

I knew it! I KNEW it!!! (LOL)

I agree the possibility of a chemical attack may not be any greater than the anthrax letters but we, the public, have confirming the odds. We also don't know if the possibility of a nuclear attack is any less or greater than other threats.

True enough. I suspect that if any one of us were getting the President's morning intel briefings and threat assessments, we would all be either totally grey-haired, or bald from pulling our hair out.

I'm sure there are posters more knowledgeable regarding nuclear suitcase bombs than you or I.

There is one poster, and I cannot recall his posting handle right now, but in a recent thread on this subject, he definitely had it nailed down tight, knew all about the elements used inside those "suitcase" devices (that are much larger than any damn suitcase), perhaps someone else might remember that FReeper?

It may very well be missing something,but I can't help but wonder how those posters would have more knowledge if terrorists are planning to use nuclear suitcase bombs more than the head of Homeland Security?

Well I don't think it 's a question of "knowing", rather more of having the knowledge to know that the technical obstacles to detonating a nuke are greater than that of some other form of attack. Personally, I think that there would be more sheer "terror" invoked by a biological attack than anything else. Think Stephen King's "The Stand", if you know what I mean?

Keep in mind the terrorists defied the odds on 9/11/01.

I disagree. On 9/11, al Qaeda was able to exploit security loopholes in our air transportation system, based on (IMHO) two major events:

- Al Gore's vaunted "commission" on airline safety, whose recommendations were totally watered down after the airline lobbyists pumped a pile of cash into the DNC. Gore's initial security recommendations would very likely have prevented the 19 hijackers from ever getting on board, IF they had been implemented.

- Noneother than Senator John F'in Kerry himself was informed in the spring of 2001 by two retired FAA security professionals that Logan Airport in Boston was a terrorist attack just waiting to happen. Kerry generally couldn't be bothered to follow up with it, and those FAA guys were basically told to "go away and don't bother us". Investigative reporter Paul Sperry went into great detail about this, but naturally the lamestream media chose to ignore it(note- if you haven't heard of this before folks, it should be a MUST read):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12588

I doubt anyone know automatically discounts terrorists using planes as WMD's. We shouldn't rule out nuking Mecca if terrorists employ a nuke attack against the U.S.

I agree that if there is a WMD attack on U.S. soil, that every holy site in Islam be wiped from the face of the Earth. Islam is not a religion. It is a satanic death cult masquerading as a religion, it is comparable to Nazism and Communism, with the sole difference being that in place of pseudo-sophisticated social theories, a facade of divinity is what has been used to delude literally billions of people into doing the Devil's work for him.

That's my rant for this hour. LOL

[COEXERJ145]

I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.

[Mad Mammoth]

I see World Nut Daily is still trying to keep Farah's BS alive. I guess they have to keep hyping it after Iran's EMP attack failed to materialize.

My FONTS! My FONTS!! My SCREEN!!!!
I
c-a-n-n-o-t
s-e-e
m-y
m-o-n-i-t-o-r
i-m-a-g-e!!!

AAAAAAAARGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

I've been wasted by an Iranian EMP!!!!

Why do these things always happen on a Monday? ;)