Posted on 04/27/2006 12:20:35 PM PDT by Bob J
Oh, this source is close to al-Qaeda? What's his name? Which cell does he occupy at Gitmo?
You are most welcome, Sir.
The problem is that Paul Williams, in the end, contributes nothing to the debate except for continuously shilling his own books on the subject. (I've borrowed both from the library; they are almost identical in content. "Repeating one's self," to quote my English professor, "compounds the academic crime of plagirism with the aesthetic sin of extremely poor taste.")
Paul Williams is taking advantage of "The Wizard's First Rule".
People can be convinced of anything if it meets one of two criteria:
1. They want it to be true
or
2. They are afraid that it's true
I'm not addressing the truth of the topic, but rather his approach. He appears to be shilling.
The topic deserves more respect than he's given it. It's as if he's smearing it intentionally.
Your perspicacity is intact, Sir.
As I said in my original post, my question was a serious one. I could not find ANYTHING on the web that covered the "blockbuster" announcement that was supposed to be made at the end of the first day. (For that matter, there was almost no press coverage of the event at all, so that may explain why the "bombshell announcement" was ignored too.)
I gather from your post that "Nukes were smuggled in from Mexico" was the announcement. We've heard this kind of thing before, so the next question is: Was there any substantiation?
Changing topics to the on-going debate on this thread about suitcase nukes: HipShot is right. He's a retired MIRV technician, so he has more hands-on experience than I do. However, one of my jobs in the Air Force was running the team that set the manpower standards for Air Force ICBM missile maintenance for all Air Force ICBMs. I could not fix one myself, but I know a bit about how it's done. I also know the physics behind making a bomb (or at least I did when I was younger...).
As an additional aside, I listened to the "debate" between Miniter and Williams. Perhaps he just oversimplified, but Miniter seemed to have some of his basic facts wrong. First, he seemed to be unaware that neutron emissions cannot be detected with a geiger counter (neutrons have no electrical charge). That makes detecting nukes much more difficult than he implied. Second, there is no way you need something as large as "three footlockers" to make a nuke. Anyone who would assert this is either completely unaware of the facts, or is assuming that the audience is unable to tell truth from fiction. Finally, you definitely do NOT need tritium to make a nuke. As long as you have plenty of fissionable material, the design of the bomb itself can be relatively simple (especially if you are not concerned about "fail safe" issues).
On the other side of the debate, I don't have any way of knowing if Paul Williams is right, or just hawking books. But the CONCEPT that small nukes could be smuggled in to our country, and successfully set off, is certainly in the realm of the possible.
You know something? I am not connecting today. You are saying the government would use FEDEX to ship the nuke? ROFLMAO yes of course you would be 100000% correct that would be the DARWIN AWARD of the century. I figure a government shipment of a nuke is going to involve a convoy and Apache's overhead....
Just curious. Where did you get that number?
Oh really now?
Another ex cathedra statement from Mr. Anonymous Expert, eh?
LOL!
Sorry, buster, I'm with ExSoldier on this. I'll take HipShot's POV over yours. Nothing personal.
Interesting factoid: I have literally lost track of how many times I've referred people to Christopher Hitchens' "The Night of the Weak Knees" article (salient portion of which is avaialable on my Profile Page).
Another interesting factoid: I have kept track of the number of times the "haw-haw-haw-nukes-in-country-LOL!" squad members have come back with anything louder than crickets chirping after having been directed to read that article: Zero.
They're worth every bit as much as your ex cathedra statements, Mr. Anonymous Expert. At least I confine myself to known physics as opposed to unverifiable claims that are tarnished by unaccounted-for violations of physics and utterly ridiculous claims that the US Government ships nuclear wearheads via Federal Express. (Yes, Sam Cohen actually said that. Take it up with him, OK?)
Another interesting factoid: I have kept track of the number of times the "haw-haw-haw-nukes-in-country-LOL!" squad members have come back with anything louder than crickets chirping after having been directed to read that article: Zero.
I've read it. The money quote for me:
The whole cult of "national security" depends upon the cultivation of national insecurity.
And here you are, hyping insecurity over a weapon that has not been demonstrated to work.
I'm here, pointing out that the only thing stopping the bad guys from attempting to steal nuclear weapons or special nuclear materials is the reputation of fearsome security at DOD and DOE storage sites. However, I don't see evidence of that sort of fearsome security at those sites; neither, apparently, did the GAO the last time they looked (they submitted a report that, when translated from bureaucratese to normal English, ripped the DOE a new anal orifice).
What's worth noting about "The Night of the Week Knees" is what did not happen: the JEEP plan was not activated. (If you are such a high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck, Mr. Anonymous Expert, you know what JEEP stands for, and how it would go down. Among other things, JEEP isn't the sort of thing that would escape notice by anyone with more than two brain cells.)
They're worth every bit as much as your ex cathedra statements, Mr. Anonymous Expert.
LOL! Nice try, but no cigar. You see, I CITED my sources, whereas YOU merely spout off via your almighty keyboard.
Another interesting factoid: I have kept track of the number of times the "haw-haw-haw-nukes-in-country-LOL!" squad members have come back with anything louder than crickets chirping after having been directed to read that article: Zero.
I've read it. The money quote for me:
The whole cult of "national security" depends upon the cultivation of national insecurity.
How interesting that you would gloss over the CONTENT of the material, and fixate on one statement of opinion. Why, it's almost as if you're trying to AVOID the issue at hand, and use classical disruptor/agent provocateur/"paid-to-post" M.O.!
The key "nugget", of course, is, "One of these callers was in a position to know, and the other was in a position where he was actually paid to know." (And, the fact that this occurred is confirmed via a second source: "Hugh Sidey's Time column".)
If you are such a high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck, Mr. Anonymous Expert
Now there you go putting words in my mouth. How droll -- and pathetic.
What I did during the course of my employment is none of your bloody business -- and therefore, any extrapolation you make regarding that employment (as per the above) is, to put it kindly, laughably arrogant on your part. In other words, I never said I was a "high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck", and, to get back on track, your continued practice of "shooting the messenger" -- a logical fallacy of the basest sort -- says quite a bit about you, and nothing about me.
You do not like the message being conveyed, and, since you are incapable of "debunking" the source, you resort (incessantly!) to attacking the medium that conveys the message! Worse yet, you repeatedly assert that the messenger IS the source! This is in the face of the simple fact that the messenger has made no secret of the source, and has never claimed to be the source!
Tell me -- do you curse out your mailman when he deliveres registered letters you do not wish to receive? Do you call HIM a "high and mighty mucketty muck" too? LOL!
My anonymity seems to upset you. How sad. Unlike YOUR anonymity, MINE is of no consequence, as I do NOT issue ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority". YOU, on the other hand... well, if you're capable of any OTHER mode of operation, you're doing a fine job of disguising that capability.
And, if Christopher Hitchens was half as ballsy as he made himself out to be in his chest-thumping article, those "callers" would have names and be known to one and all. Cowards should be publicly exposed--but the only one I can name is Mr. Hitchens. Guess he likes being an inside player too much to do any public service...
Meanwhile, of course, you're relying on the same mainstream press that gave us Jayson Blair and Rathergate to "confirm" this tale...
Again: JEEP didn't get activated, and JEEP's kind of hard to cover up.
In other words, I never said I was a "high-and-mighty ex-Federally-badged mucky-muck",
Hmm. From Post #25: I've indeed worked for a federal service, although I wore their badge for a relatively short time
OK, got it. You never said anything remotely like that.
How sad. Unlike YOUR anonymity, MINE is of no consequence, as I do NOT issue ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority".
Oh, really? What do you call seven invective-filled posts to me, calling me a shill and worse for disagreeing with the notion that "Red Mercury" (or hafnium isomers) pose an imminent threat to life and limb, if not ex cathedra declarations of "fact", using "command voice" to underscore my (ahem) "authority"?
LOL!
And, if Christopher Hitchens was half as ballsy as he made himself out to be in his chest-thumping article, those "callers" would have names and be known to one and all. Cowards should be publicly exposed--but the only one I can name is Mr. Hitchens. Guess he likes being an inside player too much to do any public service...
You are now asserting that the hallmark of a responsible journalist is the willingness to EXPOSE his sources?
What a novel concept!
But, since you've opened that can of worms, how about you validate YOUR incessant (and uber-ballsy) "chest-thumping" by telling us who YOU are???
No, I'm not REALLY expecting you to adhere to the same standards you demand of OTHERS.
Cue crickets...
In extreme circumstances, yes. (BTW...he exposed his sources to the folks most likely to know who they were--the sources themselves--and he did so in a very unflattering manner. Methinks they quit talking to him anyway.)
I'd definitely expose sources who were racing to get out of DC (and warning their close buddies) while apparently not notifying the national command authorities of an imminent nuclear threat. (If they had done so, the government would have executed JEEP, and that mess would've been on CNN live, followed shortly thereafter by a Free Republic live thread.)
Dereliction of duty on the part of senior intelligence weenies, cowardice in the face of the enemy on the part of the above-mentioned senior intelligence weenies, and a potentially decapitated United States had the reports of the threat been accurate...that's the sort of story a Pulitzer Prize is made of.
But, since you've opened that can of worms, how about you validate YOUR incessant (and uber-ballsy) "chest-thumping" by telling us who YOU are???
You first. I'm just a Kumeyaay living in Boulevard, CA, spouting off on the 'Net--after doing my homework. (BTW, a good source is the late Chuck Hansen's Swords of Armaggeddon, which is a CD-ROM chock full of declassified documents on nuclear weapons design and the history of US nuclear weapons production. The full set's about $350 or so, but it's worth the purchase price.)
In my experience, real worries (about any topic) get addressed with very real actions appropriate to the worries. Real worries about a nuclear bomb in the hands of al-Qaeda would get addressed by such actions as dispersing the line of Presidential succession and taking better care to secure weapons-grade nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.
Instead, we get a lot of rhetoric, a lot of "studies" from the usual gang of Beltway Bandits (nothing wrong with doing ONE study of a problem, but there's everything wrong one can think of with voluntarily succumbing to "Analysis Paralysis"), and a bunch of pie-in-the-sky R&D work to do everything except take real, concrete steps of the sort addressed above.
I'll take this whole mess seriously when I see the government doing so.
I was speaking of the "Red Mercury/"hafnium isomer" weapons Don Joe was writing about--those are completely undemonstrated. Let's worry about the nukes first, OK?
You point out that it's "reputation" keeping our supplies safe. You also point out that our own audit finds actual security lacking. It appears to me that you are the one "hyping insecurity".
I'm pointing out that we can go ga-ga over alleged nuclear hand grenades that no one's independently demonstrated, or we can look at real worries (such as questionable security on our nuclear materials) and address them. Instead, the "suitcase nuke" (or "softball nuke") threat is turning into another bonanza for certain well-connected "usual suspects" located mostly in Crystal City (with the odd outfit located in Arlington, Alexandria, or Santa Monica).
Me first?
But, since you've opened that can of worms, how about you validate YOUR incessant (and uber-ballsy) "chest-thumping" by telling us who YOU are???You first.
LOL!
Sorry, that's not how it works.
YOU'RE the one who made such a stink about anonymity. How about YOU coming out from behind the curtain "first"?
You are the one who made such a stink over anonymity, not me. I'm merely the one who called you on the hypocrisy of damning anonymity while at the same time engaging in the practice!
Since I'm the one who defends anonymity, your challenge is both ridiculous and absurd.
But, if the "Don Joe" Spoonerism is just too much for your tender sensibilities to bear, you can call me "The Federal Farmer". Or, "Publius".
Golly gee, looks like anonymity has a long and cherished tradition in this land of ours.
If it was good enough for the founders, it's good enough for me.
The rest of your voluminous tirade against the concept of The Press shielding its sources is left to stand on its own merits, or lack thereof. LOL!
Please go back and read Post #17, where the issue first surfaced, and then look at the author's name. (Here, I'll save you the time: it's yours.)
Nice try, but sorry, BZZZZZT! You lose.
I repeat -- YOU are the one who was making a stink about anonymity, not me.
YOU are the one who decries anonymity -- yet, practices it.
I merely pointed out your hypocrisy. Kinda hard to do without pointing out your anonymity, n'est ce pas?
LMAO!
Give it up already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.