Nuclear terrorism risk seen growing

Reuters ^ | 2/7/07 | Mark Trevelyan

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Western governments must take seriously the possibility of terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb as the necessary materials and know-how become easier to acquire, security analysts argue in two new reports.

"The threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons is real ... moreover, the likelihood of terrorists acquiring such weapons is growing as more states aggressively pursue their own nuclear ambitions," the EastWest Institute said in a study.

It said the first nuclear terrorist may turn out to be an American or European, reflecting a likely evolution in security threats over the next 10-15 years and a possible shift away from al Qaeda-style Islamist militancy toward eco-terrorism.

In a separate report, London's influential Chatham House think-tank said it was feasible that terrorists could acquire an atomic bomb, build one themselves, create an "improvised nuclear device" or blow up a nuclear power station.

Another risk was the collapse of government control over civil and military nuclear facilities and materials in countries like Pakistan or North Korea.

The design, materials and engineering for a bomb "have all become commodities, more or less available to those determined enough to acquire them," said Paul Cornish, head of the international security program at Chatham House.

He said the science and engineering challenges were very difficult but not insurmountable.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

The "analysts" that wrote this report are complete idiots and apologists for islamofascism. This steaming pile of crap doesn't place the risk of nuclear terrorism squarely where it belongs -- on islamofascists. Somehow, this "analysis" manages to elevate low probability risks to the same level of islamofascism.

1. Risk of nuclear terrorism is growing. No s__t, Sherlock. Where have you been?
2. The first nuclear terrorist will be American or European. Sure, with the name "Mohammad".
3. The collapse of Pak or NorK will let weapons out. True.
4. Their weapon could "fizzle" and only release a few kilotons of energy. Well known problem if you can't master the precise design, timing and machining needed to build a bomb.
5. "CBRN attack is a logical escalation for groups such as al Qaeda". Nothing new here.
6. Ecoterrorists will turn to nukes. Seems rather far-fetched but possible. Earth loving tree-hugging wack jobs are unpredictable. Probably 1% of the risk posed by islamofascism.
7. Polonium poisoning of Litvinenko is proof that the international community lacks proper controls on nuclear materials. Totally wrong. You can legally buy Polonium in many industrial sensor products. Not hard to get at all.
8. Lastly, global warming will exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide, intensify conflicts over land, water and other resources and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism. GW is blamed for everything these days - why not nuclear terrorism?

[Tarpon]

The terrorism deniers are busy working on global warming socialism. Too bust to deal with reality.

[goodnesswins]

Quit reading at THIS statement....."It said the first nuclear terrorist may turn out to be an American or European.."

[Cicero]

It sounds like one of those bloody movies or TV programs, where the Arab terrorists are replaced by a gang of white supremacists and a Muslim saves the day. Is this supposed to be serious analysis or a Hollywood plot designed to win awards in Cannes and Aspen?

[dhs12345]

Fallout and initial blast can do some really nasty things to the environment.

[353FMG]

"The first nuclear terrorist will be American or European. Sure, with the name "Mohammad"."

No way Jose. His name will, most likely, be Benedict XVI.

[stm]

Living proof that anyone with an IQ over 50 can call themselves and analyst

[dodger]

No kidding!

Unless, that is as some suggest, our 'leaders' finally realize time is not on our side and major-league pre-emption may be necessary to save Judeo-Christian Western culture from the otherwise inevitable depredations of the Islamo-fascists.

As Voltaire averred two centuries ago, it seems, "We must crush the vile things". The sooner, the better ....

[Tarpon]

Hey, that's an angle I hadn't considered, do you think Democrats would look at a nuclear blast in Hollyweird that way, or as just another problem to solve? After all, as years went by I understand Hiroshima and Nagasaki got over it ... so might need to consider it more thoroughly.

[dhs12345]

Sorry folks. The reality....

I am convinced that one (or more) of our cities has to be nuked in order for people to take the risks seriously.

*And it isn't a matter of if but when.*

I am taking bets on which city will get nuked (in the following order). I recommend that you move away from these areas.

1. New York City.
2. Los Angles
3. San Francisco
4. DC
5. Chicago.

Now, it may not happen tomorrow, next week, next year, or even within five years.

But, like 9/11 we won't be expecting it.

Actually, it will probably happen when we are arguing about silly things like should we impeach Bush.

[goodnesswins]

I agree. I think they'll try for DC or NYC....most per capita.....plus the east coast has a plethora of nuclear reactors that might prove "useful"

[dhs12345]

Naw. The environmentalists and Democrats are completely political (IMO).

Like when Clinton was accused of serious crimes against women in addition to being a philanderer, NOW and the Democrats (THE SUPPOSED ADVOCATES FOR WOMENS RIGHTS!) were silent.

Apologies for shouting.

[dhs12345]

Damn. Americans will die.

Lets hope that we maintain our resolve and don't lighten up on the WOT.

But, with all of the disagreement, we will eventually lose focus. "Take our eye off of the ball" as they say.

We have already started down the path and have become complacent. At least it appears that way on the surface. We really don't know what the government is up to.

But so goes American history. We are doomed to repeat it.

I believe we will recover, though. We are resourceful and determined when back into a corner.

[353FMG]

"I am convinced that one (or more) of our cities has to be nuked in order for people to take the risks seriously."


What are we going to do after the mushroom cloud settles? Any suggestions?

[wodinoneeye]

Prophesy for the end of Islam........

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Yeah, lost me there too. That statement was a real pantload.

[RunningWolf]

I hear you.

IMO the real problem is not the attack we will suffer at some point, but elsewhere. It is within us.

I think a large piece of what is going stems from the large segment of baby boomer 1st generation immigrants.

And while I like some as individuals in my daily life, so many of them hate the USA because they still love the homeland that they left behind IMO.

And also they have no appreciation for our nation, its history, heritage and its constitution.

For that I am worried because they have no investment in USA for USA.

Look, some of the people I have met are walking John Kerry/Cindy Sheehan/and worse (et al) talking points.

These people hate America, and they really hate G. Bush. As far as they are concerned Bush murdered every soldier in Iraq, all the non combatant's over there etc.

I don't think we really know what we are in for, and I hope there is a USA there that we know when we get thru it.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Also a few are ex-military with honorable discharges

But these are the sort of guys who thought 'active duty' equals 'getting benefits'.., with 'active duty' meaning showing up for a few years of making formation and no combat activity.

Because they did not sign up for that sort of crap, and 'f the USA.

We have all seen it, you know we have.

Wolf

[dhs12345]

If what happened during the LA Riots or Katrina are any clue... it wont be pleasant.