Posted on 02/13/2011 5:32:43 PM PST by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
A port official has admitted that a 'weapon of mass effect' has been found by 'partner agencies' in the U.S., raising major questions over a possible government cover-up.
The disturbing revelation came in an interview with San Diego's assistant port director screened by a television channel in the city.
The Customs and Border Protection Department tried to dampen speculation over his remarks, but doubts remained over whether he had inadvertently revealed a dirty bomb plot to attack the U.S. mainland.
snip
‘So, specifically, you're looking for the dirty bomb? You're looking for the nuclear device?’ asked Mr Blacher.
‘Correct. Weapons of mass effect,’ said Mr Hallor.
‘You ever found one?’ asked Mr Blacher.
‘Not at this location,’ Mr Hallor said.
‘But they have found them?’ asked Mr Blacher. ‘Yes,’ said Mr Hallor.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
>>I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction.<<
With all due respect, with American lives at stake, who gives a flying CRAP about that kind of hairsplitting?
Please.
It’s a weapon of mass hysteria.
There are many types of weapons of mass effect. A weapon of mass effect couple be biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological, conventional, or cyber. Weapons of mass effect may cause large-scale alterations of psychological
perceptions,changing and/or influencing both attitudes and behaviors.
For example, the bomb Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators used in Oklahoma City was a conventional weapon of mass destruction. So were the aircraft flown into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
I would not go jumping to conclusions that the weapons of mass destruction were nuclear or radiological. I would also not jump to the conclusion that the weapons were found in or near San Diego as many of the Department of Hoplessness and inSecurity’s “partner agencies” are the security agencies in other countries.
I’m convinced Barry is going to get a lot of us killed. He really doesn’t care though.
Most experts will tell you that a dirty bomb is not much more destructive than a conventional explosive, if at all.
D.C. can absorb the attacks.
“I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction.”
That is why it is called a WME - a weapon of mass effect. It would dirty up a significant area of a city and areas downwind, as well as potentially have a world-wide economic/political/terror effect
Not by your standards, apparently.
But by technical and generally agreed upon standards, you'd be wrong.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined as CBN -- chemical, biological and nuclear. A "dirty bomb" is undeniably "nuclear".
ping
“... how would the government change their behavior toward Islam?”
Remember, Obama said we could absorb another 9-11. I guess we are just a big sponge absorbing tragedy after tragedy.
‘Correct. Weapons of mass effect,’ said Mr Hallor.
He doesn’t say if its a dirty bomb or a Bio agent.
The problem isn’t so much the destructiveness.
It’s the clean-up.
What if it killed you and/or your family?
Is that mass or destructive enough?
I don't mean to diminish the threat of this sort of thing, but I believe a so-called "dirty bomb" would be pretty easy to manufacture, would not be difficult to move into a major U.S. city, and would likely be far more effective for the hysteria it causes than the actual destruction.
Well a lot of people got sick at the Playboy Mansion! Just sayin!
No it isn’t.
A dirty bomb is merely a conventional bomb used to disperse radioactive debris. Lots of things are radioactive. Some soil is radioactive. Gather up a bunch of radioactive garbage and pack it around a large conventional bomb and you have a dirty bomb. It works better if the radioactive debris is dangerous enough to cause panic.
A nuclear bomb is an energy release derived from a nuclear reaction. Energy is created out of matter. There may or may not be deadly radioactive debris produced as a byproduct.
How reliable is this report? Should this be in Breaking News?
I understand that.
At the same time, I understand that U.S. military policy is not to respond to a conventional attack with WMD. And that, for this purpose, WMD included "dirty bombs".
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.