Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear terrorism: the paramount priority
Townhall.com ^ | November 11, 2001 | Steve Chapman

Posted on 11/11/2001 3:12:23 PM PST by Gritty

He was the only person making his way into the city; he met hundreds and hundreds who were fleeing, and every one of them seemed to be hurt in some way. The eyebrows of some were burned off and skin hung from their faces and hands. Others, because of pain, held their arms up as if carrying something in both hands. Some were vomiting as they walked. Many were naked or in shreds of clothing. On some undressed bodies, the burns had made patterns ... Almost all had their heads bowed, looked straight ahead, were silent, and showed no expression. -- John Hersey, "Hiroshima."

Does that passage horrify you? Me, too. But not everyone feels the same way. Osama bin Laden might read it as a lovely vision of New York or Washington after he has acquired and detonated an atomic bomb.

This scenario is not just a theoretical possibility. It is something that could actually happen in the next few years if we don't take every measure possible to prevent it.

Airline security is vital; combating bioterrorism is important; winning the war in Afghanistan is critical. But success in those areas will be cold comfort if the day comes when tens of thousands of Americans are consumed in a mushroom cloud. Preventing nuclear terrorism therefore ought to be the single highest priority of our government. Even today, it's not clear that it is.

Last week, President Bush said that al Qaeda is trying to obtain chemical, biological and nuclear arms. That merely echoes bin Laden, who says he has a "religious duty" to do so and has hinted that he may have nuclear weapons already. If his goal is to slaughter and terrorize Americans, as he has said, he couldn't find a better way.

Americans have yet to fully grasp the depth and urgency of the peril we face. Maybe that's because, during the Cold War, we grew accustomed to the fact that we could all die in a nuclear war. But that danger was remote, because we had an answer: nuclear deterrence. Deterrence, unfortunately, looks useless against our new foes -- who would not leave a return address on the bomb, and who might be willing to commit suicide for their gruesome cause.

To even contemplate the risk of this sort of attack is to invite panic or despair. We can be sure there are hundreds of terrorists around the world scheming to get a doomsday device, and we know there are far too many ways they might get it.

One source is Russia, which has thousands of warheads, including some that may not be as secure as we would like. Russia also has some 500 tons of enriched uranium lying around that could be used to make bombs. A few years ago, one Russian official said dozens of small "suitcase bombs" could not be accounted for.

Russia also has thousands of pounds of fissile material, which may or may not be under ironclad control. If they could smuggle out 50 or 100 pounds of the stuff, terrorists might be able to build a bomb. Once terrorists have such a weapon, it would be almost impossible to keep them from sneaking it into the United States and setting it off.

Given all these realities, the situation may look hopeless. It isn't -- quite. The good news is that if bin Laden had the bomb, he would have used it already. Those suitcase nukes may never have escaped control. Even if terrorists were able to get one, it's very unlikely they would have the codes and other expertise to detonate it.

Nor is it a simple task to convert fissile material into a weapon. MIT nuclear physicist Theodore Postol says the project would require so much in the way of machinery, materials, technical support and funding that no terrorist group would be likely to manage it -- at least not without the active help of some government, such as Iraq. But any government that collaborated in a plan to detonate an atomic bomb on American soil would be sealing its own doom, and Saddam Hussein has shown no interest in martyrdom.

So the immediate risk is low. But a slight chance of an earth-shattering catastrophe is too much to accept.

During World War II, we moved heaven and earth in the Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb before Hitler could -- because we knew our survival hung in the balance. Today, we have to embrace a similar commitment to averting nuclear terrorism.

The questions we need to ask ourselves and our leaders, every day, are these: Are we doing everything humanly possible to prevent a nuclear holocaust on our soil? And if we are not, and if we fail, how will we ever live with ourselves?


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/11/2001 3:12:23 PM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gritty
With millions ready to die for Allah, it is no longer if, but when this will happen. Unless we take these antagonistic ountries and regimes who threaten us OUT, this is going to happen.
2 posted on 11/11/2001 3:20:11 PM PST by Liberals are Evil Socialists!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberals are Evil Socialists!
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and even before 9-11. I think that this is a big cultural war not only between Islam and the civilized West, but also between the left and right, conservatives and "liberals", Democrats and Republicans and between goofy utopians and pragmatists. Between the phoniness of "multiculturaism" and reality of our own survival. It represents a lot.

I think its more serious than many people think. I think it's a defining moment in our lives. I think many things in the world are coming to a head. I think things could easily flash into a nuclear war with China being dragged in or inserting itself into the war.

Do you think that the Bush administration and our government have prepared for a terrorist nuclear weapon going off in NYC or DC? Have they done scenarios on what our response would be? Who would be our targets and the consequences of out targeting? I hope they've got plans thought out and prepared.

3 posted on 11/11/2001 3:45:21 PM PST by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Some useful info:

Tiny Nukes-- the backpack threat

The Poor-Boy Nuke-- Bioterrorism***

The Samson Option-- what is known about Israel's Nuclear Weapons?

NBC/ABC Warfare Survival Skills Links


-Index of Nuke articles--

-Index of Chemical Warfare/weapons articles--

-Index of Bioterrorism articles--

-Index of Terrorism articles--

4 posted on 11/11/2001 4:13:28 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
Deterrence, unfortunately, looks useless against our new foes -- who would not leave a return address on the bomb, and who might be willing to commit suicide for their gruesome cause.

I spell deterrence m-e-d-i-n-a-t-h-e-n-m-e-c-c-a.

5 posted on 11/11/2001 4:17:34 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
You might need to add g-e-n-o-c-i-d-e to your plan because that's what you would have to consider after such an obtuse attack. Rational minds prevail, thank God.
6 posted on 11/11/2001 4:28:02 PM PST by mxbluto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mxbluto
the name of the game remains d-e-t-e-r-r-e-n-c-e and no one needs to die, not even on our side. Remember "mutual assured destruction" which held the Soviets at bay for 30 years. Yeah, I want regimes that harbor the terrorists to know they have something to lose too and therefore better hunt them down with a great deal of urgency.
7 posted on 11/11/2001 4:34:10 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Arab terrorists are able to use Arab states funds, and know how, but they lie about they are part of these governments. The Arab leaders swear up and down that they had nothing to do with such acts. The realities, is they look the other way, winking at the evil doers. The only way we can cool this mess, is by solving the Arab/Israeli problem. We must not give away a Palestenian state without having a solid confirmable solution to the radical Islamists/Arab-media/Arab-inteligensia.
8 posted on 11/11/2001 4:34:13 PM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
I don't know, but I suspect this is true. Bush probably knows one way or the other. If he considers a nuclear event to "decapitate our political leadership" a credible threat, say during the State of the Union message in a couple months, then why would he not quietly bring every coercive pressure to bear? Believe me, if it did happen, our response would be likely to be genocidal in scope.
9 posted on 11/11/2001 4:55:50 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
Do you think that the Bush administration and our government have prepared for a terrorist nuclear weapon going off in NYC or DC? Have they done scenarios on what our response would be?

Are these the only cities that you can think of which may be the objects of the next terrorist attack?

There are other civilised cities on this planet. Ever heard of Paris, London, Rome, San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, Detroit...?

10 posted on 11/11/2001 5:27:52 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
If and when this happens --- and if we had a real news media instead of a leftwing propaganda machine we would all be discussing the ifs and whens of this quite openly --- by far the most likely scenario is a Muslim on a travel visa activating the device inside the USA. But we not only refuse to talk about the horrible possibility of a nuclear attack by Muslims... we refuse to even mention the most obvious first step in setting up a line of defense: A Terrorist Deportation Plan.

FUTURE WIDOWS OF AMERICA: WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN

The enemy is in this country right now. And any terrorists who are not already here are free to immigrate. The government has been doing an excellent job rounding up suspects from the last two attacks. But what about the next attack? We thought there was only one murderous Islamic cell in America the last time, too.

Congress has authority to pass a law tomorrow requiring aliens from suspect countries to leave. As far as the Constitution is concerned, aliens, which is to say non-citizens, are here at this country's pleasure. They have no constitutional right to be here.

Communicate! Let the Sons of....

NOW IS THE TIME TO CANCEL ALL VISAS!! WE MUST DEPORT ALL ALIENS, ENACT A MORATORIUM ON IMMIGRATION!!!
I actually disagree with the title of this link. I believe that we should be more selective in cancelling and refusing visas. But the link is to a good discussion on the overall issue.

11 posted on 11/11/2001 5:47:42 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
"Are these the only cities that you can think of which may be the objects of the next terrorist attack?"

No, of course not, but I just think we are number 1 (with a bullet) on the Islamic target list. Not that I wish some of the other cities were on the target lists, but quite frankly, I don't think the Muslims hate the French or Italians, Dutch or Norwegians as much they hate us.

It would almost be better for the "alliance" if the Muslims did blow up the Eiffel Tower or the Vatican, then the rest of the world would understand the danger of terrorism and wouldn't be so damn anti-American and smug, disdainful and un-cooperative.

12 posted on 11/11/2001 10:08:11 PM PST by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson