Study: 3 million would die in worst-case Calif. terror scenario

bayarea ^

[chance33_98]

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A little-noticed study ponders the unthinkable: What would happen if a terrorist unleashed a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon in the nation's most populous state?

The answer is as chilling as the question: In a worst-case scenario, as many as 3 million Californians would perish.

[Mitchell]

Yes. Part of what happened is that reliable missile technology proved harder to develop than one might have imagined, so they started looking for alternative delivery mechanisms. We've seen four already (jetliners as missiles, anthrax in the mail, suicide bombers, and large bombs on trucks and ships).

Even though, as you say, the U.S. administration understands the new strategic issues, the U.S.'s unwillingness to acknowledge the situation publicly is preventing many, both in the U.S. and abroad, from comprehending the serious changes that are occurring in the world. I'm hoping that the upcoming dossier (on Iraq's WMD) that both U.K. and U.S. officials have referred to will correct this. But I have the feeling that it won't go far enough in doing so.

[Mohammed El-Shahawi]

I would even argue that possession of missiles isn't much good, unless your missiles at least equal the numbers (and megatonnage!) of your adversary. In fact a missile launch gives away the position it was fired from immediately, and the response would come within minutes.
This new stratgic doctrine doesn't leave tell-tale missile launches. As you have correctly observed, finding a deterrnece to it is not easy. The only solution is pre-emptive military action.
I don't understand, at this point, why this case has not been made. I can only imagine it's because the US does not want to appear weak. Explaining why we waited for a year to strike Iraq might be rather, shall we say, awkward.

[Go Gordon]

As a result, anthrax might be used in a gamble that there would be no retaliation, since the source of the anthrax might be successfully hidden and we wouldn't know who to retaliate against.

Bush should tell the UN on the 12th that if a WMD is used on the US, we won't wait to specifically ID who it was. We will drop nukes on Mecca and Medina. We'll use neutron bombs (or current equivilent) on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Then we'll start trying to ID where the WMD came from.

[Go Gordon]

we have already reached the end of the road for MAD

Maybe our policy should shift to NMAM (Nuke Mecca and Medina)

[Mitchell]

I wrote: As a result, anthrax might be used in a gamble that there would be no retaliation, since the source of the anthrax might be successfully hidden and we wouldn't know who to retaliate against.

You replied: Bush should tell the UN on the 12th that if a WMD is used on the US, we won't wait to specifically ID who it was. We will drop nukes on Mecca and Medina. We'll use neutron bombs (or current equivilent) on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Then we'll start trying to ID where the WMD came from.

This would be a big mistake. Not only won't it work, but, in fact, such a policy is likely to cause us to be attacked.

Here's why: If we announce that we will respond to any WMD attack on the U.S. by attacking country X (without having first determined that X is, in fact, the country that attacked us), then we have just given X's enemy Y a powerful incentive to attack us with WMD.

[luckodeirish]

I hope I am one of the first to go.

[The Great Satan]

It's amazing how nobody can grasp this. I watched Ted Koppel interviwing Eagleburger last night. Ted's a smart guy, actually. He said to Eagleburger "What if we go to war with Iraq, and Iraq has chemical and biological weapons already pre-positioned in America"? Eagleburger replied "It's possible but extremely unlikley."

After all, bad things never happen to good people. Every cloud has a silver lining. It's always darkest before the dawn.

Can I have my Ovaltine now?

[Mitchell]

I wrote: If we announce that we will respond to any WMD attack on the U.S. by attacking country X (without having first determined that X is, in fact, the country that attacked us), then we have just given X's enemy Y a powerful incentive to attack us with WMD.

I want to clarify that this has nothing to do with the particular countries you named for X, or with the choice of X and Y at all. The point is that, very generally, this sort of policy (of retaliation before identifying an aggressor) will fail to keep us safe.

[Mitchell]

In fact a missile launch gives away the position it was fired from immediately, and the response would come within minutes.

Exactly. Even if it works, it leaves you open to retaliation, since the point of launch will be obvious. (There may be some ways around this, such as launching from submarine, but they'd be awkward, especially for a third world country operating on a shoestring.) Missiles are expensive, too.

I don't understand, at this point, why this case has not been made. I can only imagine it's because the US does not want to appear weak.

Here are some possibilities:

1. There may have been a genuine difference of opinion within the U.S. government as to whether a change in strategic doctrine was needed (Cheney vs. Powell?).
2. The U.S. may also be very uncertain as to whether there is actually a strategic solution that works; if there's not, then we certainly don't want to advertise our vulnerability.
3. The solution may involve substantial military preparation, and we may be quite vulnerable in the meantime.
4. Finally, the solution may involve a very sudden, overwhelming, surprise attack. In that case, we don't want to tip our hand at all, not even by acknowledging the seriousness of the threat.

[The Great Satan]

The correct answer is option #2.

[ErnBatavia]

Other than FreeRepublic Kalifornia is not worth talking about...

Don't go "bigot" on us now...we also gave you Ronald Reagan!

[Mitchell]

The correct answer is option #2.

I actually think that it may be a combination of all four.

[Mohammed El-Shahawi]

I believe another correct answer would be #4. The reason I say "would be" is because Saddam, whether by good luck or design, is in the fortunate position that the prosecution of #4 would lead to worldwide condemnation. As long as he keeps denying he has WMDs there will be appeasers like the Germans and French who will believe him.
This leaves the US in a no-win situation. In the end we'll have to lose by doing #4. Eventually people will get it.

[Mr. Mojo]

As long as he keeps denying he has WMDs there will be appeasers like the Germans and French who will believe him.

I don't think the Frogs and Krauts believe the Iraqi denials of WMD possession; it's all about economics with them. They have a huge financial stake in the current Middle East status quo, and regime change - war - propels them into the unknown.

[Monty22]

The good thing about smallpox is it's most contagious when after the severe symptoms set in.. When people are already showing the blisters.

I'm not as worried about it as I am nukes.

[jammer]

I thought they were pretty damned funny. The information you give is known to everyone. You should lighten up--the entire story is hypothetical from a left-wing think tank anyway.

[Amerigomag]

And the down side is

If your reference is to the masses of aliens and the far left that reside in California you'd probably be wrong.

The same group that attacked the WTC is not going to target east LA, Hollywood, the city of San Francisco or the state capital building in Sacramento.

They are more likley to target a large university campus, the silcon valley area or the business complexes of the Los Angeles basin.

While these terrorists do not necessarily understand the nuainces of California politics they know enough to avoid a disaster that only terrorizes 60% of the population.

[calljack]

I live in Los Angeles.
Is it OK with you if me and my kids die too??

[ErnBatavia]

I live in Los Angeles. Is it OK with you if me and my kids die too??

What does the fact that you live in L.A. have to do with the fact that Kalifornia offered unto the USA it's greatest gift, Ronald Reagan?

I lived there all my life and finally got the balls to bail earlier this year. There IS life outside of the pavement, and it's good, even if it still is within the state boundaries.....at least we have a Bono versus a Waxman. L.A. really sucks.

[A Navy Vet]

"Other than FreeRepublic Kalifornia is not worth talking about..."

You lose Los Angeles including the harbor or maybe the San Diego Naval Base and the ENTIRE country will be negatively impacted for YEARS.

I hate california politics as much as anyone (I live them), but it gets a little tiring with these morbid statements and jokes.