Nuclear attack unavoidable, experts say

trivalleyherald.com ^ | Friday, September 20, 2002 | By Ian Hoffman

[USA21]

Despite more than a half-century free of nuclear war, a majority of experts assembled at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Thursday concluded a nuclear or radiological attack is inevitable over the next 50 years, if not this decade.

"The consequence will be worldwide horror that will result in less reliance on nuclear weapons," suggested former National Security Council senior director Jane Wales, president of the World Affairs Council in San Francisco.

[A CA Guy]

Coppertone!

[Righty1]

Let me see, the musslimes use nukes so responsible countries should give them up? This of course brings things down to a battle of the womb which the musslimes win! Glad we pay for LL and its' band of "geniuses".

[Aric2000]

MAD indeed will not work with people who wish to be martyrs, or those that are crazy enough for power to gas his own people.

Iraq's Saddam should not be allowed Nuclear weapons or WMD's of any sort. He is not afraid to become a martyr, or his country dying with him. Therefore they must be removed from his possession in any way shape or form necassary.

He is a worldwide threat, not just a US problem.

[gcruse]

"The consequence will be worldwide horror that
will result in less reliance on nuclear weapons,"

Not really.  We get blasé about everything,
in an ever shortening time frame.  And the
success of the coming nuclear strike will
only result in more states wanting the capability.

[itzmygun]

"Nuclear is not off the radar screen, and as long as people keep it on the screen I think there's a very good chance one will never be exploded in anger."

Nice thought, but history has a way of making all the wrong things happen at the wrong time. All it takes is one nut and a button to push.

[LasVegasMac]

All it takes is one nut and a button to push.

"Take 'em out...take 'em down...you know, do your thing."

From a movie, (which one?), but appropriate.

LVM

[LibWhacker]

One consequence is that it will cause people to become more serious about control

The only serious control is to return the looney islamic world to the Dark Ages: No modern convieniences, no electricity, no industry, no roads, no cars, no trucks, no planes, no guns, no modern tools, no running water, no schools, no books, except the Quran. Return them to their nomadic roots: Camels, frankinsense, and the oasis. Same with the Chinese if they decide to get froggy with us. And with Europe. And anyone else who wants to challenge American supremacy. We WILL get to the stars and realize mankind's destiny, whether the rest of the world wants to do it or not.

[aristeides]

No, the only serious control is a return to a version of imperialism. We -- and whatever other powers there may be that we trust and are willing to take part in the enterprise -- are going to have to establish sufficient control over the countries that we do not trust to ensure that they cannot develop nuclear arsenals. Call it imperialism light. The alternative is an unacceptably great risk to our own lives.

[LibWhacker]

No, the only serious control is a return to a version of imperialism.

Mine IS a version of imperialism. :-) Minus the necessity of maintaining large occupying forces in these countries.

One thing is certain: Since it is so easy to smuggle a nuke into a country like the US, or to produce bio-chemical WMD, those over whom we must assert our imperial rule in the future cannot be allowed to have even the knowledge of such things. Or they will seek them.

Therefore, I think, our enemies must be returned to the same state of ignorance in which mankind found itself during the Middle Ages, whilst we ourselves go forward.

[Lessismore]

Clearly a meeting of the National Labs to plan how to squeeze more budget out of the US Taxpayer. By throwing the "nuclear device" tent over fusion bombs (~100 Kiloton to ~10 Megaton), fission bombs (~5 Kiloton to ~200 Kiloton) and radiological dispersion devices (not much bang at all and dispersion over a several square mile area), they can elevate the risk to 100% in the next decade. But note that the biggest device is about 10,000,000 times the smallest device, and it would do at least 1000 times as much damage. Single devices at the upper end of the range would completely destroy major metro areas for several 10s of miles in radius from ground zero. It is very unlikely that terrorist would use devices in the upper few orders of magnitude in destructiveness.

[Quix]

I don't think this took a rocket scientist nor a nuclear scientist to figure out.

[lavaroise]

Back to the drawing board. PEople, we are facing the same spear wielding and throwing savages, except now, in the name of anti-colonization, we let them have nuke tipped spears. The result is that it is in fact them who are now colonising us with their spear throwing methods as Clinton et al was all too happy to play Lion King of the Pride Rock throwing tomahawks around like they were darts for Play Boy magazine contest.

We have to go there, take over these bastards, and show them what true civilized war and peace is like. Drive a stake through these "civilizations".

[oyez]

Why are screwing around with those people?

[Lizard_King]

"and a futurist"

I wanna be a futurist...wait...what the hell is a futurist? Almost as worthless as being a secretary of defense under Clinton, no doubt.

"If an attack were to occur, said Sandia National Laboratories president C. Paul Robinson, it would signify a failure by defense and weapons leaders. "

That is complete and utter speculation, like 95% of the quotes in this article. Unless a mistake is actively made, it is quite possible that an attack could take place and it would not be reasonable to blame "leaders" because there is only so much preemption and security that can exist.

Of course there is a danger of a nuclear strike. I don't think there is a real danger of Nuclear WAR tho, and I don't think aimless speculation chockfull of maybes and whatifs is all that fruitful.

[palmer]

Same with the Chinese

What if they have launch on warning? Or if they don't, do you want them to?

[Crusader21stCentury]

Because we have the enemy within our own government. Most of them call themselves democrats but there are many who call themselves republicans. They can be identified by their stand on illegal immigration.
These individuals need to be dealt with or we will have a nasty surprise, such as the loss of a major metropolitan area.

[calljack]

Jeff Goldblum said it in "Independance Day"
Took me a minute.