You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Terror Networks & Islam
What bin Laden sees in Hiroshima
2005-02-06
At a conference on the future of al Qaeda sponsored by Los Alamos National Laboratory last month, I posed a dark question to 60 or so nuclear weapons scientists and specialists on terrorism and radical Islam: How many of them believed that the probability of a nuclear fission bomb attack on U.S. soil during the next several decades was negligible -- say, less than 5 percent?

At issue was the Big One -- a Hiroshima-or-larger explosion that could claim hundreds of thousands of American lives, as opposed to an easier-to-mount but less lethal radiological attack. Amid somber silence, three or four meek, iconoclastic hands went up. (More later on the minority optimists. They, too, deserve a hearing.)

This grim view, echoed in other quarters of the national security bureaucracy in recent months, can't be dismissed as Bush administration scaremongering. "There has been increasing interest by terrorists in acquiring nuclear weapons," Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's chief nuclear watchdog, said in a recent interview, excerpts of which were published in Outlook last Sunday. "I cannot say 100 percent that it hasn't happened" already, he added, almost as an afterthought.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#10   "They suspect jihadism has hit its high-water mark, that it is in decline even if we cannot see it clearly yet."

A dying snake still has venom, a mortally wounded wolf its teeth.
Posted by: Pappy   2005-02-06 3:58:48 PM  

#9  #6 was making fun of Mike's suggestion that the WOT is downhill from here.
#7 again obliquely makes fun of Mike by suggesting that the U.N. could again be the grand solution that it was in 1945. In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco to draw up the United Nations Charter.
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-06 3:10:21 PM  

#8  Clearly I'm a bit thick today. Shipman, your two posts make no sense to me. Please expand your thoughts so I will understand. Thanks!
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-02-06 1:25:18 PM  

#7  Now that we've won I suggest turning to the UN to help transform the post-war world. Perhaps an infusion of cash would help. San Fransico is nice even in February and it is semi-hysterical.

Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-06 11:55:16 AM  

#6  It's okay to come out now. We won.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-06 11:53:12 AM  

#5  I am more concerned about North Korea because their leadership is totally nuts, Iran because theirs is too, and Pakistan because they have multiple bombs and seem to be politically unstable. All three are already doing more missile development than I find tolerable. I expect to see a terrorist dirty-bomb attack here in the next five years, but I don't think it's as serious as the North Korea/Iran/Pakistan problem.
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-06 11:47:39 AM  

#4  
I agree with the last paragraph, especially this sentence: "They suspect jihadism has hit its high-water mark, that it is in decline even if we cannot see it clearly yet."
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-02-06 9:05:00 AM  

#3  I agree with Phil_b and take it even further.

even if Al Q acquired a real nuclear bomb, it is far from certain that they would be able to deliver it before it went stale

on the other hand, there is a good chance that if AlQ acquired a dirty bomb they could transport it to this country without damaging the bomb itself -- we actually have a fairly decent rad detection system but something could be missed
Posted by: mhw   2005-02-06 8:23:04 AM  

#2  Maybe I didn't read it closely enough but the writer seems to confuse 'acquiring' with 'building'.

It is a fact that no non-governmental entity has build a nuclear bomb for the very simple reason it takes a lot of time, money and resources. If a bunch of Jihadis become the first, then it will be the most significant Arab first ever.

Acquiring a government built bomb is an entirely different matter and hence the emphasis on stopping governments that might allow a bomb to get to jihadis acquiring them in the first place.

Most of this article is garbled crap and too long to bother sifting out what makes sense (if any).
Posted by: phil_b   2005-02-06 1:04:04 AM  

#1  Thank you, Dan Darling. This article epitomizes why I participate at Rantburg. As mentioned here already, America needs to put all rougue regimes on notice that a nuclear attack on American soil will result in every single one of them being glassed over, one and all.

This horseshit about the threat of nuclear terrorism must carry with it consequences of massive proportion. Terrorist regimes must be served notice that their participation in global attacks means the complete and total destruction of their population and culture. Yeah, I feel sorry for the innocent life lost, but better it be someone else's innocent life lost than America's helpful populace.
Posted by: Zenster   2005-02-06 12:45:51 AM  

00:00