Iranian missile test

well this should up the pucker factor for the folks in the war games dept for the US and Israel.

Kablooie!

Kristof in NYT today (reg reqd): "An American Hiroshima"

Professor Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. If there is no such nuclear attack by August 2014, he owes me $5.10. If there is an attack, I owe him $4.90.

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

i couldn't put odds on it but i do believe that there will be a nuclear strike in the not-too-distant future. one of the things that has discouraged nucs in the past is that most warfare was about gaining land or territory so that a nation state can have access to the materials contained within. the people who hate us (generic us) don't want our land or our wealth. we are abhorrent to them and they want our existence to end. a nuclear weapon will achieve that.

why is it that before the night is over i am absolutely positive that i will read the words "no smoking gun" and "85% ... directly traceable to top management" in this thread? :)

lookout123 wrote:

i couldn't put odds on it but i do believe that there will be a nuclear strike in the not-too-distant future. one of the things that has discouraged nucs in the past is that most warfare was about gaining land or territory so that a nation state can have access to the materials contained within. the people who hate us (generic us) don't want our land or our wealth. we are abhorrent to them and they want our existence to end. a nuclear weapon will achieve that.

Unfortunately, too many give credence to the "hype more fear" concepts promoted by Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and cited by UT. Therefore the many see no difference between those nations who fear for their defense verse those nations who promote terrorism. People such as UT see everything in terms of an attack on Israel rather than learn the numerous perspectives that intertwine the Middle East and SW Asia. UT goes so far as to all but deny the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran has a nuclear weapons program that could have been stopped had America not outrightly threatened Iran. Before the "promote fear to promote our agenda" Vulcans came to power, then the US and Iran were slowly moving to become good friends again. A process that would take at least 20 more years to undo the hatred. As soon as the mental midget president announced his 'axis of evil' political agenda (an agenda based only upon objectives of the Project for a New American Century), then moderate Iranians (those could have been close American friends) were completely disenfranchised. Thanks to the mental midget president and those telling him how to think, then no hope existed for any Iranian friendly to the US to remain in power. Just another example of what long time American professional diplomats publically stated - this mental midget president has undone decades of work.

With the 'Axis of Evil' speech (where the intent to attack each nation was all but stated), then any source of nuclear weapons in Iran would have been immediately promoted to a number one priority. Obviously if a nation is threatened with attack, then that nation will empower their extremists and develop the most destructive weapons possible.

Is there any hope that this Iranian weapons program will be suspended? Once that was possible. No longer possible because George Jr has declared that we must save the world from itself. We have done everything necessary to inform Iran that we will attack. We called them the axis of evil using the same facts and reasoning that claimed WMDs in Iraq. We intentionally let our number one enemy - bin Laden - go free so that we could promote the Vulcan political agenda. We now surround Iran with military forces and a chain of new military bases. What sane person could deny the US will attack Iran. Of course we will - based upon a google of facts and the stated intentions by George Jr and his Vulcans.

Did we not unilaterally execute a Pearl Harbor attack on another sovereign nation that was a threat to nobody? Of course we did. Are those same leaders - with veins hanging from their teeth - still in power in the US? Of course. Can any other power or organization stop the US from unilaterally attacking Iran? No. Not one.

America under right wing extremist domination is so intent on fixing the world that we do so to the detriment of American reputation, security, and individual security everywhere in the world.

Iran's only hope to protect itself is to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Only American 'fear promoters' would even think Iran is preparing to attack Israel. These 'fear promoters' have the same ethics and mind set of the dichead - which is the reason why Intafada II exists. Such individuals create war and violence as proven by history.

Iran is next on the US attack list. I state this with the same certainty that posted these previous predictions. That Iraq would invade Kuwait creating a war that would involve every nation in the world. That the US would become militarily committed in the Balkans - that was obvious and inevitable. And that there was no evidence of WMDs nor justification to invade Iraq.

In each case, the statements were made due to a prepondence of fact and often in contradiction to current popular beliefs. To be consistent: if George Jr gets reelected, then we will attack Iran during the George Jr second administration. Right wing extremists have made their objectives quite clear and obvious. They have stated and intend to impose massive and permanent change to the Middle East and SW Asia. Next in line for that political agenda is the invasion of Iran. We are already positioned with capital facilities to attack from Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and the many former USSR 'kstans where George Jr has an ongoing massive construction of new US military bases. Why all this military base construction? One need only review the agenda of the Vulcans and the objectives defined by "Axis of Evil".

No honest person with a shred of credibility could fault Iran for building nuclear weapons and delivery systems. They are literally next in line to be invaded and occupied by the US. An invasion defined and demanded by this Vulcan political agenda - pragmatism be damned.

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

I can't think of a reason why Iran would attack Israel or US Bases, except in retaliation for being attacked. They know we have the capability to decimate them. It would be like me punching "The Rock"(pro wrestler), suicide. Looks like an attempted deterent to me. :confused:

The commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Rahim Safavi, warned Iran will crush Israel if it attacks the Persian state, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Wednesday.
"If Israel is mad enough to attack Iran's national interests, we will come down on them like a hammer and will crush their bones," IRNA quoted Safavi as saying.

And who gets to choose what Iran's national interests are?

From: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1092193814767&apage=1

My cite above is effing Kristof in the effing New York Times, tw, not Fox News or anything you might not watch in case you get infected with right-wing cooties.

like i have said before. each nation will act in what, from their perspective, seems to be a rational manner.
Iran will build nucs as a defense measure - as in the best defense is a strong offense.
US will see that other nations ahving nucs is not particularly beneficial to them
Israel will be scared shitless and rattle the sabres and ask the sympathetic national community to demand that Iran stand down the program.
Korea will support Iran because it takes heat from them.

and everyone involved will be doing exactly what they feel is best for their own people. and it will escalate until some nut pops and starts a war or one of the weaker nations backs down.

Undertoad wrote:

My cite above is effing Kristof in the effing New York Times, tw, not Fox News or anything you might not watch in case you get infected with right-wing cooties.

ROFL

lookout123 wrote:

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

What is the one thing that America hypes fear about in every war? Nuclear and biological weapons. Conventional weapons and tactics have long ago been proven futile when the Air Force finally learned its primary mission - the support of ground troops.

I find it ironic that one would advocate conventional military weapons and tactics to defend Iran when those have repeatedly been proven ineffective against the US military - even in VietNam. What has repeatedly proven effective? Guerilla warfare. Dispersed attacks. Missile attacks on support facilities. And unsubstantiated threats. What promotes the most fear in US military doctrine? WMD and Scud missile type attacks. Why would Iran build and equip themselves with weapons and tactics long ago proven ineffective?

Lets keep this fundamental point in perspective. Iran is not building a first strike military. They are building a classic defensive structure. Those who promote fear attempt to avoid this fact. A structure designed to deter rather than repell an attack. Why? George Jr's intention to unilaterally attack Iran is all but stated. Their only hope is that centrist Americans rise up, vote, and start being informed. We have a president so irresponsible that he was warned about 11 Sept and he did nothing to defend America. No problem. Hype fear of Iran and we the people will forget his impeachable offense.

tw wrote:

We have a president so irresponsible that he was warned about 11 Sept and he did nothing to defend America.

from the secret files of tw.

anyway - what i stand by what i said earlier. nuclear weapons are not their most effective method right now. how many thousands of americans would be killed by a decent nuc attack? what would happen to iran if they did launch a nuc attack? they would cease to exist. do you think we just sent all of our nuclear weapons to the city dump when the cold war ended? no - the US still maintains the right to counter attack in kind. iran? now you see it, now you don't. end of story.

if they were trying to deter the US they would be touting the bio weapons programs - that is what the US military really fears. a lot of dead people is a bad thing, but a lot of sick, infected, contagious people about to be dead people? that is a terrifying thing.

in the end - we just went to war because of a belief that Iraq has WMD - do you really think the best way to avoid a war, from the iranian perspective, is to taunt the US with a REAL WMD platform?

edit:

I find it ironic that one would advocate conventional military weapons and tactics to defend Iran when those have repeatedly been proven ineffective against the US military - even in VietNam.

if the US truly feels threatened there is no strategy that will prove effective. if the US gets off its ass and decides that a war is just and necessary and can get the schmucks in DC to unite behind it - there is nothing that can stop the US military when it is not tethered by the leash of public opinion. let's face it - that is what has stood in the way of US military success since Korea - the polls. public opinion and political gamesmanship. if the gov't were to actually realize there was a REAL threat and they pulled it together, the US military has the ability to devastate all comers.

lookout123 wrote:

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

Because nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Given their GDP, there is no way they can match US armor and tactics. Granted they make up some in fanaticism, but strapping explosives on young teenagers will not stop heavy armor.

Anyone who watched us roll over Iraq and stop at North Korea gets the message. After being placed on the Axis of Evil list, it would probably be irresponsible of them not to develop a deterrent. Right now the US is extended as far as we can sustain without a draft. We could field another 50K or more for a very short while, but would not have replacements anytime soon. It is in Iran's interests to develop a deterrent before the bulk of the troops come back and are sent out the door to Iran.

Considering the tinderbox the Middle East has become, I doubt that Israel can get away with a pre-emptive strike like they took against Iraq in 1981.

Of course, this might be premature since the reactor in Iran is supposedly not the best type for weapons grade development.

Still, it's nice to see a demonstration of the safer world Wolfowitz, Cheney, and friends have led us to. I hope they get locked out of the shelter if the day ever comes. :nuke:

lookout123 wrote:

from the secret files of tw.
if the US gets off its ass and decides that a war is just and necessary and can get the schmucks in DC to unite behind it - there is nothing that can stop the US military when it is not tethered by the leash of public opinion. let's face it - that is what has stood in the way of US military success since Korea - the polls. public opinion and political gamesmanship. if the gov't were to actually realize there was a REAL threat and they pulled it together, the US military has the ability to devastate all comers.

I guess this silly little fact called Chinese has no place in your memory of Korea. And you are going to tell us that the public is the reason we lost in Vietnam? You did first learn basic geo-military-political history?

Tell me how many schmucks in DC stopped the US military from liberating Kuwait. In fact much of the resistance to that liberation was, instead, from the military itself - because those schmucks who were itching for war refused (out of misunderstanding) to do their job - provide a workable strategic objective. To blame the public for a military loss is to not have learned basic history - or to spend too much time with Rush Limbaugh half truths.

When a nation does not have public support for its war, then the war is wrong. So and again we return to a fundamentally simple concept - the smoking gun. Right wing extremists - enemies of the military - would advocate that the public is an impediment to the military. "Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing " in the Current Events forum touches upon what happens when the military goes to war without public support. It is the little people who then and again suffer because the military is wrong. Too many still refuse to learn the lessons of Vietnam. Those are an enemy of the military.

And yes, the president did know (or at least was informed of by his PDB) that hijackings and attack by Al Qaeda were imminent. The 9/11 Commission says so. Furthermore, this president and his people did everything possible to cover up that fact. When Condi Rice read the title of that PDB, then the entire hearing room gasp. That is what the president want you to not know - that he was informed of the attack we now call 9/11. It is bluntly obvious to anyone with reading skills. The president was warned of the attack. Warned bluntly from numerous quarters. He and his principles instead quashed all attempts to uncover or subvert that attack. These are historical facts even provided by the 9/11 Commission report.

Nuclear weapons are a far more effective impediment than bio weapons. Basic military knowledge (rather than just hype opinions from Fox News) makes that obvious. Bio weaspons are trivial localized devices that are much too overhyped by naive news reporters. To even suspect that bio weapons can defer an attack is to be naive. Nuclear weapons can take out entire divisions and naval task forces including the aircraft carrier. The latter causes fear in generals, admirals, and presidents. Bio attacks only get the press upset and create cannon fodder. Bio weapons do not threaten top leadership and capital weapons. Bio weapons are described by the leadership as "militarily insignificant". No better weapon than nuclear to deter an invasion. Bio weapons will not deter an invasion. Simple background in military tactics make that obvious.

Iran must build nuclear weapons because George Jr has all but declared his intentions to attack Iran. Iran is next as soon as George Jr and his people can invent an excuse.

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

marichiko wrote:

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

Which WMD? I assume this is a question about plutonium or uranium based weapons. It is extremely difficult. First one must obtain sufficient quantities of a material harder to obtain than precious metals. Tons of material must be unearthed just to extract grams. Then there is the major effort of refining this bomb material into weapons grade. The amount of energy necessary to make the first three US atom bombs was so great that processing facilities were located where electricity was plentiful - Hanford in WA and in the Tennessee River Valley. After two bombs were dropped on Japan, there was insufficient weapons grade material remaining for another bomb. It is that difficult to obtain weapons grade material.

To get around that problem, one must steal pounds. And remember, weapons grade uranium and especially weapons grade plutonium will kill quckly if not properly contained. How does one steal what must be in a large container?

So we have this material. Now we must make a bomb. Idea is to compress the material so tight to create a chain reaction. Again not so easy. One cannot just explode dynamite around it to cause the compression. The explosive forces must be carefully sized, timed and placed to make compression without any leakage in all three dimensions. Less accurate compression means even more weapons grade material is required - and bomb must be physically heavier.

But it does not stop there. Neutrons must be slowed to properly create the chain reaction. A moderator material is required. How much? Just more reasons why a bomb design involves so much time on super computers. Where does a terrorist steal super computers with advanced development software?

Now clearly the facility is getting quite large. Massive amounts of electricity, computer development time, carefully selected explosive materials of refined purity, special moderator materials, highly accurate machine shops, and a host of control equipment that is not routinely available in international markets. All this and the resulting radioactive shielding must be hidden from public, law enforcement, and satellite view.

Then there are the so many other little facts and special materials we are not even going to discuss.

In short, it takes the full resources of a nation's government to make a bomb sufficient to be a terrorist weapon.

Clearly a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is almost impossible. It is also unlikely that lightning will strike you and only you while inside your car. That one lightning event only to you and no one else is many times more likely than a terrorist with a bomb. However no one cares if you are struck by lightning. We do care if something much more impossible happens - terrorists with a nuclear device. Therefore we ignore you verses lightning in the car but give serious consideration to something thousands of times less likely - a terrorist with a nuclear device.

Again I must emphasize how much nonsense and fear is used instead of logic and numbers. A terrorist with a nuclear device is mostly stuff of fiction. Terrorists using airplanes was always a realistic scenario as even noted in a PDB to George Jr. A smart president must be able to put these two events in proper perspective.

Terrorist with a nuclear device could only happen if top leadership was outrightly subverting the little people in government from doing their job - as George Jr administration did to this nation's top anti-terrorists including John O'Neil and Richard Clark and to ongoing investigations that were about to expose the terrorist plots. Yes a nuclear device is something we must worry about - but not from terrorists. Just another reason why our international relations are so important to this nation's security. That bomb cannot exist when America worries about having friends - and therefore the threat would be discovered long before the threat exists. What is the best defenses against a nuclear bomb terrorist attack? Good relations with virtually every nation in the world. Something we no longer have.

Look at that last paragraph. I have gone from being ho-hum about George Jr to being one of the most vocal critics of this mental midget president. Notice how we best avoid a nuclear terrorist attack. This is but another in a long list of reasons why I openly, aggressively, and unconditionally say that George Jr is a very bad president. He has made the nearly impossible just a little more possible by being both mentally weak and politically dangerous. I cannot say enough to the moderates and centrists among us - are you registered to vote? Your vote is probably more necessary this November than anytime in the last 30 years. Things have gotten that bad. Are you registered?

Yes, I'm registered for what good it will do. Colorado always goes Republican, and we are hardly a swing state. I was wondering about the possibility of terrorism from within this country. Out in western Colorado near a little town called Naturita there are about a million abandoned uranium mines. There's still plenty of the stuff there. Everywhere you go in the mountains there are huge radiation warning signs. No one ever pays much attention to the area these days. I have a friend who is building several houses on an abandoned mining claim and no one - even the locals - knows he exists. It's a pretty remote and lonely area. Just wondered what the possibilities were of a terrorist group forming a "commune" in some place like Naturita?

There's plenty of plutonium in the world which has gone unaccounted for. The desire for hard cash in the former Soviet bloc pretty much assures that.

Probably a warhead or two out there somewhere, waiting for the right time and place.

I don't think the likelihood of a nuclear detonation somewhere in the world within this decade is at all small. Who's to say that someone somewhere won't arrange to get a weapon into the hands of someone who would be glad to have it? Korea could do it. China could do it. Iran can, in all likelihood, do it. Pakistan and India could do it.

I'd be real surprised if we *don't* have someone blow up some non-Muslim city somewhere in our lifetimes.

marichiko wrote:

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

We (the US) made some of our first batch in a Squash Court at the University of Chicago. It's not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's fairly do-able. The tricky stuff in nuclear material production is the separation of U235 from a mix of U235 and U238.

Plutonium is produced "naturally" in nuclear reactors by bombardment of U-238 with neutrons and the subsequent beta decays of U-239 to Pu-239. If you've got a neutron source (always the tricky part -- the best source is a nuclear reactor), and you've got U-238, you can make plutonium.

Making a bomb with plutonium is tricky, as you've got to assemble it quickly and precisely. Probably just not that hard with today's technology, though. Make sure you have an expert at high explosives on your staff.

You also need a neutron source; the traditional one is a berillyum-polonium device called an "urchin" for some reason.

All of this is 1940s technology. Yes, supercomputers are used to design weapons -- but that's because you want maximum yield for minimum material, or you want a certain type of yield (e.g more radiation and less blast for a neutron bomb). If you just want something that makes a really big bang, that's a different matter. If you can get enough U-235, it's even easier. U-235 is much less toxic than plutonium, and much easier to make go bang.

So, in theory, it would be possible for me and my band of Bin Laden enthusiasts to hoof it out to Naturita, work a few uranium claims for all we can get (we don't care about radiation poisoning because Allah has promised us all those virgins), and viola! We have a dirty little bomb to take to Phoenix or L.A. Possible?

In short, it takes the full resources of a nation's government to make a bomb sufficient to be a terrorist weapon.

But it only takes money to buy one. :(

marichiko wrote:

We have a dirty little bomb to take to Phoenix or L.A. Possible?

what are you saying? you want to get rid of me and SM?

Elspode wrote:

I don't think the likelihood of a nuclear detonation somewhere in the world within this decade is at all small. Who's to say that someone somewhere won't arrange to get a weapon into the hands of someone who would be glad to have it? Korea could do it. China could do it. Iran can, in all likelihood, do it. Pakistan and India could do it.

This is hype and fear that George Jr promotes. The more "Al Qaeda is planning to .... " stories, then the more we run to support a mental midget president. I have long become tired of all these plans that bin Laden has been making, especially when a real threat is Muslim Brotherhood - not from the disorganized remains of Al Qaeda.

A major amount of plutonium has gone unaccounted for. Yes many pounds. Stuff lost in dust, cleaning, processing, etc. Literally ounces scattered everywhere. But even many pounds is not enough to make one bomb. If we take all the missing plutonium lost in factory ducts, open fields, etc, then there are dangerous plutonium bombs hiding everywhere waiting to be discovered by terrorists. Fictional nonsense from Rush Limbaugh types because our president must promote fear.

A 1940 technology atom bomb required a massively large amount of weapons grade material to compensate for its crude design. Where do these terrorists get many times more weapons grade material when obtaining enough for a single sophisticated bomb is itself so difficult? Again, too many people only know this is easily accomplished by reading too much bad fiction - written by authors who never did years of research before writing.

Of course we only need mine uranium in one of those abandoned CO mines? Problem is the numbers - so many tons of material removed from a mine that only yields ounces of uranium. A pick and shovel every day for years could not produce anywhere near enough uranium for even one sophisticated bomb - let alone one crude bomb.

Notice the difference between fiction hype verses reality created by applying numbers. Just because someone owns a uranium mine means he can secretly mine enough uranium to build one bomb? Only when we don't apply numbers to that fiction.

The squash court in U of Chicago did not produce a 'bomb like' chain reaction. They were not using weapons grade U238 to make the world's first atomic reaction. However, one might speculate, based upon what was posted here, that even a bomb could have been constructed in a squash court in Chicago. Again, how to distort reality into a terrorism by not first learning the details. Missing details is why Saddam got all his Weapons of Mass Destruction. Too many only read the Daily News which means they are still not informed.

Somehow there is this 'informed' idea that all one need do is push the button to 'ignite' a nuclear weapon. Again, too much reasoning based upon a Tom Cruise or James Bond movies. One stolen weapon alone cannot be exploded. It is more complex.

Atomic bombs are difficult to build. Using 1940 technology - some of which still is not easily obtained in 2004 - means the bomb must be massively larger and therefore that much easier to detect. Thousands of people and massive amounts of energy worked years to build a few crude and therefore very large atom bombs. Suddenly anyone can build one in their own garage? Which fiction writer is writing this stuff? Again, this is the hype that George Jr would have us believe. Fear and loathing made so easy when conclusions fail to apply numbers and perspective.

The only way an atomic device will get triggered inside a city is with full cooperation of a organization so large as to be called a national government. Such governments can only exist if the US continues to alienate every nation in the world.

Again, an atom bomb fear belongs with the same mental midgets who have us spending $billions on an anti-ballistic missile system to protect us from bin Laden's ballistic missiles. Previously, I had posted a far more effective terrorist disaster using far less technology. The few who read it are invited to confirm how simple and destructive this attack could be - *without* any indication of what that attack is. The point is that while the 'powers that be' hype fear and loathing, terrorists are doing things simpler and obvious.

Those worried about an atomic terrorist weapon would be the same people who read a PDB warning of an immenent Al Qaeda attack; then say it was only historical information. We call those people naive, ill-informed, and extremists with a political agenda. Worry about real world type terrorist attacks; not atomic myths. Worry more about those who promote those mythical fears. Or as Tom Clancy describes them, "Because we elect idiots." (an exact quote on Charlie Rose).

Think. Bin Laden limited his attack to only four planes because even an attack involving only 30 people (when the US government was undermining all anti-terrorism actions) is still an extremely difficult task. Terrorism limited to only ten operatives is difficult to execute. A stolen atomic device would required hundreds of operatives handling an item that even advertises itself.

The point: if one fears big hype threats such as terrorists with a nuclear weapon or terrorists with ballistic missiles, then one spends too much time watching fiction movies, worshipping anti-ballistic missile systems, and listening to a mentally deficient president hyping fictional terrorist threats to get reelected. One should instead spend more time learning about reality.

Those who think a nuclear device by terrorists is a reasonable possibility may still 'hope' those aluminum tubes were for processing uranium. Yes there are still people with a George Jr myth on reality. (Those from the world of reality use a 'grip' instead of 'myth'.) A nuclear terrorist attack even involving a stolen weapon requires extensive, or special and exclusive resources of a large national government. This, of course, assumes the mental midget president does not completely alienate most of the world's nations. Without all those friends doing so such spying for us, the US would then be more vulnerable to a roque nation that no one suspected was a rogue nation.

As soon as I hear one spouting the premise from a James Bond Thunderball or Goldfinger movie, then I know this person spends too much time believing George Jr. There are many good and exposed targets for a terrorism list. A terrorist nuclear weapon does not even appear at the bottom of the last page. Can bin Landen do what then entire nation of Iran finds difficult? Yes if you also believe that terrorists will launch ballistic missiles. Give me a break. If a nuclear weapon could be stolen, Iran would steal it long before terrorists. Suddenly terrorists are cleaning the ducts in Hanford to collect enough plutonium to build a bomb? Which pulp fiction book was that?

Its called having dirt under your finger nails. A terrorist atom bomb exists only in fiction. Real world terrorists instead use readily available and innocent looking materials to reek more damage.

lookout123 wrote:

what are you saying? you want to get rid of me and SM?

Nah, we'd give you guys advance warning. ;) It just always kind of impressed me with how much uranium is laying around out there with not a soul seeming to care. But maybe there's no need to.

tw wrote:

In short, it takes the full resources of a nation's government to make a bomb sufficient to be a terrorist weapon.

Clearly a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is almost impossible.

hmm, if only there were a former super power who built incredible stock piles of nuclear weapons before collapsing... and after they collapsed couldn't afford to pay their top scientists and many military officers... and if only that former super power had borders like a sieve... and only if there was someone with large sums of money, but no nuclear weapon who was willing to pay former scientists and military officers for a nuclear weapon...

nah, you're right tw, its almost impossible. so sleep tight tonight. i know it takes a lot of energy to dig up the conspiracy theories you have. careful though, i think "george jr" is on to you.

Thank you for the explanation, TW. I see why the former miners of Naturita have been pretty much left to their own devises as they die of various forms of radiation induced cancer. I'd been wondering about that. George Jr. would probably love the plot line anyhow, though. ;)

lookout123 wrote:

nah, you're right tw, its almost impossible. so sleep tight tonight. i know it takes a lot of energy to dig up the conspiracy theories you have. careful though, i think "george jr" is on to you.

Please feel free to list all the missing and unaccounted nuclear weapons. Of course there is no accounting for every nuclear weapon as required by the Disarment Treaties. Clearly there are plenty of nuclear weapons just stilling around unaccounted for waiting to some terrorist to walk by and pickup. Clearly anyone could steal a nuclear device and no one would even know.

Or maybe you never learned how disarment among the cold war nations works. Nations routinely submit to an accounting of their nuclear weapons. Where is this one weapon that some rogue sicentist walks out the door with in his brief case? And how is it that this man also has the codes necessary to arm the weapon? Which Jame Bond book are you citing this time as proof that you are world saavy?

tw - you pull out tons of irrefutable "research" to support whatever the topic is, write a dozen paragraphs on it so that most people won't even read the damn thing and then shut the book, like what you write is the damn bible. remember your bullshit theory on mutual funds? oh wait - when i provided hard fact you walked away and discontinued posting.

do you honestly believe that no nuclear materials, warheads, etc have gone or could go missing? you don't trust the goverment but you trust disarmament agreements and inspections 10-20 years down the road? you trust that everyone was on the level as far as the numbers of weapons that they disclosed?

we bought migs and tanks from the russians while the cold war was still in high gear, and they bought our weapons and research and materials during the same period. do you honestly believe that it is impossible for nuclear weapons to disappear if someone has the $$$ to motivate a low paid schlup with no future?

Just to cover a couple bits of ground here:

Size of nuclear weapons; see:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/vla.htm

Size and possible availability of nuclear payloads, whether recovered or purchased:
http://www.lostsubs.com/Soviet.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm
"Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes."

Just something to ponder.

lookout123 wrote:

tw - you pull out tons of irrefutable "research" to support whatever the topic is, write a dozen paragraphs on it so that most people won't even read the damn thing and then shut the book, like what you write is the damn bible. remember your bullshit theory on mutual funds? oh wait - when i provided hard fact you walked away and discontinued posting.

Apparently the difference between us is that I don't get my experience from fiction books. Posted were facts commonly reported in major publications. It requires reading more than one page. Daily News and Fox News consumers will find everything here new which is why they will be skeptical. But those who come from where the work gets done have long taken special care that this most obvious possibility - a terrorist atomic weapon - will never happen. Its called the lessons of history. When it is that obvious and that destructive, then it just does not happen. Unless leadership is so corrupt as to not even read a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". Remember that little fact from the 9/11 Commission report that you did not read and therefore denied? You could not deny it, did not like the fact, so instead you took a snide insult at this poster. IOW I then knew you have a problem with first learning reality.

When one cannot challenge the facts, then one instead questons the messenger's integrity. Rather than reply to numerical relationships as posted, instead there is some silly proof that mutual funds outperform stocks by exampling some selected mutual funds. Even Peter Lynch, the most famous mutual fund manager, says that common stock ownership provides a better return than mutual funds or bonds. More facts that you do not refute.

Stated up front for so many reasons (you admit you cannot read them all) are numerous reasons why a terrorist nuclear attack is all but non-existant. All one need do is steal one, transport it, and explode it anywhere? Its that easy? Who writes this stuff?

Please feel free to teach us how easy it is to build, steal, transport, arm, and trigger a nuclear device. Anyone who knows mutual funds are superior also knows one need only press a button to trigger a nuclear device. Clearly so easy that any fiction writer even can explain it.

Just another reason such terrorist attack is so unlikely. The US government, at least during Clinton's time, was actively 'gaming' so that such events would not happen. IE. "... a terrorist group called the FBI and announced that it had a nuclear weapon in Washington. The report went on to state that the joint Energy-Defense search team, acting on a tip from the Coast Guard, located the weapons in a cabin cruiser tied up in a yacht club less than two miles from the White House." Of course you knew?

Obvious and tested threats are rarely the challenge. Threats that are unique or unknown - especially those that the president (should have) reads on 6 Aug and ignores - are the greatest threat. Terrorist with nuclear weapons in this generation is just not possbile without a major worldwide disruption - such as a president so ignorant of the world to alienate Pakistan or India.

Please demonstrate how one can steal a nuclear weapon. Steal arming codes. Do this without being detected so that the entire world is not looking for that weapon - especially a weapons that advertises its existance. Maintain that weapon so that it remains operational. Transport that weapon across national boundaries that are security hyped. Do all this with hundreds of operatives that all remain completely undetected. Of course his only repeats what was posted before and what you could not answer (instead disparaging this poster). For this attack to happen, one needs an American President such as pre - 11 September George Jr; who outrightly suspended anti-terrorism programs that were active, ongoing, and successful during the Clinton era.

Terrorists can obtain, deliver, and activate nuclear weapons only because you know. Sounds more like business school reasoning to me. So let's see. You cannot provide a single valid reason why terrorist could obtain a nuclear device. Instead some wild speculation that Russia does not keep track of its nukes. You just know this which is sufficient as proof.

So tell us - on what day will George Jr launch his attack on Iran? A question to see if Outlook123 first reads what he replies to. A long list of reasons why terrorists will not obtain nukes was listed. Outlook123 never bothered to challenge any of them. He just knows they are wrong because Fox News told him otherwise?

"... a terrorist group called the FBI and announced that it had a nuclear weapon in Washington. The report went on to state that the joint Energy-Defense search team, acting on a tip from the Coast Guard, located the weapons in a cabin cruiser tied up in a yacht club less than two miles from the White House." Of course you knew?

Hang on a sec... you're saying it's impossible for a terrorist group to get a nuclear weapon, and to back up your argument you present evidence that a terrorist group DID HAVE a nuclear weapon less than 2 miles from the White House? The fact that we happened to locate the weapons before they were detonated does not change the fact that they somehow managed to get there.

Actively "gaming" to prevent attacks is obviously a good thing--but by its very nature it admits that an attack is possible.

that's it i've had all i can stands and i can't stands no more. up until this point i didn't understand why anyone would put another on "ignore". now i understand. i still choose not put anyone on my "ignore" list but from this moment on i vow to never pound my head against the brick wall known as tw.
tw- you can take that as a victory if you like, i don't really give a shit. i haven't put a whole lot of creedance into your posts since you disappeared after getting shut down with facts in the mutual fund thread a few months ago... but now i just give up. for you there is a devil behind every Bush and there can be now way to persuade you of anything beyond your own preconceived ideas.

TW, there is no such thing as "weapons grade" U238. U238 makes up better than 99% of all Uranium mined, which is why it was so difficult to come up with the amounts of U235 necessary to make a bomb. Developing processes to separate out the U235 were a major part of the Manhattan Project. U235 is the rapidly fissionable material used for bomb making. When you introduce an extra neutron to U235, the result is unstable and breaks down into two lighter atoms, such as Cesium and Strontium. There are also additional neutrons released, which go off and fission other atoms of U235. This is the "chain reaction". Energy is also liberated in the fissioning which is where the big boom and destruction and radiation comes from. When you throw an extra neutron at 238 it absorbs it, which is what makes P239, which is weapons grade plutonium. The graphite and uranium pile at the Squash Court was a primitive precursor to today's breeder reactors, if I remember my Manhattan Project history correctly.

Gee, thanks, Wolf. I was just getting ready to go to sleep and you have to go and get me scared of Naturita all over again. Did you know that my cat's eyes glow in the dark? Consider it, your post, my imagination, and my cat. Probably won't sleep all night. :eek:

I have no desire to engage in further discussion with TW on this issue, but for the rest of you that have read his assertions that it is impossible for a terrorist organization to make a nuclear strike - this article is for you. you can find other support for the position if you choose to look for yourself. i am only posting a few quotes from the article found at Armscontrol.org. i have posted the link for the whole article.


However, Moscow’s reductions have not been transparent, fueling concerns about the extent to which Russia actually fulfilled its pledges under the initiatives, how many tactical nuclear weapons remain, and how they are stored. There have been occasional, vague announcements from Russian officials about progress made, but Western experts and officials rightly see the lack of information on the location and safety of these weapons as a serious security problem. Without reliable data on the vast number of Soviet-era tactical weapons, no one can be sure if any have fallen, or are in danger of falling, into the wrong hands. [I]

[I]The “loose nuke” problem in Russia has, of course, been a source of concern for some time, but viewed through the prism of the September 11 attacks, Russia’s lax nuclear security is even more troubling. For example, Colonel General Yevgeniy P. Maslin, chief of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, which is responsible for nuclear munitions, claimed in 1996 that theft from Russian nuclear weapons facilities is “impossible.” But he qualified his statement by noting that during transport Russia’s nuclear weapons could be vulnerable to theft by criminals or terrorist groups. Maslin expressed concern about the potential theft of nuclear weapons by insiders, rhetorically asking, “What if such acts were to be undertaken by people who have worked with nuclear weapons in the past? For example, by people dismissed from our structures, social malcontents, embittered individuals?”8

As defense analyst Matthew Bunn has pointed out, Russia’s security problem stems partly from its communist past in which Russia had “a closed society; closed borders; pampered, well-cared-for nuclear workers; everyone under close surveillance by the KGB. Now, it’s largely the same security system having to face a world with an open society; open borders; rampant theft; crime; corruption; desperate, unpaid nuclear workers. It’s a totally different situation that the system was never designed to address.”9 In a February 2002 report, the CIA explained, “The [Russian nuclear weapons] security system was designed in the Soviet era to protect weapons primarily against a threat from outside the country and may not be sufficient to meet today’s challenge of a knowledgeable insider collaborating with a criminal or terrorist group.”10

Armscontrol.org

tw wrote:

A major amount of plutonium has gone unaccounted for. Yes many pounds. Stuff lost in dust, cleaning, processing, etc. Literally ounces scattered everywhere. But even many pounds is not enough to make one bomb.

13.6 pounds was sufficient in 1945. Two bombs designed without the benefit of any existing weapons technology, without even electronic computers (let alone supercomputers). Yield: 21kt.

And plutonium is heavy. So the quanity is less than you might think, in terms of its volume. I imagine a coffee can full of the stuff would be enough.

Clodfobble wrote:

Hang on a sec... you're saying it's impossible for a terrorist group to get a nuclear weapon, and to back up your argument you present evidence that a terrorist group DID HAVE a nuclear weapon less than 2 miles from the White House?

Just the fact that 'powers that be' are gaming to avoid and deal with such problems at many levels demonstrates that a terrorist nuclear device is all but impossible. I never said it was impossible. I said there is a long list of 'filters' that make atomic terrorist weapons not probable. So that Outlook123 may even read it, I will group those reasons he would not read in general categories. And these are but an abbreviated list of reasons:
1) weapons don't go missing without knowledge AND without virtually every nation looking for that rogue weapon.
2) the weapon virtually advertises its location for so many reasons including large numbers of human operatives to make it into a terrrorism device.
3) only Outlook123 and his cadre of fiction writers and Fox News reporters thinks this weapon can simply be triggered by pushing a button.
4) superior terrorism actions are far easier. What kind of people are terrorists? Typicically the mentally weak such as Richard Reed who could not even give himself a hot foot or the LAX bomb transporter who was scared off simply by how a black lady custom guard looked at him. Typically those of low intelligence - a view of the world only in black and white; good and evil - become extremists. They will then steal, transport, maintain, arm and trigger a nuclear device? Only in the fictional world of Outlook123. What color is the button to push to activate a nuclear bomb?

Again to post what was already posted: the possibility is near zero. But the consequences are catastrophic which is why we have but another layer to make such terrorism all but impossible. When leadership has intelligence, then the principles are forced by an intelligent president to play 'games'. Those games make that kind of terrorism extremely more unlikely.

Now we go back to why terrorism succeeded - the most important condition to permit terrorism: It sat right there on George Jr's desk. The 6 Aug PDB. A blunt warning of an immenent hijacking and attack on the US involving planes and buildings. Those two CIA agents who wrote it wanted a title that would most catch the President's attention because they were so worried about the immenent attack. How could intelligence be MORE actionable? That is as good as any intelligence will ever get! Instead George Jr ignored it.

We know federal agents in AZ, MN, IL and now (thanks to the 9/11 Commission) even agents in NY were on the trail of the 9/11 Terrorists. All they needed was one good reason so that their bosses stopped impeding the investigation. George Jr and Condi Rice, instead, had Richard Clarke demoted from the Principles level! Richard Clarke's group was promoted to Principles level because Clinton wanted terrorism stopped - and did so multiple times. But George Jr had been educated by people still living with a Cold War mentality and an agenda to save the world from itself - Wolfowich and Rice. Therefore terrorism was about ballistic missiles and pre-emption. IOW George Jr made it so easy for bin Landen to attack. Just another classic example of a well proven concept: 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - George Jr - god's choosen president.

IOW an administration that does not 'game' a cabin cruiser in a Washington Yacht Club makes a terrorist nuclear device just a little more possible. Please put this all into numerical perspective and not into the black and white world of Outlook123. An atom device is not even on the first page list of probable terrorist strategies - except when a reader such as Outlook123 cannot put facts into perspective. It is but one of so many possible scenarios used to game - so that we know how to respond to the real attack we never expected.

And again, I listed here previously a simple terrorist attack that would have far more success and would be massively devestating. I will not post that example again for good reasons. But anyone who thinks bin Laden will use an atomic device is simply making a 'real' bin Laden attack easier.

If leadership were not gaming, then a terrorist atom device is but slightly more likely. Because good leaders game these scenarios and because the atomic terrorist device concpet is even understood by idiots, then it just will not happen.

Another example - fertilizer bombs. Will more happen? Again put that way down on a list of possible terrorist weapons. Been there. Done that. Everyone knows that terrorist tactic. It will not happen again. No, that does not say it can never happen. Don't interprete what is posted here in black and white like Outlook123 does. The fertilizer bomb is now top the list of potential terrorist devices in every citizen's mind which means a terrrorist could not do it without being discovered.

What will be the next terrorist device? Well, what has not yet been attempted? Again, I posted a massively destructive example some years ago and will not post that example again. It has certain characteristics necessary to be an effective weapon. Takes very few operatives. Uses rather obviously simple materials and technology. Would be easy if we have more leaders, such as George Jr, who cannot bother to read his Presidential Daily Briefings.

This nation's number one anti-terrorist investigator was literally pushed out of government by this George Jr administration because he was doing his job properly - loudly warning that another attack was coming. John O'Neill died exactly where he said, in Elaine's the night before, that the next terrorist attack would probably happen. WTC. After being forced out of government anti-terrorism, and after almost discovering two of the 9/11 attacker, instead, John O'Neill was killed by those terrorists - after the George Jr administration drove him from anti-terrorism. Terrorists he could have caught had a mental midget president all but stopped anti-terrorism activities by the US government.

Again, don't use black and white. I did not say George Jr stopped all anti-terrorist actions. And I did not say a terrorist atomic attack was not possible. I said it is so unlikely that only someone like Outlook123 would worry about an attack in this decade. Read those sentences with care and don't assume a political agenda. But an atomic terrorist device in the US is simply too far from the world of reality - in part because we now routinely 'game' for it.

If this could be answered in black and white, then I too would post single paragraphs like Outlook123. But then I am providing 'real world' facts and putting those facts into perspective - rather than attacking another poster.

wolf wrote:

TW, there is no such thing as "weapons grade" U238. U238 makes up better than 99% of all Uranium mined, which is why it was so difficult to come up with the amounts of U235 necessary to make a bomb. .... The graphite and uranium pile at the Squash Court was a primitive precursor to today's breeder reactors, if I remember my Manhattan Project history correctly.

Wolf has properly and accurately corrected my numbers. U235 is necessary for weapons grade uranium. It is quite easy to convert weapons grade uranium back into commercial grade. Simply mix U235 with U238. Seperating the stuff is so difficult that WWII and Cold War processing plants were located where electricity was plentiful.

The squash court chain reaction by Fermi and Sklar was simple uranium and graphite similar to how many early commerical nuclear reactors including (I believe) Chernoybl work. Don't know how much U235 was in that Uranium. But that world's first chain reaction was not bomb grade. Important point - graphite is a moderator.

Breeder reactors are a whole new concept originally pioneered after WWII. Because of how a breeder works, many breeder reactors use liquid sodium - not water. Sodium because it is not a moderator. How dangerous is liquid Sodium - a reference to some text in a very good citation by Troubleshooter? Simply put a little bit of sodium into water - and run.

All reactors create some plutonium. Idea is to design a reactor and its fuel so that minimal plutonium is created. But a breeder reactor has a completely different agenda. Its purpose is to create energy AND create more fuel than it 'burns'. We have a problem. There just is not enough Uranium to keep all these nuclear plants going. Idea is to put depleted uranium or other euqivalent materials (ie thorium) into a reactor that includes plutonium. Have no moderator that would slow down neutrons. It produced electricity and even more nuclear 'fuel' in its first demonstration reactor in the western desert. Reactor had initials something like ERMI. Have long since forgotten.

Fermi 1 which residents of Toledo and Detriot can visit was this nation's first commercial breeder reactor. The story goes largely untold. But those who love adventure books and detest a-hole fiction will read "We almost lost Detroit". In short, breeder reactors are unstable, not well understood, and have killed people. We gave up and entombed Fermi 1 (next door to Fermi 2 - a conventional reactor). Europeans tried and also failed (I don't know those details).

So where is most of the world's plutonium? I answered that some years ago in a post that truly defined a serious terrorism threat. Massive amounts of plutonium were processed in Britian and France. Then shipped to Japan without any military escort (Japan would not permit their warships to go international). Terrorists never expedited the oppurtunity.

So now most of the world's plutonium is in Japan supposidely to make a breeder reactor. (There are very good political reasons to believe that plutonium may have also had secondary purposes). But at any rate, Fermi and Sklar's chain reaction had little in common with breeder reactors other than both involve nuclear reactions and uranium.

russotto wrote:

13.6 pounds was sufficient in 1945.

Good luck finding a missing 10 pounds of plutonium. You would be better off trying to photograph secret alien aircraft in Area 51.

Even one pound of missing plutonium would cause massive evacuations and would loudly advertise itself. The stuff is that well monitored first and foremost because it would kill many if simply misplaced. Again, it is in fiction books that terrorist happens to stumble on even one pound of plutonium hidden on a back road.

TW, I agree with you that a terrorist is going to use whatever method is the most inexpensive and expedient. I was mostly just fooling around with my "wilds of Colorado" scenario. However, I disagree with your assessment of terrorist mentality. I think many intelligent people in the Middle East both fear and hate the West for reasons from both current and past history. The minions who carry the actual tasks out may indeed be evil mental midgets, but the hand behind the scenes is an intelligent one. Intelligence is no guarantee of emotional stability, and any number of otherwise bright people are guilty of black and white thinking in at least some areas of their lives. Any soldier who goes to war must think in black and white terms, otherwise he could never stand his ground on the field of battle.

I also do not share your complacency regarding the efficacy of soviet nuclear security. The Soviet Union has become pretty chaotic, at least when compared to the days of the old Communist regime, and there are plenty of desperate people who would look the other way for enough money and the border with the MidEast is right there in the backyard. I'll agree, it would be a major pain in the ass to pull off, but if it were to happen, I think the former USSR would be a more likely vector than would cautious, strait-laced Japan.

I dropped the possibility of Bush attacking Iran into a conversation today. 2 of the 4 people gave me a "Duh, well of course he is". :eek:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

..... Bush attacking Iran .....

Yes, that was a typo. The office staff made the error from "Iran" to "Iraq". They're both kinda the same, right? Next we'll be going for original target, Iran.