A major point not discussed in enough detail here at AD is the premise that terrorists will somehow be supplied Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to carry out attacks against their common enemies.

I think this is highly improbable for several reasons, but will wait my turn to support my argument. So, the questions for debate are:

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?

Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies? Why or why not?

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?

Change the words 'will be supplied' with 'will obtain' (no need to use the passive voice) and yes, I do think it is likely that terrorists will obtain WMD, though I hope not. The more WMD there are out there, the more likely this is to happen, because there the threat of retaliation declines as a deterent as they proliferate. There is little to no deterent to using WMD when the enemy is not a nation-state, or actively, openly sponsored by a nation-state.

If Al Qaeda detonated a nuclear device within the US tomorrow, what would our response be? Nuke Mecca? Wouldn't do much good for dissuading future terrorists.

Although I appreciate your point on this, I chose my wording carefully (although, possibly not carefully enough). Many Iraq war supporters claim that taking Saddam Hussien out was necessary because he had WMD he would supply terrorists with. Now, many are saying the same thing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran with their nuclear progrram.

However, I will add your point as an additional question. Fair enough?

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?

That has to be one of the larger tinpot conspiracies out there. Assuming the easy transfer of dangerous goods is the ultimate bet against the nation state having control. To make this arguement work we have to supply a reason why the military would cooperate in such a fashion. If the 20th century is an indicator, there will be no cooperation with non nationals until the technology is both reduced and simplified.

For a nation to risk being implicated in the transfer of dangerous materials entails having its national security questioned. For the question to arise there has to be a complete breakdown in both the government and the economy. So far the only opportunity was Russia after the fall of the wall. The lesson we can draw on is there is a difference between violent transition and a failed state. A failed state is forced to accept terms to whomever will help them out, say the predatory IMF and World Bank. Only then has a national entity looked to their aging arsenals as 'surplus for cash'. This is so for the only precedent where a national entity may consider selling to a private buyer. Religion has played no role in the exchange of


Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies? Why or why not?

If the wmd definition is widened to include dirty bomb isotopes, than yes. Wmd operation requires the use of properly designed deflectors to maximize the chain reaction. Without the expertise needed to detonate one of these devices, we have the likely possibility of premature detonation of the catalyst explosive - ie a natural bang no more or less damaging than dynamite.

A major point not discussed in enough detail here at AD is the premise that terrorists will somehow be supplied Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to carry out attacks against their common enemies.

I think this is highly improbable for several reasons, but will wait my turn to support my argument. So, the questions for debate are:

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?
With Saddam gone and other countries like Syria suddenly getting “religion” in this area I think not. Bush made it clear what would happen to any country that was found to have knowingly done this and even Iran, I am sure, has “got the message”.

Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies? Why or why not?

Yes. They have money and the desire to do great harm and this will, at some point, lead to them acquiring or developing WMD. The “dirty bomb” may be the first but the biological attack will always be a possibility.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm

“Invisible weapons

The most suitable weapon of mass destruction for terrorist purposes would be biological, radiological or chemical. Nuclear weapons are more difficult to develop, or to obtain by buying. In March 2005, a jihadist forum al-Ma'sada published a-do-it-yourself plan to make a dirty bomb. [2] This is an indicator that the broader Salafi-Jihadist tendency that takes inspiration from al-Qaeda’s ideological and methodological example is exhorting jihadists everywhere to endeavor to develop WMD. But given the sheer complexity of developing or acquiring WMD and then successfully deploying it against suitable targets, it is unlikely that freelance jihadists or even associated organizations will be able to execute a WMD attack. The attack will likely be carried out by the hardcore of al-Qaeda for primarily two reasons: firstly the network has nearly 15 years experience of being at the cutting edge of terrorism and secondly it alone has access to the most competent and accomplished human resources.”

“New threats by rootless jihadis to attack Western interests are appearing on jihadist forums more frequently than ever. For instance, in April 2005 the Jihadist website La Voix des Opprimés (the Voice of the Oppressed) published a direct warning to Americans, Europeans, Russians and “other Westerners,” threatening them with biological or chemical attacks. [8] These warnings may be dismissed as the helpless rantings of armchair mujahideen, but there is little doubting the overwhelming desire of committed Jihadists to acquire and deploy weapons of mass destruction against western targets.”
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/ar...ticleid=2369714

“Nonstate actors will pose a much greater threat to the US homeland than ever before. Aided by technology, terrorist groups, criminal organizations, and narcotraffickers are expanding their operations and sometimes forming "alliances" of convenience.
We are particularly concerned with the emergence of a new breed of terrorist has emerged that is skilled in conventional explosives, interested in weapons of mass destruction, and able to maintain international networks
- - -
Terrorist incidents are likely to continue, at least at current levels, and may increase by 2015. Terrorists will be better armed with more sophisticated weaponry. Some groups are already pursuing chemical and biological weapons capabilities. In the future, terrorists will seek to cause more casualties per incident, the vast bulk of whom will be civilians”
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-th...brn-agents.html

Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand your last sentence regarding "no cooperation with non-nationals."



Again, I'm not certain what you are saying. Obviously if such materials were to get into the hands of individuals who would use them it would be in a way that was nearly, if not entirely impossible to trace the origin.

Let's place some perspective on this. Just a few short months ago six nuclear warheads were accidentally loaded onto a B52 and flown across the country. That was here. And we are honestly arguing that, by contrast, nuclear materials are/would always be completely accounted for and secure in third world countries?

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?[/b[

[b]Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies? Why or why not?

Terrorist have already used WMDs, and not very recently, either

Or by "terrorists" do you mean "Islamic terrorists likely to commit terrorist attacks against civilian targets in the mainland USA"?

That aside, I don't think it very likely that terrorists will be "supplied" by a government in the way I think you mean. If Pakistan collapses completely, I think one or two warheads might slip through official fingers into terrorist hands, but in those circumstances I can only imagine that there would be no Pakistani government left to speak of.

Obtain, on the other hand, I think is much more likely. Chemical and biological agents can be made or bought, and already have been (as well as the Japanese example I've given, there's plenty of evidence of attempts to grow or steal biological agents like anthrax). Realistically, I think the only way any terrorist organisation could get hold of nuclear weapons would be through theft, and only then during a period of chaos surrounding the total collapse of a nuclear power, rather than through active sponsorship from a government.

That's not to say that this is very unlikely - with the situation in Pakistan, it's a bigger worry than it ever has been, IMO.

I am going with the premise that WMD = NBC only? Correct? Technically- the attack on WTC was a WMD- since, it well, caused massed destruction? Capable, had the towers been full and dropped immediately of over 30k dead.


Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies? Why or why not?

No, in fact, I find that pretty much every time this statement is made, it is usually some sort of propaganda to justify some wrong doing on the part of our goverment or others. I liken each time this statement is made, that it is just another copy of Hitler's excuse for invading poland/

Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies? Why or why not?

I find it another case of using the "boogeyman" to allow some sort of wrongdoing, some excuse to end personal freedoms, some area where the state can restrict rights, to attack the checks and balances of goverment. Stalin, Hitler- they all used it, and so are goverments today- our own and others. Putin and GW are certainly using this boogeyman.

Chemical- such as Sarin Gas- let's look at one Japanese home grown terrorist for a perfect example- the Aum cult- had enough Sarin gas to kill a gazzillion people if properly delievered, but killed like four, and another 12 or so died from the stampede- so, even though they did manufacture and obtain Sarin gas, a WMD, they didn't have the delivery systems to really use it- this is the weakness of all chemical weapons- you have to have a very sophisticated and defended delivery system to really MAKE it, in reality, a WMD- rockets, trains, some sort of plane overflying and delivering it- all very easy to take out long before it makes any real damage.

Bio- you have to have some serious geniuses to get this one to work, and not kill more of thier own poeple than the intended target. Muslims in the ME live, mostly, in highly dense population centers, with little to no health care, in squalid conditions. This is the perfect place to start if you want to use bio weapons.

If you have a very smart bio-engineer with a death wish, you could possibly wipe out most of the world- but the Islamic world or third world countries would be the biggest losers. The western world would be the most likely ones to come up with a cure or vaccine, and the most likely to be able to effectively quarintine the disease.

Nuke- so many parts of this one are so very difficult to obtain without setting off all kinds of alarms. The dirty bomb has been mentioned- I work with Cobalt 60 and Irirdium 192 at least once a week right now. Industrial sources of radioactive material would be by far the most accesable. However, you are back to sophisticated delivery systems to make it more than a localized terror weapon- to make it a true WMD, you need to go back to the chemical weapon delivery systems, and the same problem happens.

Well, let's just redo the snopes confirmed letter from an expert:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/realdeal.htm

Since the media have decided to scare everyone with predictions of chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare on our turf I decided to write a paper and keep things in their proper perspective. I am a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert.

Lesson number one: In the mid 1990s there was a series of nerve gas attacks on crowded Japanese subway stations. Given perfect conditions for an attack, less than 10% of the people there were injured (the injured were better in a few hours) and only one percent of the injured died. CBS-Television's 60 Minutes once had a fellow telling us that one drop of nerve gas could kill a thousand people. He didn't tell you the thousand dead people per drop was theoretical. Drill Sergeants exaggerate how terrible this stuff is to keep the recruits awake in class (I know this because I was a Drill Sergeant too).

Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel about this stuff, it was all a lie (Read this sentence again out loud!). These weapons are about terror, if you remain calm, you will probably not die.

This is far less scary than the media and their "experts" make it sound. Chemical weapons are categorized as Nerve, Blood, Blister, and Incapacitating agents. Contrary to the hype of reporters and politicians, they are not weapons of mass destruction. They are means of "Area Denial," effective to keep an enemy out of a particular zone for a limited period of time: terror weapons that don't destroy anything. When you leave the area you almost always leave the risk.

That's the difference; you can leave the area and the risk. Soldiers may have to stay put and sit through it and that's why they need all that spiffy gear.

These are not gasses; they are vapors and/or airborne particles. Any such agent must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill or injure, and that defines when and how it's used.

Every day we have a morning and evening atmospheric inversion where "stuff," suspended in the air gets pushed down. This inversion is why allergies (pollen) and air pollution are worst at these times of the day.

So, a chemical attack will have its best effect an hour of so either side of sunrise or sunset. Also, being vapors and airborne particles, the agents are heavier than air, so they will seek low places like ditches, basements and underground garages. This stuff won't work when it's freezing, it doesn't last when it's hot, and wind spreads it too thin too fast.

Attackers have to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it, for it to work. They also have to get the concentration of chemicals high enough to kill or injure you: too little and it's nothing, too much and it's wasted. What I hope you've gathered by this point is that a chemical weapons attack that kills a lot of people is incredibly hard to achieve with military grade agents and equipment. So you can imagine how hard it would be for terrorists. The more you know about this stuff, the more you realize how hard it is to use.

A Case of Nerves

We'll start by talking about nerve agents. You have these in your house: plain old bug killer (like Raid) is nerve agent. All nerve agents work the same way; they are cholinesterase inhibitors that mess up the signals your nervous system uses to make your body function. It can harm you if you get it on your skin but it works best if you to inhale it. If you don't die in the first minute and you can leave the area, you're probably going to live.

The military's antidotes for all nerve agents are atropine and pralidoxime chloride. Neither one of these does anything to cure the nerve agent. They send your body into overdrive to keep you alive for five minutes. After that the agent is used up. Your best protection is fresh air and staying calm. Listed below are the symptoms for nerve agent poisoning.

Sudden headache, Dimness of vision (someone you're looking at will have pinpointed pupils), Runny nose, Excessive saliva or drooling, Difficulty breathing, Tightness in chest, Nausea, Stomach cramps, Twitching of exposed skin where a liquid just got on you.

If you are in public and you start experiencing these symptoms, first ask yourself, did anything out of the ordinary just happen, a loud pop, did someone spray something on the crowd? Are other people getting sick too? Is there an odor of new mown hay, green corn, something fruity, or camphor where it shouldn't be?

If the answer is yes, then calmly (if you panic you breathe faster and inhale more air/poison) leave the area and head upwind, or outside. Fresh air is the best "right now antidote." If you have a blob of liquid that looks like molasses or Karo syrup on you; blot it or scrape it off and away from yourself with anything disposable.

This stuff works based on your body weight: What a crop duster uses to kill bugs won't hurt you unless you stand there and breathe it in real deep, then lick the residue off the ground for while.

Remember, the attackers have to do all the work, they have to get the concentration up and keep it up for several minutes, while all you have to do is quit getting it on you and quit breathing it by putting space between yourself and the attack.

Bad Blood and Blisters

Blood agents are cyanide or arsine. They affect your blood's ability to provide oxygen to your tissues. The scenario for attack would be the same as nerve agent. Look for a pop or someone splashing or spraying something and folks around there getting woozy or falling down. The telltale smells are bitter almonds or garlic where it shouldn't be. The symptoms are blue lips, blue under the fingernails rapid breathing.

The military's antidote is amyl nitride and, just like nerve agent antidote, it just keeps your body working for five minutes till the toxins are used up. Fresh air is the your best individual chance

Blister agents (distilled mustard) are so nasty that nobody wants to even handle them, let alone use them. Blister agents are just as likely to harm the user as the target. They're almost impossible to handle safely and may have delayed effects of up to 12 hours. The attack scenario is also limited to the things you'd see from other chemicals. If you do get large, painful blisters for no apparent reason, don't pop them. If you must, don't let the liquid from the blister get on any other area: the stuff just keeps on spreading. Soap, water, sunshine, and fresh air are this stuff's enemy.

Bottom line on chemical weapons (and it's the same if they use industrial chemical spills): They are intended to make you panic, to terrorize you, to herd you like sheep to the wolves. If there is an attack, leave the area and go upwind, or to the sides of the wind stream. You're more likely to be hurt by a drunk driver on any given day than be hurt by one of these attacks. Your odds get better if you leave the area. Soap, water, time, and fresh air really deal this stuff a knock-out-punch. Don't let fear of an isolated attack rule your life. The odds are really on your side.

Up and Atom

Nuclear bombs: These are the only weapons of mass destruction on Earth. The effects of a nuclear bomb are heat, blast, EMP, and radiation. If you see a bright flash of light like the sun, where the sun isn't, fall to the ground! The heat will be over a second. Then there will be two blast waves, one out going, and one on its way back. Don't stand up to see what happened after the first wave. Wait. Everything that's going to happen will have happened in two full minutes.

Any nuclear weapons used by terrorists will be low yield devices and will not level whole cities. If you live through the heat, blast, and initial burst of radiation, you'll probably live for a very very long time. Radiation will not create fifty foot tall women, or giant ants and grasshoppers the size of tanks. These will be at the most 1 kiloton bombs; that's the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT.

Here's the real hazard: Flying debris and radiation will kill a lot of exposed (not all)! people within a half mile of the blast. Under perfect conditions this is about a half mile circle of death and destruction, but when it's done it's done.

EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry every electronic device for a good distance. It's impossible to say what and how far, but probably not over a couple of miles from ground zero is a good guess. Cars, cell phones, computers, ATMs, you name it, all will be out of order. There are lots of kinds of radiation, but , physically,you only need to worry about three: alpha, beta, and gamma. The others you have lived with for years.

You need to worry about "Ionizing radiation," little sub atomic particles that go whizzing along at the speed of light. They hit individual cells in your body, kill the nucleus and keep on going. That's how you get radiation poisoning: You have so many dead cells in your body that the decaying cells poison you. It's the same as people getting radiation treatments for cancer, only a bigger area gets irradiated.

The good news is you don't have to just sit there and take it, and there are lots you can do rather than panic. First, your skin will stop alpha particles, a page of a news paper or your clothing will stop beta particles. Then you just have to try and avoid inhaling dust that's contaminated with atoms that are emitting these things and you'll be generally safe from them.

Gamma rays are particles that travel like rays (quantum physics makes my brain hurt) and they create the same damage as alpha and beta particles only they keep going and kill lots of cells as they go all the way through your body. It takes a lot to stop these things, lots of dense material. On the other hand it takes a lot of this to kill you.

Your defense is as always to not panic. Basic hygiene and normal preparation are your friends. All canned or frozen food is safe to eat. The radiation poisoning will not affect plants, so fruits and vegetables are OK if there's no dust on them (Rinse them off if there is). If you don't have running water and you need to collect rain water or use water from wherever, just let it sit for thirty minutes and skim off the water gently from the top. The dust with the bad stuff in it will settle and the remaining water can be used for the toilet which will still work if you have a bucket of water to pour in the tank.

The Germs' Terms

Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses, etc., ...with strangers. Keep your garbage can with a tight lid on it, don't have standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddy pools) laying around to allow mosquitoes breeding room.

This stuff is carried by vectors, that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is as easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years, millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of person and home, eat well and are active, you're going to live.

Overall preparation for any terrorist attack is the same as you'd take for a big storm. If you want a gas mask, fine, go get one. I know this stuff and I'm not getting one and I told my Mom not to bother with one either (How's that for confidence?). We have a week's worth of cash, several days worth of canned goods and plenty of soap and water. We don't leave stuff out to attract bugs or rodents so we don't have them.

These terrorist people can't conceive of a nation this big with as much resources as it has. These weapons are made to cause panic, terror, and to demoralize. If we don't run around like sheep, they won't use this stuff after they find out it's no fun and does them little good. The government is going nuts over this stuff because they have to protect every inch of America. You only have to protect yourself, and by doing that, you help the country.

Finally, there are millions of caveats to everything I wrote here and you can think up specific scenarios in which my advice wouldn't be the best. This article is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest number of situations. If you don't like my work, don't nitpick, just sit down and explain chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare in a document around three pages long yourself. This is how we the people of the United States can rob these people of their most desired goal, your terror.





The above quoted stuff pretty much buries the idea of terrorists getting these things and using them effectively. That is why all low tech stuff has been used to date- it just takes too many resources of a very low resource organization- the 9/11 thing was low-tech, and worked, because prior to this time- all hijacking training involved just going along for a flight to cuba or Egypt, and don't make waves. Now it is quite different, and since groups like AQ work on a small "sleeper cell" communication and organization model, it would be too easy to liquidate them if they gather long enough in one place to come up with the way to use a WMD.

Be serious please. You could have a few guys with anthrax- immunized at that- drop the stuff on NY or LA and it would be a major disaster. As I have posted on the other thread. To ignore the potential is to do what Bill Clinton did in the 90s. Sit back and say to your self “it can’t happen here”.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/03/18/healt...reut/index.html

Ted, are you seriously claiming that the premise of supplying terrorists with WMD was eliminated with Saddam Hussein?

Seriously...are you kidding or do you actually believe this?

Okay Ted- how many succesful Anthrax poisonings have there been- and how many have actually been attempted? We know several were attempted- and basically, none were successful.

Low tech works, high tech don't- terrorists that really want to harm us know this, and apparently, right wingers don't.

I was not implying anthrax was the only threat – there are many and as with the chemical sprayers – cheap means of doing them.

The Anthrax attack we did endure killed people and cost millions to disinfect a post office and all it was, was a small envelope with less than an ounce in it. If this amount had been misted into the air in a Mall for example the death toll, and economic damage, would have been high.

The point is you don’t need to have millions in sophisticated equipment to deliver the agents – the trick is getting the agents. And if/when that happens you can bet it will be costly.



Not at all. Reduced perhaps. In fact I still believe some or all of the “missing” WMD he made is out there somewhere – perhaps in Syria.

As far as major catastrophes go 123,000 dead out of 1.5 million or 8.2% isn't a bad survivability rate in a biological attack.

Clinton wanted mandatory vaccinations of anthrax, btw, even though health officials at the time saw "little need for a nationwide anthrax immunization program" and of course, the Freepers were all over Clinton's connections to one of BioPort and BioPort's connections to foreign countries.

Mandatory immunizations didn't get off the ground. The vaccine is recommended for people who handle B. anthracis or people handling animals that may come into contact with anthrax, but it can be mandatory for military members. I'm glad I was just getting out when immunization was made mandatory. Some people have died or been hospitalized while taking the regimen and I didn't want to risk these "complications" or court martial while I was outside theater. I'd rather avoid a vaccine and wait for treatment from local health authorities after an attack or buy BioPort's post-exposure treatment before an attack.

There is at least one company working on a radiation vaccine. I watched a segment on 60 Minutes two years ago covering this development and the subsequent death of the deal with DHS because of some bureaucratic nonsense.

Do you find it likely that terrorists will be supplied with WMD in an effort to destroy common enemies?
Not likely but still possible. We assume that states, organizations and even terrorist groups are rational but this isn't always the case. Hitler was a maniac but I think most people believe we did as well as we could in WWII. We shouldn't arrange our foreign policy outlook around exceptions. If we do the consequences may be just as bad as an anthrax attack in NYC. Unfortunately I don't think Americans really care about this possibility as long as they're not the ones dropping dead.

Do you find it likely that terrorists will obtain WMD in an effort to destroy their enemies?
Not likely but once again, still possible. WMD has been used by states. Why not rogue states and terrorist organizations?

Correct. But in the SF study of 1999 (can’t find it on the net) the statement was that 10-12% death rate was achievable ONLY if the attack was detected quickly, and only if people could be kept in the city and treated quickly and a couple more “only” statements. Other wise the death rate could be much higher.

And what do you think even 50,000 dead would do to this country socially and economically?

I agree with not vaccinating everyone since anthrax is only one of several agents we need to worry about. Smallpox for example could be worse.

Anthrax vaccinations wouldn't work against full-scale bio attacks with the large quantities of weaponized anthrax that they are ostensibly supposed to counter. That's why they didn't get off the ground....because, aside from the adverse health risks, they wouldn't effectively counter that type of attack in the first place. And the schedule is this:

-First dose
-2 weeks later, second dose
-4 weeks later, third dose
-another 6 months later
-another 12 months later
-another 18 months later
-annual booster thereafter

Every one of the above must be taken in sequence and skipping any requires the recipient to start from the beginning again. Well, the DOD has gone up and down on whether these injections should be "mandatory". Sometimes they force them on people, other times not, and they frequently also run out of the vaccine, so injection times are missed and the soldiers have to start from the beginning again. My husband has never finished the series, but was required to receive about 10 of these injections...after several retries because he moved/they ran out of vaccine. It's an asinine situation and I'm not surprised people are suffering from adverse health consequences from this crap...maybe somewhere in their second or third attempt at the series.

At any rate, per the topic, here's a thought. Does anyone think that large armies will meet out in the middle of the desert again to fight like they did during the first Gulf war? That type of thing is an anachronism. The future is asymetrical warfare. Nations will not likely attack head-on by delivering a nuclear missile on a warhead, because the consequences of retaliation would be dire. The future for attacking large nations directly will be proxy war. It's relatively cheap and effective.

I think its entirely possible, especially if, as we are told, in Pakistan the country's secret police is riddled with terrorist sympathisers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that some one in authority might be using terrorists as a means to an end and if the country is being held hostage against an exterior military intervention as Paksitan effectively is then its not hard to imagine a situation where a high standing official obtains a weapon of mass destruction and gives it to some agent or terrorist with the determined intention of striking a 'common enemy'.

In the case of Pakistan that possibility, whilst being remote, is certaintly present, especially against US or Indian interests.




I think its not a question of if, but when. It is foolish to assume that one's own imagination, or lack there of, limits the extents to which other people are prepared to act in order to carry out their agenda's.

The future is a very long time and for so long as humanity exists at this level of technical sophistication, then the chances of a WMD being used by terrorists are very great. The only real questions are When? Where? and Why?


edited to add:

I think it depends on what you term a large army. There are certainly places where armies can still confront each other in a traditional manner. Africa is full of them.

But, for the most part I think you are in the right of it. Not only do I see a future dominated by plausible- deniable- asymetrical- warfare, but I think we're going to start seeing more and more non national groups taking part in such actions, both against existing political structures, like nation states, but also against each other (Lebanon) and for a host of reasons which no modern state would dare to openly counternance, for example ethnic and racial conflicts (Darfur & Bosnia).

Furthermore, I feel that many nation states are going to become undermined by these non national interests. I don't like the way things are going in certain of the smaller EU states, Sweden and Belgium are looking particulary unstable these days and in both cases, the massive influx of immigration is fuelling the process. France, the UK, Germany and Holland are all heading in the same direction.

For any country to actively lend out its most destructive weapons to people who can not be held accountable opens the door unintended consequences. The only way I can see this approach as having any plausibility is a gradual piecemeal sell off of both production tools and know-how which is not a sign of national aggression but corruption.



The ticking timebomb scenario hasn't held alot of sway for the first half century because atomic devices were large. Pakistan's arsenal is not at the easily transportable stage. Referring to my original statement in the latter half of the twentieth century the devices were reduced in size but the methods of tracking the devices increased quite abit. There are ways of tracing nuclear isotopes. There are ways of monitoring power demand to watch for suspected activity. The basis of which became the standard detection protocol of the IAEA.

Your current statement presents several 'ifs' which border on speculation. Pakistan's nuclear missiles are longer than the deck of an 18 wheeler so transporting such devices into caves and basements for separation becomes a difficult thing for guys holed up in the mountains with questionable literacy skills. Are you telling me the tribal areas can afford Phd students capable of dissecting the needed parts but they can't afford running water? The premise becomes more tenuous when we consider the "terrorists" have to contend with launch codes which I doubt will be handed over in the event of a coup. My greater point is while there is a remote possibility of something filtering down into the hands of radicals, such groups do not have the sophistication and resources to adequately wield nuclear weapons in an effective manner.

The alternative is as I have stated above - the piecemeal approach which has its own challenges. We still have not addressed the difficulty in obtaining good fissile material. There is nothing easy about contructing such a device both in terms of materials or manpower. Attaining the parts is a feat in of itself. Constructing and assembing the device so that the deflector does its job and allows the catalyst explosion the time to hit critical mass while in the confines of one's basement is a herculian feat.

To rebuke the last bit of your question the materials are traceable. There are spectrum tests involving nuclear isotopes used in identifying radioactive substances. I am sure that such devices exist at airports now. If memory serves me correctly the Chinese shipment of uranium to Iran was picked up on secondary garmets that were in proximity to the radioactive material. While the amount was so small that it was only usable for research purposes only, the "undeclared activity" of this venture was precisely what got the Security Council involved in the Iranian affair. I can look into this issue for more in depth analysis if necessary.

I've left the premise of accidentally lost, complete warheads last to highlight the sheer outlandishness of the "whoops" theory.



Tell me do you consider it accidental to ignore multiple protocols on not one but six devices an honest mistake? The amount of red tape associated with atomic transport is fanatical. To say this was accidental to me is to engage in conspiracy because nuclear weapons have their own distinct protocol which is very rigid.



It is the rigidity of nuclear procedure I'm trying to convey which is at loggerheads with the notion of the opportunistic terrorists preying on third rate soldiers out having a smoke.

Now everything that I have presented here today does not include the Edmonds case. That case presents the third option by purchasing everthing from external sources and then figuring out what to do with the tidbits. To make something workable of the fragments one needs the coherence of a nation state working collectively for extended periods of time to see progress. By definition this requires a sizable effort and plenty of resources not to mention time, something that would disqualify rogue organizations from participating and hence exclusion from this thread. See the Sibel Edmonds controversy to get a clearer an idea of how nuclear related material can walk around policy via corruption. Corruption which I suspect had a hand in those missing nukes plus two other scandals as well! (YT 1, and 2)

Well, corruption or a complete breakdown in government, no? Breakdowns in government occur....Afghanistan lived that way for many years under the Taliban. Surely you aren't under the impression (as your choice of links would seem to imply) that the US is the only corrupt country on the planet? More so that tyrannical dictatorships and theocracies? Pakistan comes out smelling like a rose in comparison? Bhutto’s government was widely criticized by human rights groups for the use of death squads, rampant deaths in police custody, abductions and torture. She declared herself the president for life in her political party and controlled all decisions. She was implicated in the killing of her own brother. And she seems to be about the best they had by comparison to the others. I don't think the ROK has had a president that wasn't impeached in twenty years or more...the president who just left shreaded half the documentation in his office. But they're squeeky clean compared to the DPRK, obviously and the DPRK holds the nukes. Corruption is everywhere among human beings, and nowhere more so than places where it is permitted to go unchecked. That would be the sort of places you won't find any "Projects on Government Oversight " to link to.



Accident=Unintentional. I wouldn't classify this as a simple "whoops". It was egregious. But unless you can come up with some alternate explanation that's how it remains. For there to be an ulterior motive, there would have to be something to gain and no one involved in that fiasco gained a thing. If you believe otherwise, please share your reasoning. On second thought, don't....it's irrelevant because whether it was intentional or not, the point stands. I'd like to debate that one on another thread if you'd like to start it, though...



The aforementioned "rigidity of nuclear procedure" only applies to functioning governments and/or governments that are willing to comply with those procedures. I'll state again...That (the aforementioned mistake..or pick whatever you like as your pejorative of choice) happened here. Are you honestly arguing that, by contrast, nuclear materials are/would always be completely accounted for and secure in third world countries?

Edited to add: Per your point about the tracing of nuclear materials, I'm not sure how such isotopes could be traced unless there was some sort of oversight for the original nuclear materials. One thing I do know, deductively, is that if it is possible to smuggle fissile materials in (accomplished many times) it is possible to smuggle them out. Obviously they were smuggled out of the country they originated in in the first place.

I think all fissile material has a unique signature. It only takes minutes to find the source.

But still, the point of my question is about a state arming terrorists with WMD - not terrorists obtaining it. I think there are reasonable concerns about terrorists obtaining WMD. I think it is highly unlikely because otherwise, Israel would no longer exist. But this is a reasonable threat requiring reasonable precaution.

Many/most Iraq war supporters say that even though Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaida, his links to terrorism and use of WMD became an overwhelming factor in the decision to invade and occupy his country. First, Iraq has never sponsored international terrorism. Any links between Saddam and international terrorism require many leaps of logic. For real international terrorism, look at the Taliban, Hamas, or Saudi Arabia. During the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam used WMD against the Iranians (while the Iranians used WMD also) and the Kurds who supported what Saddam deemed to be invaders. That doesn't apologize for his actions, but the fact is, much like the United States, Saddam used WMD to win a war.

In Gulf War 1.0, Arthur "The Scud Stud" Kent stood in front of CNN cameras daily with his gas mask on anticipating the WMD attack from Saddam that never came. Saddam clearly had WMD then and chose not to use them. And why? Because it would have resulted in their complete annihilation. People who support this "Saddam is crazy and suicidal enough to arm terrorists" cannot resolve this critical premise. Schwartzkopf was within minutes of overtaking Bagdad. The republican army had already been defeated and ceased to exist. There was nothing stopping Schwartzkopf from taking Baghdad other than common sense.

Still no WMD.

So, why would Saddam - or any leader of a country for that matter - relinquish their power to people that are so radical, they would strap bombs to their kids to get attention? How could you "trust" a terrorist to destroy a common enemy using materials that would ultimately lead back to you and your destruction?

I hear the chickenhawks saying we can't take that chance of terrorists using WMD against us, and pretending that leaders of other states would take those type of chances. It's absurd on many levels. Dictators like power and do whatever it takes to stay in power as long as they can. They will not relinquish control of their country to nutjobs who shouldn't be trusted with a toothbrush.

Any type of WMD can be traced back to the original supplier. Conspiracies big enough to conceal this do not exist. So, any country with that power protects it's arsenal at all costs because failure to do so would result in their certain destruction regardless of who got their hands on it. If I used WMD and told the United States I got it from Iran, Iran would be vaporized. If I sat on that pile of WMD I got from Iran and told Iran I had it and was ready to use it, I would own the country. They would either play ball on my terms or face annihilation.

All this is the justification for invading and occupying Iraq. It makes no sense whatsoever, but it scares people who don't have the capacity to think it all through and/or are easily frightened by terrorism.

I tend to agree with DaytonRocker that States would not supply terrorists with WMD, at least not nuclear (I don't know how traceable other forms are). Perhaps somebody like Kim-Jong might, if he were in a position where he felt he had nothing to lose, and could use the terrorist threat as leverage. For example, I am not really worried about a missle from N. Korea, but might be more concerned were he to say he had provided Al Quaida with a nuclear warhead, or some group that had a vendeta against Japan.

However, states willingly supplying terrorists with WMD, and terrorists getting WMD from that state are two different things. I think everyone here will probably agree that that could happen. Heck, even here in the US there have been numerous incidents of missing nuclear materials, like this one: Enough plutonium to make dozens of nuclear bombs hasn't been accounted for. So, it is very possible, I think, that material to make a nuclear weapon could be 'obtained'. This then raises a conundrum. If it is believable that a terrorist group could 'obtain' such material on their own...what then would prevent a State from arranging such an incident? Would we really retaliate against N. Korea or Iran if someone stole nuclear materials from them, and made a bomb out of it? Not sure we would. Plausible deniability creates an aura of uncertainty here, and I think it very possible that a dictator may attempt to use that to provide a terrorist group with such materials if they saw enough benefit in it for themselves. I also don't think the threat of such a weapon being used against them is that much of a deterrent. First, the group chosen would clearly be one that had no desires to retaliate against the state. Second, dictators, by their very nature, don't care that much what happens to their people. Third, the state knows exactly who they would have given the material too, so deadly retaliation is a certainty---all of which leaves that group with little to gain by biting the hand that fed them.

Finally, I don't think analogies of 'it hasn't happened yet, so it won't in the future' do much to alleviate concern. This is a fairly recent concern, so extrapolating forward through eternity isn't very valid. Consider that there are millions of terrorists out there, and that all it takes is one small group of them to get the capability to use such a bomb, one time. Odds are that it will in fact happen, it is just a matter of when and where, and with what WMD. Consider that the initial bombing on the WTC almost succeeded, had the truck merely been in a different location. That would have caused the death of 50,000 people--does that not then qualify as Mass Destruction? I think so...meaning that not only could it be done, it really already has been. Same thing if the towers had collapsed just a little earlier (not that 3,000+ deaths doesn't already qualify). So, it's being done currently--it's just a question of how much higher up the scale it goes. For myself, were I to see such an event on the news, it would not surprise me at all. That is why I think we should treat the possibility so very seriously.

It would still be suicide. Nobody would take the word of a country that even though their WMD were used for destruction, claim they had nothing to do with it. You're raising the "I swear it wasn't me" defense as cause for concern.

If WMD were tied back to a country that attacked us with mass casualties - intentionally or unintentionally - they would be destroyed. If it happened once, it would happen again and that's the only way to keep it from happening again.

Now, if terrorists did steal WMD and the supplying country made every effort to retrieve it up to and including international support, it would be a different story. But you'd have the entire world looking for it. This is still much different than the Saddam/WMD connection used as justification for costs that will exceed a trillion of our hard earned dollars along with the life and limbs of a military being used as a cash cow.

Mrs P, Ted and others- you guys really have not addressed the difficulty a terrorist would have in utilizing WMD in the first plce, considering that low tech works so much better. Fertilizer (I think right wing radio makes mega-tons of this stuff for free ) - well, that kind of stuff, kerosene or diesel fluid, fertilizer and all that- it is way easier and harder to defend against large low tech weapons than the hard to get and hard to deliver WMDs.

Heck, if I were in Osama's spot, I sure wouldn't consider using up my resources to get a nuke- I would be activating these thousands of sleeper cells the right wing seems think are living amongst us now (Kivro has probably already spotted his driving a cab or something ) - and having them make some serial killer van bombs.

One big delivery van-bomb is wha harder to defend against, and does plenty of damage, than any kind of WMD.

I looked into this and I think the 'unique signature' (nuclear fingerprint) is actually added. If so (which the link would seem to indicate), that wouldn't be the case for unmonitored nuclear programs. I'd like to be wrong here...anyone know for sure who could point to a source?

Edited to answer CR above:

Yes, I'm sure there's a higher likelihood for all manner of easier terrorist attempts. That's not really the topic though. But a nuclear attack, or specifically, the threat of attack (or future attacks), would definitely offer more leverage for blackmail than any style of homemade bomb. And leverage (for extortion, blackmail, or policy change depending on who you are and what your position is) is the motive behind terrorist attacks. What is more likely to frighten citizens into caving towards the wishes of the terrorist: 1) Bombing a large building 2) Holding up a can of "Voom" and threatening to blow up half a city and we have to guess which one it will be. Answer is Voom.

If the terrorists get a hold of a nuclear weapon, they won't even have to use it on a city...all they'll need to do is provide a demonstration out in the desert, claim to have more, and the age of nuclear blackmail will begin.

That's been my exact point. Again, I created this topic because all the "war on terror" discussions have centered around WMD and state sponsored terrorism. And in my mind, it's just not going to happen because no matter how nutty the leader is, he/she will not relinquish control to someone who could never be trusted. Unless of course, you happen to believe that terrorists are trustworthy. Consequently, I call this the "trustworthy terrorist theory".

Any state leader that has WMD will protect his/her arsenal at all costs because their love of power, country, or whatever motivates them is much greater than their hatred of anybody else. Once they allow that material into the wrong hands, they have no control over their destiny.

What Bush should have done is instead of derailing his worldwide support by going into Iraq, was use all the allies and the new friends we made because of 9/11 to track down every piece of fissile material in the world. It would have been expensive and very difficult, but by doing so, the only real threat that exists could have been continually reduced. The former Soviet Union's unaccounted for WMD is a real threat. But Bush has nary lifted a finger to reduce this threat while creating more enemies than we can kill in areas the enemies have the advantage over us. And Bush does this while leaving our borders wide open.

To link Iraq to the war on terror, Bush calls the Iraqis rebelling against our occupation of their country terrorists. It would be like the Chinese overthrowing our government, forcing us into communism because they believe that their idealogical beliefs are better than ours, establishing 25 permanent military bases throughout the United States, and when we rebel against them, they call us terrorists.

This is beyond senseless. This is downright deception. There is not an argument that can be made that Bush is actually fighting a war on terror. It's simply not plausible given the facts. Iraq was a policy decision going into his presidency and 9/11 created the justification. States will not supply terrorists with WMD. Nobody will supply terrorists with WMD. However, terrorist could get WMD from all the places Bush could care less about. That should make people mad. But it doesn't. In fact, I argue with people here on AD everyday that thinks we're on the right track and leaving Iraq would somehow create more problems for us. With what? Handfuls of sand? I mean, if we left Iraq, what are they going to use to hurt us? Are Iraqi terrorists going international and throwing sand in our eyes so they can kick us in the groin?

The only weapons terrorists have are crude rudimentary weapons and the ability to make people afraid. They don't need anymore than that. With $20 worth of boxcutters, they cost our country a trillion dollars, caused the death of 10's of thousands of non-combatants in Iraq, the loss of limb and brain function in 10's of thousands of American soldiers, and the death of thousands of American soldiers. For $20. Why do they even need WMD when they can count on people like Bush and his supporters?

Then how do you view the recent incident involving North Korea apparently trying to export nuclear technology to Syria?

How about the transfer of missile technology that would allow a state to threaten long range nuclear attack (if they had nukes)? We are the only country with a defense system.

Iran is clearly a terrorist state. Do we really trust them and their numerous terrorist friends to not try to slip some anthrax into an Israeli city? Or elsewhere?

Yes we can tell the plant that produced any uranium – even after it is used in a weapon but the same is not true of numerous other WMD including anthrax, VX, etc.


“WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 — The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/asia/18korea.html


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906082.html

Ted, every example you've provided has risks that only exist in your head. You've created risks that doesn't exist.

Then how do you view the recent incident involving North Korea apparently trying to export nuclear technology to Syria?
There is no evidence it is for weaponry. Secondly, a state has a right to defend itself. If I were a leader of a country, I would try to arm myself with nukes to protect myself from the US. You've framed this question as an offensive problem. If the purpose is weapons, it would be defense.

How about the transfer of missile technology that would allow a state to threaten long range nuclear attack (if they had nukes)? We are the only country with a defense system.
Every country on the planet is trying to protect themselves. And all countries trade arms, weaponry, blah blah blah. You've attached nukes to this.

Iran is clearly a terrorist state. Do we really trust them and their numerous terrorist friends to not try to slip some anthrax into an Israeli city? Or elsewhere?
Saudi Arabia is clearly a terrorist state. So is Syria, Libya, and any Palestinian able to walk. You've just made up an arbitrary fear.

Yes we can tell the plant that produced any uranium – even after it is used in a weapon but the same is not true of numerous other WMD including anthrax, VX, etc.
It doesn't matter what it is and where it came from - you can't hide the source because too many people would know. Conspiracies of this magnitude do not exist. A state sponsor would have to hope not one person in a chain of many people and resources would not come forward with proof of the source.

Ted, nothing you've suggested has ever been done or even remotely possible. Again, there are plenty of reasonable risks associated with terrorism - nobody is sticking their head in the sand. But not one thing you've brought up is based on reality.

Ya sure DR. The list of countries we have out of the blue attacked for no reason is so long that naturally all countries should have nukes just in case we chose to attack. You have to be joking.

And since we KNOW Iran controls and supplies Hammas it is certainly not out of the question that some types of WMD could “fall into their hands”.


And the list of WMD they are currently holding, or developing is ZERO.





Oh I think you could try but agree it would be hard as I said in my first post on the subject. What imo is more likely is the expertise to design and produce WMD could be transferred to AQ. This could be just “experts” who know what to do with WMD NBC materials.

The Clancy book “The Sum of ALL Fears” was based on just such a scenario. Not likely now but not out of the question.

The point of using the largest holder of nuclear technogy was to demonstate if the world's largest superpower cannot be held to an absolute, is it realistic to hold a developing country to a zero tolerance proliferation policy as well? While obviously bad, I then presented the arguement for the continuity of a sovereign state by presenting reasons why the military could never knowingly hand over such material to third parties. By combining these two elements to form a moderate response is how the world narrative worked out their differences and muddled through the first 7 decades of the atom bomb and is very relevant to this thread.



Perjorative? There was no contempt in my previous statements. My only concern is leaving pathological liars to continue to distort without pause or question. What the last 5 years have shown me is that a singular country cannot be left to decide who should and who should not possess access to the technology. Their perceptions have been incredibly biased, most notably towards India who openly flaunts a weapons program and Iran who openly denies it. The deciders have myopic powers of perception. Until this point can be addressed the terrorist wmd debate cannot be answered with any sincerity because the definition of the bad guy just keeps on shifting. In retrospect, rebuking the government's claims makes me rather angry because their ability to discern friend from foe has been fraudulent from the very beginning. I've watched this debate, the criteria for definition of a terrorist has devolved to anyone who takes exception to anything we do. It is sad.

The days of the nuclear old boys club were over when Iran + XYZ countries moved up the development ladder. The potential for them to flip over at a moments notice and move towards weaponization exists whether we are comfortable with it or not. Get over it. Most will probably not cross that line. The few that do must restrain themselves or risk losing all sovereignty. This element of sacred solidarity must be acknowledged by the have-nations. Should we give them a free pass? No, but we can pressure them to joint the NPT cartel.

This is the crux of your arguement isn't it? You simply don't trust a nation to have the maturity to hold onto their wmd in a responsible fashion. You want the monopoly back and you want to be able to define who is and who is not on the possible up-and-coming prospectus, correct? Such an attitude by its very nature cannot be applied evenly and is destined for failure. I'm sorry but the genie is out of the bottle.



Well since I've been asked not to comment, in the interests of constructive debate I'll reply no-comment

Recently I've been wondering why some people are more likely to believe government claims.

Do you really believe NorK sold nuclear technology/arms to Syria, Ted, or are you repeating this thus-far debunked story for other reasons? Did you actually follow the story to its conclusion? Do you think the IAEA, an agency that discovered 80 grams of reprocessed NorK plutonium in 1992, would criticize Israel and the U.S. because the agency hates "Zionists" and "Zionist collaborators"?

Do you think Israel would settle for violating Syria's airspace once?

That fishy site wasn't fishy at all. What was strange was the allegations raised by Israel and the U.S. from the getgo. The box-on-the-Euphrates was looked at since its creation. The threat posed by the site, according to Bolton, was "exaggerated", "inflated", and led to a clash between Bolton and Armitage.

We got Kumchang-ri, Tarhuna and Baotou—not to mention Iraq—wrong with satellite imagery and analysis. Why not the mysterious Syrian site?

Oh but the London Time's Sarah Baxter cited U.S. and Israeli sources alleging Israel destroyed NorK nuclear material and it doesn't cross Baxter's mind to seek Syria for comment. Later the Syrian secret nuclear site is downgraded to a military facility and Israeli papers reference Baxter's article during their press blackout as possible evidence of Syrian-NorK nuclear collusion. A few days after the "story" broke anonymous U.S. and Israeli officials ping-pong supporting statements and U.S. and Israeli media lap it up.

To top off the conspiracy frenzy Al-Jazeera got in on the act alleging the raid was conducted by the U.S., not Isreal. With a nuclear payload, in fact.

What Israel probably destroyed were No-Dong missiles with chemical payloads.

Just expand Halliburton's no-bid, light water reactor contract from NorK to the entire Middle East and we may catch a break from the proliferation bull $#*^ers.

Well I believe there people have some credibility and really doubt Israel would attack without high confidence. This is not the only source.

“Their analysis of satellite images in an area near the river Euphrates reveals what they say are buildings similar to a North Korean nuclear reactor capable of producing fuel for a nuclear bomb. The experts, David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, and Paul Brannan, from the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), believe they have found the site that could have been the target of a night-time Israeli raid on 6 September. The Israelis imposed a news blackout on the raid, which prompted speculation that the attack may have been a dry run for a strike on Iran.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle3093815.ece

“U.S. officials sometimes name Syria as covertly seeking nuclear weapons. Syria has forsworn nuclear weapons as a state-party to the NPT and its nuclear research reactor is subject to IAEA monitoring. In September 2007, Israel conducted an airstrike on what unnamed officials and some analysts allege may have been the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. In addition, according to a 2004 declassified intelligence report to Congress, “Pakistani investigators in late January 2004 said they had ‘confirmation’ of an IAEA allegation that [Abdul Qadeer] Khan offered nuclear technology and hardware to Syria, according to Pakistani press, and we are concerned that expertise or technology could have been transferred. We continue to monitor Syrian nuclear intentions with concern.”
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nucl...swhohaswhat.asp



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3460769,00.html





You seem rather blasé about Iran with nuclear weapons and long range missiles. Most of the world is not with on this to say the least. And we don’t have to “get over it” we can sanction the hell out of them instead since they DID sign the NPT.




How would one gain “trust” in Iran sufficient to feel comfortable with them possising nuclear weapons?

"Most of the world" strikes me as incredibly disengenuous. For your statement to have bearing we first need to to demostrate such a program is in existence.Five years of inspections with cameras at Arak and Natanz and Bushere could not prove that. Nothing has come to fruition. Sanctioning a country on an assumption of intent is a crime and very much against the primary purpose of the NPT. One cannot sell to say India and then restrict in the case of Iran if Iran has signed on to a treaty.

Sanctions must be made in response to something. Something more tangible than what you thought you heard a guy say on a podium.

The whole appartus was set up that if a country decided to go down that path, they were going to follow a set of guidelines. The treaty was meant to insulate from discrimination, not as an "over and above" clause handled the way one handles an insurance premium. This facet is not debatable Ted. If you do not understand the purpose of the treaty I don't see how we can have a discussion what constitutes a violation. The rest becomes politically fluid.

What is likely is that as their program grows the chances of an easy flip will grow and this is the source of your unease. Despite being a legal endeavor, fully articulated through the treaty - you want the right to pick and choose? Lol good luck on that.




After 60 months of intrusive inspections filled with cameras, guys in white coats, and a whole lotta press conferences, the Iranians no longer have to prove a thing. The only thing they can do to continue to promote confidence is to keep allowing white coat inspections in the country at locations of IAEA's choosing. After that, there are no more hoops to jump through. Unless you move the bar up and apply it unanimously throughout, there is no hope of success. The allegations have not held. It is over Ted.

"

One question – HOW do you suppose that Iran “ended in 2004” a nuclear weapons program - if none ever existed?

Clearly they need nuclear power like a hole in the head and even if they “had to have it” making your own uranium when you could buy it at a fraction of the price is either stuoid or has other purposes.

Let me take a completely different swag at this.

If people have noticed, the attacks from terrorists have all been bombings and usually involving suicidal bombings. I'm not including the Iraqi insurgent road-side bombs here, because that's a very different situation.

These terrorists are obviously very personally involved in their murders to sacrifice themselves for the cause of, I guess, killing lots of people whom they do not know. Or maybe they do, which makes it like a class A mass murder, up there with whacking your spouse and kids before whacking yourself. Which is too common.

Religion is involved. This is true about our own class A murders as described. These people are expecting pie in the sky. It's too bad, isn't it? Murdering and killing yourself for a fantasy. Maybe it's not a fantasy, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it isn't. From what I know, whacking anyone is wrong here or there, and it's frowned upon.

So, you've got these people ready to kill and kill themselves, and they want to kill themselves. This is so highly personal and insane that using efficient methods of killing just doesn't make sense. What fun is it to set off a nuke if you live on in your apparently miserable existence? No virgins in that deal. Of special mystery are the female suicide bombers. They get 72 versions of Hot Dude of the Month? I suppose so.

Nope, it's gotta by DIE-NO-MIGHT or nothing.

And consider that our own domestic terrorists prefer assault weapons and generally whack themselves toward the end. Makes you think about things, like why is that? How come we do not have domestic suicide bombers? Even old Timmy boy tried to survive Oklahoma.

They psychological situation has to be considered. WMD simply are not cool for certain kinds of insane people. Dr. Evil might like them, but not the terrorists referred to in these questions. Otherwise they would have done it by now. Nope, it's like ancient warfare. No easy buttons.

I can't say I disagree with most of what you said, except perhaps the last paragraph. I come to completely different conclusions. If a suicide bomber is willing to blow himself up, there is little likelihood he will be swayed by the threat of mass retaliation. The MAD doctrine doesn't apply with a terrorist. After the first death, there is no other. And it would seem more attractive for the terrorist to blow up or poison a whole city than to kill just a few....nothing to keep him/her from dying in the process, if that's what they desire.

I would agree with your point of view, but I think it supports my argument (not to say you you agree or disagree).

Let's say someone in Iran's government says it's a good idea for the United States to lose a city to prove how powerless we really are. I use this example because this seems to be the basis of the neocons - e.g. Norm Poderhertz - desire to militarily strike Iran because of the their nuclear program.

So, Iran gives the batcrap crazy terrorist a nuke to do the damage. The terrorist looks at the device and comes to a conclusion - I can attempt to sneak it into New York City and vaporize millions of people. Quite risky, not very probable, but maybe doable. Or, I can make demands of the Iran government, Israel, the United States, NATO, France, Britain, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Cameroon. Without lifting a finger, the terrorist could make the demands for his cause and threaten to detonate the nuke he could easily prove came from Iran.

Everybody balks because they won't be held hostage by some nutjob with a dangerous weapon. Iran scrambles to try to distance themselves from an impossible situation they created. In the end, the terrorist doesn't get what he wants - or hell, he could get everything he wanted - and sets it off anyhow. He takes great pride in creating millions of martyr's all by himself. He shows the world that religious fanatics do indeed rule the world.

So, I have no doubt a terrorist would set off a nuke or any other type of WMD. I just don't think where they set it off is important. If you believe terrorists are trustworthy enough to take WMD far away and protect the supplier, then arming terrorists is a viable threat. But if you believe terrorists are trustworthy, you should live in your basement and never come out because there are tons of more viable threats that exist in your own neighborhood that have nothing to do with terrorists.