Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: Nuclear terror “more likely than not”
posted at 3:17 pm on September 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In sum, my best judgment is that based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead. Developments in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea leave Americans more vulnerable to a nuclear 9/11 today than we were five years ago. Former Defense Secretary William Perry has said that he thinks that I underestimate the risk. In the judgment of most people in the national security community, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, the risk of a terrorist detonating a nuclear bomb on U.S. soil is higher today than was the risk of nuclear war at the most dangerous moments in the Cold War. Reviewing the evidence, Warren Buffett, the world’s most successful investor and a legendary oddsmaker in pricing insurance policies for unlikely but catastrophic events like earthquakes, has concluded: “It’s inevitable. I don’t see any way that it won’t happen.”
There’s plenty at the link about the who, what, where, and how of it; the why we already know. Much of it’s old news, but this was new to me:
A report by the United Nation’s Terrorism Prevention Branch, leaked to the press four months before 9/11, indicated that 130 terrorist groups were capable of developing a homemade atomic bomb if they obtained highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium left over from the Cold War.
I remember a few months after 9/11 how I used to avoid looking out the windows of our company cafeteria. We were located directly across from Ground Zero, and the cafeteria was on a high floor with a birdseye view of Manhattan. I had an irrational belief, which I suppose was due to lingering trauma from the attack, that someday I was going to be looking out that window when the flash from a nuclear terror attack occurred. So I studiously avoided looking out there.
Just letting you know what’s on one New Yorker’s mind these days. Thanks to Dr. Charles Waugh for the tip.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I have to say I feel that way at rush hour on the day before holidays, allah; just waiting for the boom.
Mr. Bingley on September 19, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Those Hezbollah rockets from Iran could very well be precursors of Al-Qaeda nukes.
Free Constitution on September 19, 2006 at 3:39 PM
I too have such thoughts regarding the “flash”. Just another day in NY I suppose.
thebrokenchair on September 19, 2006 at 3:42 PM
I don’t worry about the flash,because I would tend to think that death would come rather quickly , I am worried about being 50 miles away and trying to get out of the path of the fallout,while trying to save my children.
bbz123 on September 19, 2006 at 3:51 PM
I can see how to prevent it. Start by securing the borders.
bbz123 on September 19, 2006 at 3:53 PM
I also think it is inevitable. Not to speak so much on the gloom and doom… I wish my boss would let me telecommute. : )
“I promise I’ll work. I will, I will, I will”
Let’s see Little Boy and Fat Man - I think each had a blast radius of up to 5 miles, no more, I believe.
If that is the case then I’m somewhat safe in the burbs. Just means I have to skip town quickly - only to return better protected for the rescue efforts.
ar_basin on September 19, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Great, and I was planning on not dying this next decade.
If there is a nuclear attack in the U.S., I think the people who would be most scared in the aftermath would be everyone in the Middle East. I can’t even imagine how we would respond to that one.
frankj on September 19, 2006 at 4:12 PM
AP, I’m not going to disagree with the inevitability of such a strike, but I do think the Bulletin needs a grain of salt. They predicted imminent nuclear immolation all through the 80’s, and we got through that.
see-dubya on September 19, 2006 at 4:13 PM
Frankj nice question…
Anyone want to take a stab at how the USA would respond, I mean with the President, likely, dead in DC?
ar_basin on September 19, 2006 at 4:15 PM
The true agenda is revealed near the end of the report.
“Having called for war against Iraq on false premises, the Bush administration has paradoxically increased the WMD threat.”
It’s a pre-emptive strike against George Bush.
RedWinged Blackbird on September 19, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Not sure I can give an answer, but it would depend on several factors:
1) Did the Veep survive (and is it still Cheney?)?
2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” then who’s Speaker of the House (picture Nancy Pelosi faced with this situation–it doesn’t bear thinking about)?
3) Do we have any idea at all who’s responsible?
4) Do we have any way of uncovering what state gave them the necessary material?
One thing I do feel confident in saying: all the debating over the niceties of the Geneva Convention and terrorists’ rights would stop. Immediately. (Outside of moonbats habitations, of course–inside they would continue to gibber away to themelves, but no one on the outside, and no one with any amount of political power whatsoever, would be paying any attention to them at all.)
Athanasius on September 19, 2006 at 4:25 PM
The eventuality of a nuclear attack on this country could be diminished if this administration let it be known to all nations in the Middle East what kind of devastating response they can expect if we take a nuclear hit on our soil …. and let be known NOW!
Then again, I could be wrong on this one, since way too many radicals in the Middle East are in a hurry to meet Allah anyway.
fogw on September 19, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Sad thing is that many see it like this; however, it’s an attack on every American: Dems, Greens and Republicans.
It won’t be a huge lose, say some 200 thousand lives… that is small but anyhow.
Think of the economic and, not to mention, the lose of liberals - in actuality or via a conversion/an opening of the eyes.
When I say liberals I think of Blue States/Cites as being targets - DC, MD, NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, San Diego, Seattle, Portland.
Texas is Red but Austin is Blue.
ar_basin on September 19, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Another real patriot. How nice for you that to date all targets have been in blue states and cities. Think of all those liberals wiped out on 9/11. It’s an ill wind I guess.
This is a huge problem, Russia especially. There is some ex Senator who has been beating the drum on this, can’t recall who–Kerry (the other one) maybe?
honora on September 19, 2006 at 4:48 PM
hey bbz123 - also make sure that the liberal democrats don’t win the House / Senate & even the White House. also securing the borders will help too.
Starblazer on September 19, 2006 at 4:48 PM
less liberals in this country, the better
Starblazer on September 19, 2006 at 4:50 PM
I’m willing to bet that the response from just about any Dem currently in office if this country was attacked with a nuclear bomb would be ‘We surrender!’ They already seem to be saying that every time they talk about the war. The rest of the country would be calling for retaliation but if a Dem is commander-in-chief then our military won’t be able to do anything.
kemphd on September 19, 2006 at 4:56 PM
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/jericho/
Great timing, too. But since this is a new CBS drama series, I wonder if any of the plot will reveal an overtly concious effort to blame the president (ie. Bush that is) of instigating the enemy into dropping a nuclear bomb on Kansas City.
Kokonut on September 19, 2006 at 5:06 PM
IOW, stop them now.
JammieWearingFool on September 19, 2006 at 5:15 PM
In the 1940’s it took our Manhatten project only 45 months, not even 4 years, to build a nuke. And we had pencils, paper and slide rules to work with. We had to start from scratch and we had help from no one.
Iran has had 18 years, the last 5 working very hard at it. They have new technologies at their disposal, state-of-the art computers, help from North Korea and probably Russia and probably thousands working on the project.
I think it is more likely than not Bush and Rice let Iran go nuclear on their watch.
It’s time to kill these muslim cockroaches, or be killed by them.
msplitt on September 19, 2006 at 5:29 PM
So when does the threat to nuke Mecca and
Middle East targets begin, before or after
we’re attacked?
If Islamofacists don’t mind, well hell, I won’t
mind if Mohammad’s home town is radio
active for a few thousand years either!
byteshredder on September 19, 2006 at 5:32 PM
If you really want to get your freak on, check out this website. Blastmaps for every zipcode if a terrorist group manages to light off a 10-kiloton yield weapon (about the size of a “suitcase bomb”)in your area. Keep in mind, these are ground blast maps. For an atmospheric blast, say from a small piper cherokee airplane flown up to altitude over the target area, multiply the blast area x2. The map only covers the actual blast, and not the ensuing firestorms and fallout. The FAQ’s section is a real hoot too.
It might be too late, but yeah, securing the borders would be a good start at preventing, or at least greatly hindering, this possibility.
SilverStar830 on September 19, 2006 at 5:36 PM
I’ve been reading about the upcoming nuclear attack on U.S. soil for over 3 decades, so I’m a bit numbed to such news.
I don’t blame anyone living in NY today for keeping their heads down. Due to the political wrangling over this war I’m pretty certain that many missteps are taking place. As for the fact that liberals outnumber conservatives in these cities, I’m forced to again point out how natural selection works. Those who are so foolish as to allow a fire to burn in their house, as they sit by and watch it from the comfort of their couches, eventually die. IMHO, playing politics with this life or death issue will cause the deaths of many innocents. It would be nice if those who have stifled our efforts to protect the nation were the ones at risk, but life never works out that neatly.
The one answer for those who want to keep their families safe is to move them away from these cities. I did, and you can too. The decision is yours, but don’t wait too long. We know the time is near.
DannoJyd on September 19, 2006 at 5:43 PM
I wonder if Democrats will somehow “get tough” on nuclear weapons by terrorists after this CBS Jericho show? Scare the people a bit first before they put Nancy Pelosi out front to ease the shock for viewers.
heh…
Kokonut on September 19, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Sadly only 100,000 or more US dead will wake the strutting somnambulists at the NY Times, the majority of the Democratic (and some in the Repulbican) Party, the 9/11 Truther cranks, the multi-culturalistically-inclined businesspeople who work in favor of open borders (for their own closed, fatter wallets) and lax laws, the “Christian” dialogistas who will vacuously absolve all of our mortal enemies’ depredations and terroristic acts in the idiotic name of “understanding”, fueled by their overwhelming post-colonial, Blame America First guilt.
This delusional dream state will continue to endanger us all, and to invite a jihadist nuke.
And, by their pursuit of self-loathing/self-abasing imbecility, these underminers of our self-defense will paradoxically cure themselves, radiologically.
Nothing less will eradicate this homegrown tumor.
(A shame the rest of us have to suffer the holocaustic results of their [unconsciously?] seditious, suicidal lunacy.)
profitsbeard on September 19, 2006 at 7:07 PM
No! The only real answer to the nuclear threat is port security-dontcha know.
Pelosi would be sure to inspect every single container coming into this country! It’s the only way!!!!
/sarc
NTWR on September 19, 2006 at 7:12 PM
According to what I’ve read over the past 20 or so years, the Soviets placed up to 8 suitcase nukes in the US, but no one knows where they are. The Russians also sold Iran 3 nukes in the early 1990’s, which should have helped the Iranian nuclear program significantly, but it is not clear that this is true. More recently, The “Ramadan Bomb” is supposed to happen in about a week. Hard to say on that one. I’ll let you know next week. I’ll be here, since i don;t live near any cities.
Here is what I believe-
1. If any Islamic group had a nuke, they would use it against the nearest available target, not go through the risk of smuggling it into the US.
2. If I am wrong and a bomb goes off in the US, whoever is in charge afterwards will bomb Iran, Pakistan, and possibly North Korea. We won’t waste nukes on Mecca.
3. Neither the Republicrats or the Democans are serious about securing our borders or restricting the movements of potential terrorists. Therefore, the threat is always going to be there.
old_dawg on September 19, 2006 at 9:55 PM
*Sigh* Sam Nunn- A Democrat I actually respect. Too bad he isn’t interested in running for office, it would be nice to see a Democrat serious about national security again.
If there is a nuclear attack on this country, the President (whoever he is at the time) will have to respond in kind.
We wouldn’t stand for anything less.
Abigail Adams on September 20, 2006 at 8:48 AM
No, it is NOT inevitable. As long as we keep fighting the bastards over THERE and keep tappin’ their wires over HERE, enforce the borders and bomb their nuke plants and terror training camps, interrogate their operatives, and threaten retaliation on mecca (they don’t care about lives, only symbols) we can forever prevent a nuke attack on the U.S.
Tony737 on September 20, 2006 at 8:57 AM
I think Blackbird was referring to the agenda of The Bulltein of Atomic Scientists, not the agenda of the terrorists against Bush.
The Bulletin list of contributors incude Al Gore, Daniel Ellsberg, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Alan Cranston
William Hartung author of How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy?
Chalmers Johnson, author of The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
Bruce Cumings
He was one of the founding members of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars
Early contributors included Aldous Huxley
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists may have different reasons to predict a nuke attack, but common sense tells me the world population is huge and mobile, filled with nutcases with buckets of cash and a bigger bucketload of hatred, jealousy, and anger enough to enjoy toasting us. It is unreasonable to think they will not do it.
In planning for this future, could we please pass some tort reform? After 911 we the people had to give every survivor a million dollars to keep them from suing every remaining business in America and ending our economy. We can’t afford many more payouts. At least reduce it to $25,000, and a couple bus tickets. Even at a million dollars, some held out for more.
entagor on September 20, 2006 at 11:01 AM
:)
RedWinged Blackbird on September 20, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Ask yourself what happened to the Civil Defense Programs we had during the cold war. I realize that some of you are too young to have lived through that period where we had drop drills in the classroom ect.
We took Civil defense seriously.
Do you realize that our wonderful politicians have abandoned all of the bomb shelters for the public while building underground shelters for themselves?
If we are hit with a Nuke, it is going to be everyone for themselves except for the politicians who will be safe in the under ground shelters.
We used to have a huge network of Civil Defense Bomb shelters and we, as a country planned for survival after a nuclear bomb.
Sadly, if we are hit, it will be pandemonium. If you thought, New Orleans was bad….
Something to think about-IMHO
ScottyDog on September 20, 2006 at 11:54 AM
I agree scottyDog. I had to participate in air raid drills. We anticpated the possibility of invasion.
Now we are being invaded by illegals and pretend it isn’t happening.
At Columbine the students cowered under desks. I wonder what the outcome would have been had they jumped the shooter at the door of the school room. Instead the teacher told them to hide under desks that cannot stop bullets. The teacher tried her best, but she didn’t have a clue, poor thing.
Students are taught to not act independently, but there are no clear instructions for them to act as a group.
There is so little preparation that everyone assume we will simply loot to survive. That was a reflex in New Orleans. Lots of greed, yes, but also an understanding that looting was the solution.
Nature abhors a vacumn.
entagor on September 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM
strutting somnambulists
Well that’s just silly.
If there is ever a re-make of Dr Strangelove, well, you would be perfect in that Slim Pickins role!!
honora on September 20, 2006 at 1:51 PM
Good thoughts. We seem to have morphed from the United States of America to Anything for a Buck-land. Shameful.
honora on September 20, 2006 at 1:53 PM
Has anybody noticed that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientitsts has ONLY *3* ATOMIC SCIENTISTS on their board of directors? The remaining 18 members of the board are leftwing peaceniks /
AP quotes from Graham Allison’s article:
Give them the HEU, and my local high school science club with access to the shop class could, in theory, make one, too. So what?
IMHO, it is MUCH, MUCH easier to make a fertilizer/fuel oil bomb, like the one they used in 1993 in the 1st attempt at the WTC, using local materials than a nuke. The “home made” bombs postulated would NOT be the advanced multi-megaton weapons, but low order explosives much smaller than the ones we used in WWII.
I think that Allison’s scenario of millions of dead Americans in a broken city as a result of a terrorist-detonated nuke is unlikely. Thousands — the order of magnitude of the 9/11 — certainly.
Since it was asked, the policy for retaliation for a WMD (including chemical and biological as well as nuclear) strike against America is stated in National Security Presidential Directive 17.
The ability to retaliate ought not to be in doubt as presidential succession and the National Command Authority have been a settled issue for decades, and our nuclear strike forces, which are sufficiently dispersed or at sea, could not be neutralized by anybody on this planet — much less al Qaeda with a suitcase bomb, and would be available to strike back, unimpeded.
A better question would be: Would we have the political will to do so? Given the reaction to 9/11, the public anger would, I strongly believe, demand immediate retaliation.
Anybody standing in the way of it would be flattened.
Efforts to prevent such an event need to be improved, that much is certain.
georgej on September 20, 2006 at 4:11 PM