The Terror Ahead A nuclear attack? Be very afraid.

Wall Street Journal ^ | Oct. 21, 2003 | GABRIEL SCHOENFELD

[SevenDaysInMay]

Immediate havoc from death, destruction, contamination, and creation of refugees (for All Jazz Era rebroadcast) plus hundreds of billion$ in long-term costs to our economy is certainly our mortal enemies' goal.

Crippling our economy is Qaeda's stated goal as they cannot hope engage our military.

A dirty bomb provides nearly the same costs to us because of the transgenerational "area-deniability" from highly mobile, bargain, conveniently small amounts of common radioactive material. Many, many thousands of sources of this stuff exists in addition to the USSR's agricultural crap left laying around.

Decades of our fantasyland living will crash to an end as surely as the civilian souls in the four flights and WTC. At least our Pentagon victims were at work in the defense of our USA; thank God for them.

Americans face mortal enemies who will to kill as many Americans as they can. We shall take many more casualties, men, women, and children. Birth defects will punish the Great Satan's infedels.

[chimera]

The reactors in N. Korea and Iran are running, which means if we bomb them we create two more Chernobyls.

Not likely. The ones in Iran use LWR technology. I think the NK one is also. Different accident evolutions. Even if you bomb them when they're running and take out the redundant safety systems, LWR accident sequences evolve more slowly (in credible cases) than the burnout-type accident of a graphite-moderated, water-cooled system. You'll get some local contamination and maybe limited downwind fallout if a large-scale meltdown occurs, but not the explosive energy release (non-nuclear) of a Chornobil event.

[polemikos]

The combination of:
1 - insane regimes (e.g., North Korea, Iran)
2 - rogue nuclear programs
3 - world-wide terror organizations
4 - unconventional delivery systems (e.g.,truck, cargo containers)
makes for an exquisitely difficult environment.

A missle strike seems highly unlikely. Too easy to trace. But a nuclear bomb in a cargo container? There's not much left to analyze post event.

Now add in major players with significant anti-US attitudes (e.g., France, China, Russia, U.N.). Anything that might hurt us is seen as a "good" in their eyes. The U.S. can expect minimal support from them.

[StriperSniper]

Excellent post, Thanks.

[okie01]

"We, (America) didn't drop the two atomic bombs in anger, but in a cold, calculating decision."

"Fired (or bombed) in anger" is an expression, diplomatic vernacular, if you will. It is simply used to distinguish training or test usage from usage with intent to kill.

[playball0]

BTTT

[flamefront]

One needs to add the glaring omission from this article that just as it is published there now is a
Pakistan-Saudi secret agreement on nuclear cooperation
(now confirmed by UPI).

The "Islamic Bomb" is proliferating.

[flamefront]

Of course this is all from the same source since the French have been replaced by the Chinese who now feed both Pakistan and North Korea. So that makes the Saudi technology actually sourced from the Chinese.

[Teacher317]

It is fascinating to note is that Hiroshima is today a thriving metropolis, and became such only years afterwards... not the untold centuries of nuclear wasteland that the Left tells us is the inevitable result.

Also intriguing is the typical liberal mantra that the Japanese were close to surrender, and that the atomic bombs were an unnecessary evil that America unleashed on the planet (their motto: "USA, evil all the way"). Contrast that notion with the fact that Japan did NOT surrender after Hiroshima!!! Three days later, we had to drop ANOTHER one! Exactly how close to surrender can you be if you take an atomic blast and still keep fighting? The idea that taking mainland Japan would NOT have taken more than 150,000 US and/or Japanese lives is ludicrous. Truman made the right call.

[ASA Vet]

The reactors in N. Korea and Iran are running,
which means if we bomb them we create two more Chernobyls

If those sites are nuked the "fuel" will just enhance the desired effect.
Wind direction is important though,
NK should be done when the wind is from the south.
Iran when it's from NNW.

[RightWhale]

It is nothing other than opportunistic milking of the constant threat of thermonuclear annihilation that has caused the seismic devolution of our society. The slide to social oblivion was halted for a couple years by WTC911, but now the country is back on track. Next stop: the Iron Heel Zone.

[americanSoul]

Whatever the constraints on our resources, the challenge is unmistakable and cannot be dodged. The price of action is likely to be high, very high; the price of inaction is likely to be much higher. Courtesy of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, we have already had to relearn the lesson of Pearl Harbor in a second and more terrible form. In the age of terrorism and nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to relearn it a third time and a fourth.

Thanks for posting this. Very sobering indeed.

Regarding hits on operational nuclear reactors, perhaps there is a way to bomb them that would minimize radioactive dispersal.

[Maigrey]

Back when I was in school (ages ago now.....) I did research about the bomb drops of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Part of the intrigue was the effects and the affects on the people who were involved, and the amount of devestation on the city itself.

Alas, if some socialist media (bleep) wants to think that American soldiers could have taken Nippon with 150,000 troops, and been able to subjugate the inhabitants, it would have been a slaughter for both sides. There would have been no way 'cept dropping the bomb(s).

What peace-at-all-costs loving pansies fail to remember is that
A. a man with nothing to fight for 'cept his home is extremely dangerous.
B. a man with nothing to fight for 'cept his freedom is lethal.

[backhoe]

Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical Warfare- Survival Skills, Pt. II

[Hegemony Cricket]

Long article, but well worth the read.

Crediting my FRiend, "The Brush", here: "Violence is never the answer, but sometimes it takes the question completely off the table."

[mercy]

The West is toast. We just don't have a strong enough will to live. The feminization of the culture has rendered us impotent and whipped. I fully expect the Rats to win in '04 unless Al Queda blesses us with another huge terrorist strike. Face the facts. "On the Beach" is the novel of our generation. We just didn't fully comprehend the plot twists.

[Orangedog]

A dirty bomb provides nearly the same costs to us because of the transgenerational "area-deniability" from highly mobile, bargain, conveniently small amounts of common radioactive material. Many, many thousands of sources of this stuff exists in addition to the USSR's agricultural crap left laying around.

Al Qaeda showed on 9/11 that they don't intend to do anything peacemeal when attacking the US on our own soil. The investigation of the 1993 WTC bombing revealed that their objective was to bring down at least one of the towers in that attack and likely hoped that if one came down, that it might topple into the adjoining tower or several other smaller buildings. 9/11 was the ultimate example of their zeal for increasingly more devistating attacks.

I don't think that a radiological bomb would be "big enough" for them next time around. Their margain of success would be too dependant on the weather for an optimal dispersal of the radioactive material.

IMO, the next likely AQ move will be another coordinated, multiple event type of attack, like chem/bio weapons used in densly populated places like shopping malls and/or sporting events, or a full-fledged nuclear bomb. The bomb would likely be targeted at one of our shipping ports (probably New York again) since they wouldn't have to risk getting caught moving it inside the country.

[princess leah]

I disagree with you - we just aren't rabid about it like the terrorists, but I guarantee you there won't be a terrorist repeat onboard a commercial vehicle of ANY sort due to the anger of the American people and their determination to not go down without a fight!

[what's up]

The author mentions S. Africa. He mentions it as having been the rare case in which a country willingly de-nuclearized.

[CatoRenasci]

He calls himself a cannoneer, which suggests he's an artillery gun bunny rather than a tanker or cavalryman. Artillery does have HEAT rounds for some field howitzers (105mm, 155mm??), but does not use SABOT, that's only a tank main gun munition fired from a gun, not a howitzer or even gun/howitzers. The US Army artillery hasn't employed a gun since the 175mm was retired (which did not have SABOT rounds)

From the Blockhouse on Signal Mountain, right 100, drop 50 and Fire for Effect!