The Ultimate Guide To Terror (A Respected Muslim Finally Says What Needs To Be Said)

Convention Lecture | April, 2004 | Haim Harari

[Southack]

"India yes, but they can take care of themselves. Taiwan... do you really think a US President would initiate a nuclear response if China attacked Taiwan? Really? Not a prayer. You clearly don't understand the impotence of power."

Taiwan financed, South Africa provided the location and the uranium, and Israel provided the technical expertise to develop their atomic arsenals. That's how Israel got the bomb. South Africa has voluntarily disarmed and abandoned its nuclear arsenal, but I doubt that Taiwan has felt so inclined.

As I made painfully evident in my original post, China gets nuked *EVEN WITHOUT THE U.S.* intervening in any Indian or Taiwanese invasion.

China is surrounded by nuclear neighbors. Taiwan, India, North Korea, Russia, and Pakistan. Their little neighbor Vietnam isn't nuclear, but it managed to whip the PLA left, right, up, and down, back in 1979 when China got uppity.

Thus, China's ability to militarily expand even in their own region is in serious question.

And if they can't expand their dominance (heck, they might not even be dominate over India, Taiwan, and Japan as it is) regionally, then by default they can't dominate the planet per yer ridiculous "global domination" theory.

[Southack]

"Why would they bother rousing India?"

Well, if they wanted to follow your "global domination" theory, then they'd have to rouse everyone on the globe.

Which frankly is so ludicrous as to be laughable. China can't even dominate its own region. It has barely more people than India, is less productive than Japan, and is surrounded in its own region by nuclear powers.

If you can't dominate your own region, then by default you can't dominate the globe.

[ODC-GIRL]

Bump for later

[Southack]

"ICBMs from China are the least my worries and nuclear war is far more survivable than you depict (as the Chinese know since our own experts went there to show them how... thanks to RINO, Nixon). Unless we are going to inspect every container ship on the high seas, we have no idea whence a nuclear or biological attack may originate from ships spread out all over the planet and in our ports."

Nuclear attacks via slow overseas container ships are a very dicey, very unlikely situation. Doable, but extremely unlikely due to the technical support that nukes require.

The half life of the atomic trigger isotopes is typically less than 90 days. Likewise, the radiation from the atomic core and shell plays havoc with the electronics and conventional explosives used to start the chain reaction. Moreover, heavy metals such as uranium and plutonium are among the most rust-prone, fragile metals known to man...not a great thing to have working against you if you are trying to ship a working device overseas...and the assembly of such devices on-site requires extremely competent personnel and a clean lab...something that takes a fair amount of effort to put onto an ocean going seasick machine for an 8 to 12 week journey.

And such an attack would only work once. All ships would be halted miles off of our coasts after the first successful blast.

As for a bio attack...bio agents are piss poor military weapons. They make for great terror weapons because they frighten the effeminate liberal news media...but they don't kill on the spot and can be contained and fought with medical technology.

[Southack]

"Our JIT economy with its food supply lines all over the world doesn't carry the inventory to sustain even a minor interruption."

Who spoon fed you such nonsense?

Imports and exports combined only make up 15% of our entire economy. They could disappear tomorrow and 85% of America would never miss 'em.

Currently, 9.5% of our annual GDP is from imports, while 5.5% is what we export. Well, if all imports were gone tomorrow, that would mean that we'd have to grow our domestic economy by 9.5% to make up for what we no longer imported.

That's hardly something to fear. Throw me into that briar patch.

[Southack]

"... I emphasize privatizing regulation of access to domestic energy sources as the critical first step."

I'm all for it. Drill Alaska, off of the coast of California and Florida, and in federal forests.

Drill like mad.

But don't get too worked up about it. Almost the entire German war machine of WW2 was run off of coal oil, something that becomes economically viable here in the U.S. today if oil stays above $45 per barrel for any great length of time...and the U.S. has more coal than the rest of the world combined. We can make coal oil long after Saudi Arabia has bled their last oil well dry.

What crude oil does is give us *cheap* energy. But replacements for crude (e.g. coal oil, propane, nuclear, solar, etc.) are simply a little more expensive.

Not a lot, just a little more expensive. We can live without them if we have to. Knock 5% off of one year's GDP and 2.5% off of the next and you'd probably come reasonably close to how we'd look if there was no more black crude oil for whatever reason.

[lonevoice]

ping and bump!

[jonascord]

bttt

[Diddle E. Squat]

bump

[bjcintennessee]

Ping

Very loooooooong article, but a good read.

[Clock King]

Awesome. The man is genius.

[Carry_Okie]

The half life of the atomic trigger isotopes is typically less than 90 days.

The transit time for a container ship across the Pacific is less than ten days.

And such an attack would only work once. All ships would be halted miles off of our coasts after the first successful blast.

The Chinese have a missile laucncher that fits into a container. No such luck. They could deliver a good many missiles that way and our SDI system would be worthless.

As for a bio attack...bio agents are piss poor military weapons.

But very effective for causing domestic panic, as I said. So far, all you've done is reinforce my point.

[Carry_Okie]

Who spoon fed you such nonsense?

Oh, it has something to do with being a former manufacturing engineer who was peripherally involved in supply chain management.

Imports and exports combined only make up 15% of our entire economy.

Fifteen percent is plenty. Try doing without memory chips or ASICs for cars and see how far your production goes.

[Carry_Okie]

But don't get too worked up about it. Almost the entire German war machine of WW2 was run off of coal oil, something that becomes economically viable here in the U.S. today if oil stays above $45 per barrel for any great length of time...and the U.S. has more coal than the rest of the world combined. We can make coal oil long after Saudi Arabia has bled their last oil well dry.

This shows how little you understand the problem. Having the coal is one thing. Having the mining infrastructure to ramp up production is another, especially with regard to sufficient skilled personnel. The situation is similar in virtually every resource business, from farming to timber. Regulation has virtually destroyed whole industries. They don't just restart at the drop of a hat.

[Southack]

"This shows how little you understand the problem. Having the coal is one thing. Having the mining infrastructure to ramp up production is another, especially with regard to sufficient skilled personnel."

On the contrary, I'm intimately familiar with coal, as it is a major Alabama mining industry (think: Drummond). We even drill and produce natural gas from underground coal deposits (check out DOM on the stock market).

Our coal infrastructure is here. We can ramp up production to fantastic levels with no problem.

[Southack]

"The transit time for a container ship across the Pacific is less than ten days."

You can't put nukes onto enough container ships to gain global domination.

The risks are huge. You'd have strategic assets in transit for DAYS that would subject you to immediate obliteration if caught - something that a shipping fire or sinking could easily do to you, and accidents happen on the high seas.

And even then, you'd only be taking out a few coastal cities at most before being obliterated.

And that's presuming that your atomic trigger isotopes hadn't decayed too much, that your electrical circuits and conventional explosives on your nukes had survived the radiation during the transit - sans clean room maintenance, that the slightest bit of moisture hadn't rendered the heavy metals of your atomic core and shell into useless rust, and that your core and shell hadn't been cracked by getting bumped in any rough seas (plutonium and uranium are among the most brittle metals known).

[lainde]

BTTT

[Carry_Okie]

You can't put nukes onto enough container ships to gain global domination.

Of course not. What you can do is disable the lead competitor. That's a mighty good start.

The risks are huge.

They always have been. It's never stopped any number of ambitious malefactors.

You'd have strategic assets in transit for DAYS that would subject you to immediate obliteration if caught - something that a shipping fire or sinking could easily do to you, and accidents happen on the high seas.

Tojo took that risk. Hitler took that risk. The reaction was slower, but they knew the chances they were taking. The Russians were planning to do it, even when the world was nuclear. Some think they're still up to something. You do know about the scale of the bunkers under the Urals?

And even then, you'd only be taking out a few coastal cities at most before being obliterated.

A few coastal cities? How about nearly all of them. Have you looked at the population distribution of the US?

And that's presuming that your atomic trigger isotopes hadn't decayed too much, that your electrical circuits and conventional explosives on your nukes had survived the radiation during the transit - sans clean room maintenance, that the slightest bit of moisture hadn't rendered the heavy metals of your atomic core and shell into useless rust, and that your core and shell hadn't been cracked by getting bumped in any rough seas (plutonium and uranium are among the most brittle metals known).

All easily doable, in fact, maintaining clean and dry conditions within a container is done every day. So is putting technical staff on the ships for final preparation.

[Carry_Okie]

Our coal infrastructure is here. We can ramp up production to fantastic levels with no problem.

I know about continuous mining. I don't buy doubling output with "no problem." Further, most of the target power plants are designed to burn gas. Converting them to coal is not quick or easy, however doable it might be. The necessary distribution infrastructure is problematic too. Then there's getting the real estate near a rail line in an urban area for dealing with coal storage and delivery near the transmission grid or else installing the delivery lines. That isn't quick or easy either.

By contrast, nuclear plants are on their way to becoming a local drop-in installation, and far easier to tie into the existing transmission grid. Because they are small, the system is less subject to single-point failures. Their design makes them a very difficult target for terrorists too.

[myheroesareDeadandRegistered]

But the real fear comes from the undisputed fact that no defense and no preventive measures can succeed against a determined suicide murderer. This has not yet penetrated the thinking of the Western World. The U.S. and Europe are constantly improving their defense against the last murder, not the next one. We may arrange for the best airport security in the world. But if you want to murder by suicide, you do not have to board a plane in order to explode yourself and kill many people. Who could stop a suicide murder in the midst of the crowded line waiting to be checked by the airport metal detector? How about the lines to the check-in counters in a busy travel period? Put a metal detector in front of every train station in Spain and the terrorists will get the buses. Protect the buses and they will explode in movie theaters, concert halls, supermarkets, shopping malls, schools and hospitals. Put guards in front of every concert hall and there will always be a line of people to be checked by the guards and this line will be the target, not to speak of killing the guards themselves. You can somewhat reduce your vulnerability by preventive and defensive measures and by strict border controls but not eliminate it and definitely not win the war in a defensive way. And it is a war.

This is the best part I found in the article. All this Homeland Security crappola of "Terror Alert Level ORANGE" and airport screening. etc. is a joke. The terrorists say "BOO!" and we jump. Bet they get a big kick out of watching us flinch on CNN.

"They" are going to try and kill us no matter what precautions we take. We should do as Israel does. They kill 1 Israeli, then Israel flattens a terrorist's neighborhood. Eventually attrition of the islamobombers will take it's toll.