Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalHope
The time has come to ask:
1. What are the ODDS of a major attack by Saddam Hussein on the American homeland?
2. WHEN is such an attack most likely to occur?

And 3. What weapon(s) will be used in the attack? Biological (anthrax, small pox, etc.)? A conventional (fission) nuke? A stolen (or bought) thermonulear fusion bomb from the Russians? A "dirty" bomb? VX or sarin gas?

To attempt to answer your two main questions, I'd suspect that an eventual WMD attack on our shores is very high. However, Saddam Hussein doesn't necessarily have to be behind such an attack. There are multitudes of Islamic terrorist orgs (aside from al Qaeda), and a lot of them are well financed. So the attack can originate from almost anywhere in the radical Islamic world.

When is the attack most likely to occur, you ask? If Saddam is behind it, expect it very shortly (within a couple of months). If it's an Al Qaeda operation, the answer is .....when we least expect it.

6 posted on 09/16/2002 12:58:02 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jack-A-Roe
I'd suspect that an eventual WMD attack on our shores is very high. However, Saddam Hussein doesn't necessarily have to be behind such an attack. There are multitudes of Islamic terrorist orgs (aside from al Qaeda), and a lot of them are well financed. So the attack can originate from almost anywhere in the radical Islamic world.

The strategic corollary to this is that, when an attack does come, we will not be able to identify the attacker. How can we then know who to retaliate against? (After all, in the midst of crisis with country A, country B might decide to attack the U.S. covertly, figuring that the U.S. will retaliate against A, incorrectly assuming that A was the guilty party. We would then have been an unwitting patsy of country B, and our actions would, in fact, encourage the future use of biological weapons against us, because B's secret attack would have succeeded in its goals.)

Moreover, Iraq and everybody else will know that, in the absence of identification of an attacker, retaliation isn't a possibility. Therefore, the former guarantee of retaliation for the use of WMD has ceased to be a deterrent; the attacker just must be careful to deploy the weapon covertly and untraceably.

With the failure of deterrence as a strategic discipline, the only option remaining to us is pre-emption: stopping the development of any WMD which might be a threat to us, before it is used. That's what we're doing with Iraq right now.

By the way, an attack could even originate from some place outside the Islamic world. We do have other enemies who might be sufficiently emboldened to do something like that if they thought they would not be caught.

46 posted on 09/17/2002 10:41:32 AM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson