Study: 3 million would die in worst-case Calif. terror scenario

bayarea ^

[chance33_98]

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A little-noticed study ponders the unthinkable: What would happen if a terrorist unleashed a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon in the nation's most populous state?

The answer is as chilling as the question: In a worst-case scenario, as many as 3 million Californians would perish.

[GaryMontana]

This is another argument for racial profiling!

Time to kick out the illegal immigrants from THE USA!

[john in missouri]

In a worst-case scenario, as many as 3 million Californians would perish.

I'm not touching this one!

[Mr. Mojo]

I'm not touching this one!

Good idea. The Free Republic is headquartered in CA, ya know.

[Hunble]

And the down side is?

[john in missouri]

The Free Republic is headquartered in CA, ya know.

Proving that light does indeed shine in darkness!

[zarf]

Ouch! Keep your head down dude.....

[The Great Satan]

Anthrax and other lethal biological agents pose the biggest danger in the wrong hands -- far worse than a small nuclear device or a chemical attack with a ton of sarin gas, the substance used in a 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, the RAND study found.

[Mr. Mojo]

And the down side is?

A lot of good Freeper folks you're acquainted with would perish. Is that down enough for you, smart guy?

[MissAmericanPie]

Yeah, preparing for an attack is so much better than sane visa policies, protected borders, or deportations. More exciting to live on the edge I guess.

[Monty22]

I simply do not believe that. A nuke would set fires that'll kill millions in a region. Especially one over 100 kilotons.

Anthrax and smallpox just aren't as likely to kill the same numbers.

[Cultural Jihad]

What's the loss of a mere 3 million innocent lives compared to the terrible loss of liberty of one sole belligerent Mr. Jose Padilla? Woe is us who are ruled by the iron heels of fascism and statism, because Jose isn't allowed to play cards and toke hashish with his buddies as they assemble weapons of mass destruction to poison and kill us infidels by the millions! < /ideological rant >

[Mitchell]

Anthrax and other lethal biological agents pose the biggest danger in the wrong hands -- far worse than a small nuclear device or a chemical attack with a ton of sarin gas, the substance used in a 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway, the RAND study found.

Strategically, anthrax is also much more difficult to deal with than nuclear weapons.

As we've seen over the past year, the attacker in the case of an anthrax attack may be very difficult to identify. This is much less likely to be true in the case of a nuclear bomb, because of the scale of the engineering involved and the fact that significant amounts of fissionable material must be either obtained from elsewhere or made in a reactor -- and all of these things are traceable.

In contrast, anthrax can be produced in a much smaller, less identifiable lab. In addition, only a very small quantity of anthrax needs to be obtained (and it's easy to do so), since it reproduces itself under easily produced conditions. (Weaponization does require work, but it's nothing like what is needed for the construction of a nuclear weapon.)

As a result, anthrax might be used in a gamble that there would be no retaliation, since the source of the anthrax might be successfully hidden and we wouldn't know who to retaliate against.

In the long term, the principle of deterrence (that has worked so well in preventing nuclear war since 1949) may be on its last legs. But it's not at all clear what can replace it. Pre-emptive attacks? Better defenses? Do we just reconcile ourselves to living in a more chaotic, increasingly violent world?

[Pelham]

Shoot. Last night it was an earthquake. Over the weekend it was the huge brushfires. Tonight 3 million of us are gonna die. Promises, promises.

[The Great Satan]

Do we just reconcile ourselves to living in a more chaotic, increasingly violent world?

This is why Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al have been at pains to stress that we are in a new era in which pre-emption is mandatory. They are not kidding around. This is the world we live in, post-9/11. Better get used to it.

[lewislynn]

3 million would die in worst-case Calif. terror scenario

The death of innocent lives would please some mindless, California hating nitwits...at least one has already chimed in.

[Mr. Mojo]

Excellent points. Traditional deterrence against WMD attack - Mutually Assured Destruction [MAD] - certainly wasn't foolproof (actually it was far from it), but it served us well enough during the Cold War. There is nothing that can be used against well financed and determined Jihadists that can be even remotely close to being as successful. Along with the strategies you mentioned (pre-emptive attacks, better border defenses, reconciling ourselves to living in an increasingly violent world, etc.), I'd also add deportation of all illegals and a very strict immigration policy. It's the only chance we have.

[chance33_98]

Shoot. Last night it was an earthquake. Over the weekend it was the huge brushfires. Tonight 3 million of us are gonna die. Promises, promises.

None of that stuff will destroy california, the democrats will do that all by themselves. Speaking of which, my wife was at a big shindig tonight with a lot of uppity democrats in Pasadena - cavair, nice gifts (she got me one), and all that jazz. They complain about the homeless and wanting to take my money to help them - next time tell them to eat fried chicken and use their own money to help the homeless.

Some people do need help, and I have helped some on my own - but the dems want to control the flow of money to help others for their own desires. Take Half of the money they want to spend and build one big shelter to let people live in, as much as they have wasted it could be a 5000 room mansion.

[rockfish59]

Are there 3 million people in Hollywood?
That's who the scumbags really hate anyway!

[Hunble]

Joke!

But the last time I looked, the "good guys" are living in the California valley.