WAR: 'High risk' of WMD attack in decade

Originally posted by Muaddib
So i guess noone who responded to this thread wants to know when terrorists make more threats against the US or the world, neither do any of you want to know anything about any other study having to do with terrorism.....

Hey, that's what denying ignorance is all about right?...

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Muaddib]

I think you are missing the point of the objections, I don't anybody is so much objecting on the grounds that they don't want to hear something would happen, but the study is so vague and doesn't really give any helpful information.
It doesn't give anything to prepare for, or say anything about people at risk, it is just out there saying "be afriad, all of you, run around like headless chickens and be afraid!"

If there is something significant to be said that might help somebody other than "hey, something bad might happen" I would appreciate the news.
But this is just coming across as a scare tactic.

Originally posted by Moretti


The highest risk comes, according to the experts from a dirty bomb ? I agree with them in assessing at 100% the risk of a use of such a weapon, as it already has been used by the US in Iraq, in the form of a film of uranium dust spread all across the country.

No kidding. All a terrorist has to do is go pick up shards of depleted uranium all over the place in Iraq. If I didn't know better, I'd think the whole purpose of using depleted uranium is a covert way of getting low grade radioactive material into the hands of terrorists who will then purpetuate the cycle of terror until Patriot Act X finally institutes an actual dictatorship with absolute power.

.
What is the precise definition of a WMD?
I don't believe currently there is one, its kind of a vague reference.

It is so vague it can not help but sound like a psychic prediction.

I predict there will be an explosion in the Universe in the next millisecond.
Hey, i was right, I must be psychic, the surface of the Sun is constantly exploding.

What is the precise definition of terrorism.
Someone creating horrific events.
Does a terrorist have to have an agenda?
Would they still be a terrorist if they simply were some saddistic freak who like to see people be horrified?

Remember, terror is a subjective emotional state of mind.
One person's terror may be another's saddistic pleasure, and may be another person's eyeroll of boredom.

We usually associate terrorism with political/religious objectives of a group not capable of mounting a full fledged military confrontation, and therefore resorting to emotional kidnap. By occupying the minds of others with fear of violently dramatic/horrifying events that are unpredictable you can in some [rare?] circumstance convince people/govenments to change their ways.
For some people it may not be so much about acheiving an actual goal as much as [like suicide] smearing in the face of the world how ardently wronged and victimized you have been.

The ability to manipulate people using terror is highly dependant on their mind sets.

You would have to be highly motivated to commit acts of terrorism. It is hard for me to imagine it done for simply for economic gain. You might hire an uncaring sociopath to commit an act, but the person doing the hiring, knowing the stakes, would probably have some religious or ideological ie. strong emotional connection to it.

Do you think there could be someone so cold-blooded, dispassionate and ruthlessly rational that they could kill thousands of people simply to achieve some functional objective without a single thought of them as human beings? Im not sure about that.

I think it is interesting the strong emotional connection many of the anti-terrorist people have to it. It almost comes accross as a sort of mutual addiction, between the terrorist and the terrorist fighter. In many ways they seem more alike than different. But that is just my opinion.
.

Originally posted by subz
WMD's are currently defined as biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

so... like... smallpox infected blankets?

How about if I poison someone? Surely that is biological or chemical. What if I re-create radon water and start selling it again, surely that is nuclear.

There must be some death-potential threshold where they would define such an action as WMD. It can't simple be defined by the method of harm.



[edit on 2005/6/28 by McGrude]

[edit on 2005/6/28 by McGrude]

.
In the Middle ages they used to catapult plauge infected corpses of animals and people over the wall in siege situations, would that be a WMD?

I suppose you might assign some necessary number of people killed or injured as being the threshold for calling it a WMD.

Terrorism isn't really so much about numbers or strategic effect as it is shock and horror, to make people nauseous with fear. It sort of assumes people have a low threshold for fear/anxiety of imminent death or injury.
The more violence you see, though, the less effect it tends to have.
.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Moretti


The highest risk comes, according to the experts from a dirty bomb ? I agree with them in assessing at 100% the risk of a use of such a weapon, as it already has been used by the US in Iraq, in the form of a film of uranium dust spread all across the country.

No kidding. All a terrorist has to do is go pick up shards of depleted uranium all over the place in Iraq. If I didn't know better, I'd think the whole purpose of using depleted uranium is a covert way of getting low grade radioactive material into the hands of terrorists who will then purpetuate the cycle of terror until Patriot Act X finally institutes an actual dictatorship with absolute power.

You do know that although the depleted uranium is radioactive, there is not enough depleted uranium in Iraq for them to make a Nuclear bomb that would do damage? right? It takes a lot of material to even make a small nuclear explosion. :|

Originally posted by Odium

You do know that although the depleted uranium is radioactive, there is not enough depleted uranium in Iraq for them to make a Nuclear bomb that would do damage? right? It takes a lot of material to even make a small nuclear explosion. :|

The concern is a dirty bomb, not a nuke.

The Power of Nightmares, a BBC2 documentary has already shown dirty bombs would do no damage except the initial explosion. Including testings some RDD's and measuring the level of radiation. As well as interviewing leading experts in the field who all bet their careers on it.

So yet again, there's not enough DU to make it go nuclear and do damage.

Power of Nightmares
And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and, in the process, they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But, in reality, the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion, but almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and, providing the area was cleaned promptly, the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past, both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.

Edit:

INTERVIEWER : How dangerous would a dirty bomb be?

DR THEODORE ROCKWELL , NUCLEAR SCIENTIST AND RADIATION RISK EXPERT : The deaths would be few, if any, and the answer is, probably none.

LEWIS Z KOCH , BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS : The dirty bomb—the danger from radioactivity is basically next to nothing. The danger from panic, however, is horrendous. That’s where the irony comes. This—instead of the government saying, “Look, this is not a serious weapon; the serious danger of this is the panic that would ensue, and there is no reason for panic. Don’t panic.”

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Odium]

Originally posted by Odium
So yet again, there's not enough DU to make it go nuclear and do damage.

The goal of terrorism is to inflict terror. The amount of actual destruction is irrelevant.

If they did nothing but gather up shards of depleted uranium and fashion a conventional explosive to spread the debris, it would be as effective as a real nuke in creating terror.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Odium
So yet again, there's not enough DU to make it go nuclear and do damage.

The goal of terrorism is to inflict terror. The amount of actual destruction is irrelevant.

If they did nothing but gather up shards of depleted uranium and fashion a conventional explosive to spread the debris, it would be as effective as a real nuke in creating terror.

Only because the Government does not educate people on it, if they did then there would be no problem. Also the whole "terror" and "fear" aspect would go after a while - so it would only be short term damage. Which can be stopped right now.

Yes but when the government is the one making the major contribution to the amount of terror generated from such weapons, you have to ask yourself: why?

Because fear is the greatest form of control over and un-educated population. While they fear what the outside World can do to them they will allow there Government to get away with anything to protect them.

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, all used this form of Government to control the people.