Works for me.
—Also, I think playing down the atrocity that took place on 9.11 is both callous and foolhardy.—
I don’t think anyone’s trying to play down the emotional impact, but in terms of threats to our entire society, 9.11 wasn’t anywhere near as huge a blow to our economy, political system, and certainly not our military as other countries have taken and survived just fine. It was horrible, and it was unnatural death all concentrated in one time and place, but in the grand picture, its dwarfed by the rest of our huge and diverse country.
It was odd how New York suddenly became beloved and sacred to people who had had nothing but spite and disdain for it before.
Okay, the so-called “dirty bomb” that the press keeps wetting themselves over is not actually a nuclear fission device. It’s a conventional explosive with something nasty added to poison the area. For something like that to make all of NYC “uninhabitable for a century”, it would have to be brought in via tractor trailor.
The only state I know of that did that is Iran, and do you know why? Because they were being oppressed by a US puppet dictator, the Shah, who they kicked out after 20 years of torture, inequality, and unwanted Westernization.
What they have no is far from perfect, but at least it’s there own. They can’t blame us if it fails, unlike that previous regime. And a progressive, educated, Iranian youth is calling for further democratization in that country. Too bad the hard line, fundamentalist jurists have gained power from Bush’s two-dimensional world view of evil-doers and the saintly US.
IMHO, had the U.S. fought with the gloves off, the Vietcong would have given up.
Anyway, what does the Vietcong have to do with Iraq, or the War on Terror? History only repeats itself if its lessons are forgotten. What miscues were committed in Vietnam have been avoided in the conflicts since.
Also, no one is assuming that terrorists won’t attmept anything forevermore – I apologize if I gave you that impression. I do believe that from now on, it will nearly impossible for terrorists to accomplish spectacularly destructive feats on a par with 9-11. Even if they break through now and then, what of it? The lone-nut disasters (like Oklahoma City) will likely never be 100% eliminated, but that doesn’t mean you don’t make life as tough on known terrorists as possible.
Appeasement in any form will not work – of that I’m convinced. My reasoning? If the U.S. were to given to terrorist demands, they’d simply demand more … and more. And on it would go. Terrorism must never become a legitimate means of policy change.
A conventional weapon with radioactive material tied to it is going to be unpleasant anyway you slice it. Vast acres of dense metropolis will be contaminated.
And if you really want to get scary, what about Pakistan’s nuclear program. Bush is stressing Musharraf’s control of that nation to a breaking point. If fundamentalists ever came to power in a coup, then what? And let’s not forget the crack Russian defense teams guarding leftover, Soviet nukes. Or N. Korea.
There is plenty of opportunity for an enterprising young terrorist organization to put the hurt on the US. Don’t let overconfidence be our undoing.
I’m inclined to doubt this, but I am interested in opposing arguments. Would you mind defining for me “dirty nuke”? How is it delivered? How much radioactive material would it carry, and what sort of material would it be? Just what are we talking about here?
What exactly would that entail? Nukes? We killed several million of them.
No one in the world is more prepared or skilled in fighting terrorism than Israel and they still can’t prevent most attacks. Their big plan right now hardlne retaliation and a fence. It’s not working so well. Ireland hasn’t had much luck either. In free and open societies there are just too many vulnerabilities to cover.
I agree with the latter statement, but not the former. We can’t let civilian attack be accepted as an acceptable political tool, especially when non-violent methods like those used in India’s liberation, have proven successful. Which is why I advocate trying both the West and the Islamists in the ICJ. However, I still think compromise and diplomacy are our only hope in the long run.
[Quote]
from the Book of Ecclesiatstes, Chapter 2
[ul][li] 14. The wise have eyes in their head, but fools walk in darkness. Yet I perceived that the same fate befalls all of them. [*]15. Then I said to myself, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also; why then have I been so very wise?” And I said to myself that this also is vanity. [/li][li]16. For there is no enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How can the wise die just like fools? [/li][li]17. So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me; for all is vanity and a chasing after wind.[/ul][/li][/Quote]
[ul]
[sup]Vanity, cainxinth, all is vanity.[/sup][/ul]
cainxinth, do you think that we would be less likely to be terrorized if we weren’t carrying out the War on Iraq? Why or why not? Let us keep in mind that Iraq is a secular nation and that Saddam has no particular love for radical Muslim fundamentalists.
It would depend partially on the isotope used. U-238 may have an initial half-life of 4 billion years, but with such a long half-life it’s not all that radioactive. Pu-239 would be nasty, especially with its toxicity aside from radiological effects. There are well-documented cases of cesium (dang it, what is it?) being intentionally if uninformedly spread around in the former Soviet republics and causing all sorts of trouble to the people who came in contact with it.
To be honest, I would be most worried about Pu-239 in terms of initial damage, but that’s not easy to get. I think a better prospect would be to go for medical isotopes and use those. Cesium would be bad because of its ability to replace calcium and cause leukemia along with other nasty things.
I would think you’d also have to take into account possible chemical reactions, depending on how much heat you just put into the system and what the resulting compounds would do.
According to a simulation by the Center for Strategic and International Studies described in this [url=http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066819]Slate** article. A dirty bomb exploded in Washington DC would spread over 25% of the city kill hundreds of thousands of people, and eventually many more as people run home and to hospitals and spread the contamination. Three such bombs in NYC, DC, and LA would be a disaster beyond comprehension.
Afghanistan? Political undercurrents in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others? Lebanon? Terrorists in the Philippines?
Israel’s way != America’s way
What do Israel’s actions against terrorism have to do with the America’s actions against domestic terrorism? Why do they necessarily have much in common? Also, I’m betting that Israel does, in fact, manage to thwart the vast majority of domestic attacks – but those don’t make the news. Sorry, no cite – but I believe it.
That’s the third time in three days someone has responded to me with scripture. I’m starting to worry here. 
I’ll tell you what I think USAs mistake was.
It gave the world the finger with both hands while annoyingly repeating “nya nya nya, I don’t care what you losers think”
This registered quite severely in the “Hate-the-Yanks-o-meter” all over the world.
That, is not good. Little Usama’s are popping up everywhere.
Afghanistan? You must be joking. We’re else could a fringe, radical group like the Taliban come to power but in the war torn remains of a US (via the Mujahideen) – USSR war? Saudi Arabia? There just another US supported monarch, and they have no plans for expansion that I’ve ever seen. Egypt? Yeah Egypt will be marching on Washington any day now, right after they cash their check for billions of dollars in US aid (second most behind Israel). Lebanon is fighting Israel and its backers and the scars of occupation. The Philippines isn’t seeking world domination either, just the redress of grievances like all other states harboring terrorists.
The cite you give does not support the dirty-nuke damage you posit. From your Slate article:
Now, I don’t exactly agree with Anderson – the lives lost would certainly be greivous and significant in a very real emotional sense. But even his scenario does not yield a body count in the millions or the uninhabitability of a city for 100 years.
The Mossad is one of, if not the most capable intelligence agencies in the world. Frankly, I put more stock in them than our massive, bureaucratic nightmare, the dept of Homeland security, or our FBI and CIA which can’t even communicate properly with each other, even after insane expansion of their power by the Patriot Act. Israel lives in constant danger. America is heading down that path.
Maybe you should be the one quoting me scripture.
True, I admit to overstating the threat, but a real Pakistani nuke could do that, or a series of dirty bombs. Regardless, we are not invulnerable in any sense of the word, and that is the main point.