# Response to terrorists' nuclear threat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2002, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125 "2002-05-21T16:50:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/1 "2002-05-21T16:50:26Z")
So Defense Secretary Rumsfeld believes that [terrorists will get nuclear weapons](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=1&cid=514&u=/ap/20020521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_warnings_19). (Please, please prove him wrong, God). Let’s say that the “authorities” had good intelligence that an act of nuclear terrorism was imminent. What should be done? I suppose it depends, in part, on the specifics of the intelligence. Say if New York had been named specifically, versus a threat targeted to an “urban centre on the Atlantic Coast”. Even in the former case, would you call for an evacuation of the city? Would the ‘terrorists have won’ if they watch eight million people scramble in panic and no nuclear attack materializes? How about if they do this every few weeks, to different cities? Could we ever afford to ignore or discount the intelligence and/or warnings. The thought of this type of thing makes me feel ill. I have no good answers. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/2 "2002-05-21T18:35:05Z")
First of all **Karl** calm down.Second of all a terrorist group does not have access to or capability to build a large scale tactical nuke. So we are not talking about the end of the world or anything like that. We are talking about ‘dirty’ Bombs. Which are a radioactive substance dispersed with an explosive. Causing a horrible clean up and a horrendous mess. Infecting people in a small group very badly. ‘not all of new york’ mind you but a definite percentage. Second the gov’t is doing everything they can to stop the terrorists that are already living in the US from ever being able to do this. So in that case it would have to come from abroad. Which is very very hard to do. Won’t arrive on a plane, but may come in a ship. Thats why we have the coast guard. Getting worked up is futile. Remaining vigilant is key. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/3 "2002-05-21T19:56:47Z")
Thanks **Phlosphr** for the somewhat reassuring response, but I think you’re being a bit sanguine. First, I think Rumsfeld is talking about honest-to-goodness nuclear weapons (made in places like North Korea), and not merely “dirty bombs”. Second, even low yield weapons can have devastating effect. The radius for a 50% fatality rate, due to _radiation alone_, for a “puny” 0.01 kiloton weapon is 250 meters (and is over 1 km for residual longer-term exposure, i.e. fall-out). For a 0.1 kiloton yield, the 50% fatality radius is 450 meters (and nearly 3 km for fall-out). My question remains regardless: Given reliable intelligence that an attack was imminent, should the city be evacuated? ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/4 "2002-05-21T20:09:03Z")
As of right now, on Fox News Network they’re showing Helicopters monitoring all the landmarks, citing specifically the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. Memorial Day weekend coming up, remember. I’m worried, but trying not to go crazy like I did in September. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/5 "2002-05-22T03:16:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KarlGauss \* > \*\*My question remains regardless: Given reliable intelligence that an attack was imminent, should the city be evacuated? \*\* But you’ve set your question up in a way that the answer is obvious - if the intelligence is, by definition, relaible, then yes, of course you evacuate the city. The problem is that the intelligence, even “relaible” intelligence, is not all that reliable. If a nuclear weapon was detonated on US soil by a foreign terrorist group, I would do the following in UnaWorld: 1. Offer a bounty of $10,000,000 per terrorist group member, payable in whatever currency or negotiable securities desired, dead or alive. 2. If the terrorist group had a clearly identifiable base in a country that supported them, I would use nuclear weapons to strike their base under the War Powers Act. Even if it was nothing but an evacuated camp in the middle of the desert, I would still use them. Why? So I would show other countries that harbor similar terrorists that yes, we will use weapons of mass destruction, and the next time we may not “punish” a barren desert. Next time, it might be their capital city that is “punished”. Once you do it once, it shows people that the “unthinkable” is actually quite doable. 3. Ask Congress for a formal Declaration of War against each and every country which supported the terrorists, and then invade them to bring about “regime change”. 4. If the terrorist group was based in the US, eliminate options 2 and 3. I know these opinions will not be popular, but you can take them at face value. They are only IMO. ---
**Author:** ![ice1000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ice1000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ice1000)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/6 "2002-05-22T03:21:54Z")
BTW, what do you think about this new movie coming out soon, “The Mother of all Fears”? It deal just with that, a terrorist buys a nuclear bomb from the Russians and is going to detonate it in the US. You think it’s appropriate to release this type of movie nowadays? ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/7 "2002-05-22T03:28:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > \*\*BTW, what do you think about this new movie coming out soon, “The Mother of all Fears”? It deal just with that, a terrorist buys a nuclear bomb from the Russians and is going to detonate it in the US. > > You think it’s appropriate to release this type of movie nowadays? \*\* It is very topical. Now is a very good time to release it. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/8 "2002-05-22T04:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phlosphr \* > First of all **Karl** calm down.Second of all a terrorist group does not have access to or capability to build a large scale tactical nuke. So we are not talking about the end of the world or anything like that. We are talking about ‘dirty’ Bombs. Which are a radioactive substance dispersed with an explosive. Causing a horrible clean up and a horrendous mess. Infecting people in a small group very badly. ‘not all of new york’ mind you but a definite percentage. > Second the gov’t is doing everything they can to stop the terrorists that are already living in the US from ever being able to do this. So in that case it would have to come from abroad. Which is very very hard to do. Won’t arrive on a plane, but may come in a ship. Thats why we have the coast guard. Getting worked up is futile. Remaining vigilant is key. Are you sure? There are reports that several suitcase nuclear weapons are unaccounted for in the Russian inventory. If one believes stories recently published that the former Soviet Union had planted suitcase nuclear weapons in America, and now cannot account for all of them being removed, who is to say they are not still here? Who is to say that terrorists are trying to buy some from cash-strapped disgruntled Russian military members? Despite the political rhetoric to the contrary, it is still relatively easy to smuggle [drugs | illegal aliens | baby nukes | etc] without detection in the USA. Take a look at the RAND report from December 1999 - [http://www.rand.org/organization/nsrd/terrpanel/terror.pdf](http://www.rand.org/organization/nsrd/terrpanel/terror.pdf) One _should_ assume US authorites are looking at **all** possible scenarios, and that whatever they tell us (and the rest of the world) is more of sleight of hand than fact. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/9 "2002-05-22T04:09:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ice1000 \* > \*\*BTW, what do you think about this new movie coming out soon, “The Mother of all Fears”? It deal just with that, a terrorist buys a nuclear bomb from the Russians and is going to detonate it in the US. > > You think it’s appropriate to release this type of movie nowadays? \*\* Nitpick. _The **Sum** of All Fears_ Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/10 "2002-05-22T04:20:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > \*\* > But you’ve set your question up in a way that the answer is obvious - if the intelligence is, by definition, relaible, then yes, of course you evacuate the city. > > The problem is that the intelligence, even “relaible” intelligence, is not all that reliable. > > \*\* And that’s _exactly_ the reason why I am so troubled by this. If the Government orders an evacuation and it turns out to be a “false alarm” (either from bad intelligence or due to the terrorists holding off upon learning of the evacuation order) it will be very demoralizing to the citizens. I can even imagine a scenario where the bad guys cause this to happen repeatedly. And, should the gov’t ever NOT issue an evacuation order, or if people have become so inured to evacuation orders that they ignore them, that could be the time that it’s the real thing. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/11 "2002-05-22T04:30:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > > Nitpick. > > _The **Sum** of All Fears_ > > Carry on. \*\* Come on people, it’s not like anything that happens in a Tom Clancy novel could ever come true…or could it? To answer your question, IMHO, to justify evacuating a major city would require enough information on the time and source of the attack that the attack could be prevented. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/12 "2002-05-22T11:14:48Z")
Slight hijack… I read _The Sum of All Fears_ about 10 years ago (I think). IIRC, the antagonists were Middle Eastern terrorists. In the film, the antagonists are neo-fascists. I think it would be more topical if they stayed with the original baddies. (Of course, our Middle Eastern allies might be upset.) ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/13 "2002-05-22T11:55:05Z")
The fear of a terrorist organization getting nuclear weapons goes back to the late 50s, with Ian Fleming’s THUNDERBALL. The problem is still delivery. If the coast guard and customs are on the ball, it would be difficult to get a nuclear device smuggled into the U.S. Europe, however, is pretty vulnerable. The U.S. response to such an unimaginable horror will depend on who is President at the time. It could include nuking whichever nation helped supply the weapon (assuming we know), although that policy needs to be made clear, now, as (I hope) a deterrent. While I have no doubt that bin Laden would not hesitate a moment to buy and use a bomb from Iraq, possibly the Iraqi leaders would hesistate to sell to him, if they thought they would be the targets of a U.S. retaliation. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/14 "2002-05-22T12:03:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem is still delivery. If the coast guard and customs are on the ball, it would be difficult to get a nuclear device smuggled into the U.S. I don’t know about that. If they had good intelligence, they might catch a device; but considering the amount of shipping in all of the ports in this country, I think that without intel we’re pretty darned vulnerable. Remember how the ships stacked up outside of harbours after 9/11? We _should_ search everyone minutely, but delivery schedules won’t stand for it. Is it better to be safe than to disrupt commerce? Of course. But “no one” (i.e., politicians, business people, the public) understand that until after the fact. That is, people will complain that searching every single ship because one _might_ have weapons aboard is uncalled for. They’ll say that produce will spoil and that the delays will cost the consumer millions of dollars. Then after someone uses a port to smuggle weapons into the country, these same people will say, “Somebody should have _done_ something!” ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/15 "2002-05-22T16:40:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \* > \*\*The fear of a terrorist organization getting nuclear weapons goes back to the late 50s, with Ian Fleming’s THUNDERBALL. > > The problem is still delivery. If the coast guard and customs are on the ball, it would be difficult to get a nuclear device smuggled into the U.S. Europe, however, is pretty vulnerable. > > The U.S. response to such an unimaginable horror will depend on who is President at the time. It could include nuking whichever nation helped supply the weapon (assuming we know), although that policy needs to be made clear, now, as (I hope) a deterrent. While I have no doubt that bin Laden would not hesitate a moment to buy and use a bomb from Iraq, possibly the Iraqi leaders would hesistate to sell to him, if they thought they would be the targets of a U.S. retaliation. \*\* U.S. border security is window dressing for an edgy American public. Any motivated group–from terrorists to drug runners to illegal aliens–can and do penetrate the tightened U.S. borders with impugnity. As far as the nuclear components, they could be brought in by cargo ship, assembled at a remote location, and then “delivered” by anything from a van to a Cessna to a minivan. My guess is that the first attempt will involve several city targets on the same day/week. The goal would be to decapitate the government command and control, induce a financial/banking panic, and basically instill terror in the American people. Karl Gauss, I would disagree that the U.S. is doing everything it can to find these radical groups within the U.S. More correctly, the Powers That Be are doing some of the important things, given political, financial, manpower and Constitutitional constraints. My guess is that eventually the terrorists will succeed, just as Rummy predicts. The Bush administration is preparing the American public for a very bad outcome, as a way of inocculating us from the resulting psychological terror. (good luck.) A third consideration: access to the components for these devices will become increasingly easy over the next decade. In 10 years, it may be a 10-kiloton nuke rather than a “dirty bomb.” Imagine a warning made to CNN. Would they withhold notification? My guess is the networks have already worked out an agreement with the feds. By the way, even the detonation of a “dirty bomb” would cause mass hysteria in the U.S., destabilizing financial markets and perhaps precipitating a financial panic. ---
**Author:** ![tiny\_ham](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@tiny\_ham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tiny_ham)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/response-to-terrorists-nuclear-threat/110125/16 "2002-05-22T16:44:41Z")
Or maybe I will have a nervous breakdown.