Email This to a Friend
Dropping the Ball on Terrorists’ Nuclear Bomb
As the American people and their government dawdle, the threat of a WMD attack grows. (Also, Roger L. Simon on After Mumbai: Torture Reconsidered.)
Just days before this year’s presidential election, the majority of Americans considered terrorism to be a low-on-the-totem-pole concern. Studies by CNN put the average citizen’s fear of a terrorist attack at its post-9/11 low. One month later, with at least 188 people murdered by terrorists in Mumbai, terrorism concerns are — surprise, surprise — with us again. Suddenly, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) falling into the hands of terrorists is being headlined across the media stage.
This comes, in part, because of a bipartisan, congressionally mandated task force report released this week, one that says that America will likely face a nuclear or biological terrorist attack by 2013. “In our judgment, America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the report says.
But this is not new. The report was over a year in the making. Countless high-profile WMD threat experts have been saying the very same thing for years. Americans seem to face or ignore these facts at whim. The attacks in Mumbai simply shifted people’s perception. They had to come to terms with the fact that while many folks were telling CNN pollsters that terrorism was on the way out, suicide squads in the tribal areas of Pakistan were practicing aiming AK-47s at hotel guests.
Ostrich buries head in sand; jihadist sharpens swords.
The low-technology attacks in India dominated the world’s attention for days. (You can buy a Russian-made AK-47 for $899.00 at GunBroker.com.) Imagine what a nuclear event would do. “Psychologically, a nuclear attack would stagger the world’s imagination,” says Graham Allison, an advisor on nuclear threats for decades, from the Reagan to the Clinton administrations. For years, Mr. Allison has been saying that terrorists getting hold of nukes is a threat that is very probable and real. In fact, he puts the odds of a nuclear terrorist event in the next decade at “more than 50 percent.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Annie Jacobsen writes about aviation and intelligence. She blogs at TheAviationNation.com and is working on a new book for Little Brown and Company.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
26 Comments
1. Craig:I wonder what the over/under is from the liberals for blaming Bush if (God forbid) we have another large scale terrorist attack during Obama’s presidency. I’m guessing anything short of 3 years, and the BDS crowd tries to hang it on Bush.
Dec 5, 2008 - 5:33 am 2. cedarford:Well, all I saw in Jacobsen’s piece is her premise that a nuke bomb hitting the US would be really, really bad…not just for us but for the whole system the Globalists have constructed.
Annie warns that a bomb might make a country cease free flow of goods into airports and sea ports and border crossings – which would disrupt economies and again devastate the whole financial system. And the poor consumer in the US would be denied all the ChinaStuff they need so much from the local ChinaMart.
But in describing this somewhat obvious aftermath from WMD use, Jacobsen says nothing about mitigating impact, or stopping WMD development as Annie the Writer also joins “America” and dawdles, herself…
So some advice:
1. The Globalists designed a system with no firewalls or redundancies. You cannot defend such a system against people that understand how easy it is to disrupt a global financial system with just one country putting out poison equities, how easy a system that depends on JIT transportation and 16 countries making components can grind to an instant halt with a ship sinking, and any major attack on a port “could jeopardize us Globalist’s finely tuned swiss watch global economy..”
So if the Globalist system is so vulnerable, we need to rethink being as self-reliant as possible, ending “free trade” if it affects our strategic vulnerability to crucial commodity and component supply sources from overseas.
We need “firewalls” of redundant materials and goods inventory again and financial “cutouts” to block another global financial meltdown from one countries greedy financiers starting the ball rolling.
2. We are waking up to how hard it is, as 3rd World educations improve and their scientific and industrial skill capacity approaches or exceeds the America of 50-60 years ago, to block them from weapons they can make if they have the will to.
The “easy surgical strike” is a Neocon myth.
They will be rebuilding and restarting a weapons program as soon as the last bomb falls, unless we or others go in with a half million involuntarily drafted Americans, Brits, others and occupy the Country after a long, painful ground war.
3. Better than demanding nations seeking strategic parity with dangerous neighbors with WMDs knock off such efforts, we should focus on making regions WMD-free, as Latin America, Oceana, and Subsaharan Africa have decided to do.
Dec 5, 2008 - 6:17 am 3. Scott Gunsaullus:Or desist from easily making their own nukes and WMDs (something Japan, S Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Canada could do in a year) – be a major power putting them inside a “nuclear umbrella” so they have no strategic need to get The Bomb and MRBMs or ICBMs.
There is evidence that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, even Israel&Iran is interested in a nuke-free ME or being put under a nuke umbrella ..with demands on all sides that have to be met that many are reluctant to agree to. No 1st use of WMD, all nuke activities open to IAEA, nuke power plants allowed, no ballistic missiles allowed, no state sponsorship of transnational terrorism..And a dozen other conditions…
In a world where the United States is the absolute, undisputed superpower, why are nuclear weapons even necessary? We still carry an arsenal that can literally destroy the world 100 times over. As long as we maintain that position, the United States cannot expect to mount an effective diplomatic effort toward nonproliferation. Instead, we should move toward the “eradication” of all nuclear weapons and divert those resources around the world toward the development of safe and reliable energy sources, nuclear or otherwise.
Dec 5, 2008 - 6:59 am 4. Brad:Scott Gunsallus, it is out nuclear weapons that make us, in your words, “the absolute, undisputed superpower.” In case you haven’t noticed, our armed forces are having a tough go at handling Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. I can think of a dozen or so countries that could use the same “intervention” that we are giving those countries, but we can’t do it. Look at what happened to Georgia.
Dec 5, 2008 - 7:32 am 5. submandave:I have always seen the more likely use of a radiological dispersion device (aka “dirty bomb”) as only slightly less effective than a true fission device. Imagine an OK City sized truck bomb going off in the Chicago commodities market with the added bonus of several Curries of contamination spread across several downtown blocks. Even if the contamination levels are well below that which would pose a health hazard, the psycological effects of “nuclear contamination” and “radiation” would effectively paralize the nation. How many folks do you think would be going to work on the LIE the next day?
Scott, you seem quite sincere in your question, but I feel it is asked from a somewhat naive perspective. While it is true that America has the second largest nuclear arsenel (Russia’s is still larger), assuming the 5,400 warhead estimate in the 2007 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is accurate I question your assertion that we can “literally destroy the world 100 times over.” More germain to the discussion, though, is that nonproliferation efforts have generally been effective only with nations that recognize their own self interest in not pursuing nuclear weapons technology. If a nation (or, more properly, the ruling element of a nation) sees greater benefit in posessing nuclear weapons then they will seek to obtain this capability through deception, subterfuge, bribery, theft, strength and/or bluster. The difficult question has always been to what lengths should we or any other nuclear capable nation go to in order to prevent a determined agressive or rouge state from joining the club. The idea of “eradication” will always be little more than a dream of returning to the good old days, since both the technology and material required to produce these weapons exists and that will not be changed.
The only historically proven method of securing peace is to deter agression through strength. The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was designed to ban several classes of warships to prevent future conflict. That worked for less than twenty years. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war for over sixty years. Speaking as a man who has closed the hatch, gone deep and silently held the gun to the Bear’s head for months at a time I will agree that it is a damn scary way to do business, but as long as there are men and nations whose greed, ambition and lust for power and control exceed their humanity and decency I can’t think of a more effective way to keep from being held hostage at the point of their gun.
What is critical about the issue discussed in this article, but not outrightly addressed, is that deterence is of no value against an enemy for whom self preservation isn’t of primary importance. This is a key difference between the threat posed by a nuclear armed Russia/USSR and a nuclear armed Iran/Mullahcracy. I fear that many more secular Americans fail to appreciate how strongly one can be motivated by faith, especially a faith that assures one that their reward waits in heaven if only they help prepare the world for the ascendency of their religion.
Dec 5, 2008 - 8:00 am 6. Thinking Person:Scott……Why not ask Putin to go first and we’ll follow their lead?
Dec 5, 2008 - 8:38 am 7. Annie Jacobsen:Submandave:
“The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 was designed to ban several classes of warships to prevent future conflict. That worked for less than twenty years. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war for over sixty years.”
Nice. Agreed. Except MAD does not work with terrorists.
“Speaking as a man who has closed the hatch, gone deep and silently held the gun to the Bear’s head for months at a time…”
This is far too interesting not to elaborate on. Please clarify. Was “The Bear” the USSR? I take it you were on a nuclear-armed sub?
Dec 5, 2008 - 9:56 am 8. deguello:– Annie Jacobsen
Who cares? Any likely nuclear attack would target New York City,L.A.or a similarly squalid center of obamanoid liberalism;didn’t these cretins want change?
Dec 5, 2008 - 10:31 am 9. submandave:“MAD does not work with terrorists.”
Agreed, hence my para 4.
Like many others I served on an SSBN during the Cold War (USS M. G. Vallejo (SSBN 658)(Blue), 87-90, four patrols).
Dec 5, 2008 - 11:23 am 10. The Historian:PAY ATTENTION BARACK: MISSLE DEFENSE IS DO OR DIE
There are no second chances if we get this one wrong:
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/12/missle-defense-do-or-die.html
Dec 5, 2008 - 4:21 pm 11. Rob M.:To: deguello
Actually, there are many of us here in Los Angeles who cannot stand Obama and did not vote for him. In fact, anybody who looks at the exit polls from the metropolitan Los Angeles area can see that, despite the election results, nearly half of voters favored McCain.
Regardless of the media-imposed hue that California is now branded with, and in spite of the fact that a sinister master of neuro linguistics found supreme advantage in a population inundated with short attention spans and anti-depressants, (the same country that gave Amy Whinehouse two Grammy awards), I see that you are no better than any other narrow minded hater out there.
Remember how Obama’s minions made an example out of Joe the Plumber, doing all they could to destroy him when he disagreed with Obama? Wasn’t that awful?
Creating a double standard that makes Conservatives look bad is not going to help anybody, in fact, it makes you just as bad as any manipulative liberal. You respond to the idea of a nuclear attack by saying “Who cares? Any likely nuclear attack would target New York City,L.A.or a similarly squalid center of obamanoid liberalism;didn’t these cretins want change?”
Was it your goal that a reader would confuse a geographic location with a human being, or that human beings in certain parts of the United States deserve to die because of election outcomes? When you hear about corrupt officials in other countries threatening citizens at the voting polls, do you cheer them on?
Your view is very narrow. I doubt that you’ve ever gone out into the real world and helped people. As a cure for your arrogance I recommend the U.S. Army. They’d crush that silly attitude of yours.
Dec 5, 2008 - 6:01 pm 12. myth buster:MAD destruction doesn’t work with terrorists because it isn’t one-sided. Massive retaliation, on the other hand, might. That means we have to promise nuclear retaliation for conventional terrorist attacks. We could break the war fighting capacity of Islam by dropping a nuke every time they engage in a shoot-’em-up or bombing attack, and engaging in unrestricted submarine warfare against hostile nations.
Dec 5, 2008 - 6:25 pm 13. John Moore:A radiological dispersion attack (”dirty bomb”) would not be very destructive, although the hysteria in America over radiation would cause enormous fear.
A terrorist nuke attack would dramatically change the world. Once it is demonstrated that such attacks happen, people will demand, and get enormous increases in security efforts, surveillance and border control. The value of inner city real estate would vanish, with enormous economic effects. The demand for retribution would lead to major warfare, probably including the use of military nukes.
An HEMP (high altitude nuclear blast, electromagnetic pulse) strike would take our society back 100 years suddenly. Our just-in-time distribution systems would break down, leaving millions to starve. Our ability to communicate with each other would drop radically, resulting in the news by rumor, paranoia, and mob behavior. Terrorists would have trouble doing this, but Iran will have the capability within a few years. Any nation that has the ability to put a nuclear weapon in orbit can essentially pretty much wipe us out – with one bomb. Even launching a nuke-armed SCUD from a merchant ship could take out the electronics in half the country.
The report emphasizes an Anthrax attack, but Anthrax is not very contagious. An attack with Anthrax is similar to a chemical weapons attack – only those exposed are affected. The report doesn’t say much about an attack with a contagious agent, probably because there is very little we can do to prevent it or deal with the results.
An attack with a highly virulent and contagious biological agent would make an other strike seem trivial. It could kill 5 to 40 percent of the world’s population.
Dec 5, 2008 - 7:54 pm 14. Anonymous:The report said an imminent attack from WMD somewhere in the world, not the US only.
Dec 6, 2008 - 2:01 am 15. Lex:I think Iran’s motivation for having a nuclear weapon is pretty much of the standard ‘we have a bomb don’t mess with us’ stuff that motivates most nations to have such things. Iran’s experience of invasion and war during the early 80s shaped this as does having US division on either side of the country. I can’t imagine they would start anything anymore than I could Israel, India, or Pakistan being involved in a first strike. MAD works… it works with the original Islamic Republic… no reason to think it would not with another.
Dec 6, 2008 - 2:20 am 16. cedarford:Annie – The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has prevented nuclear war for over sixty years.”
Nice. Agreed. Except MAD does not work with terrorists.
Why not? Do you think after a nuclear blast that Geneva or any law would be in effect limiting a US eradication of the source of the Bomb(s) used and the nation(s)that supported the terrorists?
It would be like MAD, except America would be killing with no restraint in an effort to keep the destruction FROM becoming mutual.
Bin Laden is smarter that a lot of people believing in undeterrable Muslims, like the Neocons who have made that claim for 7 years as their rationale for further Neocon adventures and preemptive war. Bin Laden asked KSM what his targets were, and agreed KSM had chosen well…bin Laden said that if KSM had targeted large dams or nuclear power plants that could kill “hundreds of thousands” he would not have approved such targeting because that could cause the US to lose all restraint and kill “many millions of the Believers”.
Binnie is more realistic than the people that think an American city or two being nuked will have no nuke retaliation “because the courts and the ACLU” will stop it, and we have a “profound duty” not to kill masses of innocent enemy civilians….Bin Laden knows in extremis, in existential threat..restraint of any kind is finished until the threat is gone. Gone as in “the enemy and most the little kids and puppy dogs gone, too..”
****************************
John Moore – An HEMP (high altitude nuclear blast, electromagnetic pulse) strike would take our society back 100 years suddenly.
Garbage. It would temporarily cripple certain modern systems.
Any nation that has the ability to put a nuclear weapon in orbit can essentially pretty much wipe us out – with one bomb.
Garbage. However, it would trigger full-scale thermonuclear war against the attacker. And EMP recovery is something we have planned for since the 60s. After we kill most people in the nation that nuked us 1st, that is..
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:15 am 17. Don:**************************
As Pakistan gets backed against the wall, their reaction, especially considering Zadhari – Benazir Bhutto’s “Mr. Ten Percent” husband who had been indicted in three differnt countries for his corruptedness – has the mental stability of a teenaged drama queen, by all accounts. The ISI runs that country from underground and the Army generals’ offices, and they’re flat-out dangerous people; they make the Mosad hardcores seem like boy scouts. And they’re Islamists to the end. Couple that with Iran and what we all know they’re intentions are, and I’m all for strengthening our nuclear arsonal, and let’s help India and Israel strengthen theirs too. Unfortunately, under Obama, I think we’ll go in exactly the opposite direction while the Paki and Iranian sociopaths laugh their butts off at us.
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:23 am 18. Bob Smith:Islam is a death cult. It is powered by anonymous religious thugs who kill to enforce sharia law.
For 1,400 years Islam has expanded and destroyed every civilization in its path.
More Muslims equals more anonymous religious thugs, and more violence.
Dec 6, 2008 - 7:22 am 19. Annie Jacobsen:cedarford:
“Why not? Do you think after a nuclear blast that Geneva or any law would be in effect limiting a US eradication of the source of the Bomb(s) used and the nation(s)that supported the terrorists?”
The Eisenhower-era idea of MAD was as a preventative posture. What would happen with terrorists “after” a nuclear event is a different story, don’t you agree? “After” is a foreign policy game-changer for the whole world
One important point remains, as Bob Smith said above: Al Qaeda is a death cult. Rohan Gunaratna writes in his masterful book “Al Qaeda” that the jihadists have completely conquered the fear of death. That is the dark heart of the matter with terrorists and WMD.
Dec 6, 2008 - 9:33 am 20. Paul Troon:Open note to Annie-
If there is anything I hate it is sloppy journalism. Your reference to being able to purchase an
“Russian-made AK-47 for $899.00 at GunBroker.com.”
Is misleading at best, disingenuous and misleading for sure, and outright ignorance of the subject at worst. Why do I say this?
First of all, an “AK-47″ is a select fire (read machine gun) which you cannot legally purchase in the United States. (note 1) In this particular case, the SAIGA brand rifle referenced is a SEMI AUTOMATIC rifle. It fires one shot per pull of the trigger. It is not capable of “Spray fire,” nor sustained high rates of fire. Functionally it is no different than many mainstream hunting rifles in the United States. The .308 caliber is a VERY COMMON hunting round.
If your reporting cannot be trusted with the simple facts, prey tell, how could your veracity not be in question?
I will agree, wholeheartedly however, that certain muslim factions are trying fervently to acquire nuclear weapons, and would have no qualms about using them on innocent populations. I say and emphasize MUSLIM terrorist as you may have noticed that fact seems to be omitted in your article. (once again, questioning your veracity, for valid reasons.)
The Mumbai “terrorists” were not disenfranchised about the Kashmir region, the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, or the Palestinian problem.
Ms. Jacobson, this is precisely why the average American no longer subscribes to the New York Times, watches NBC or CBS for national news, or trusts the media.
Please consider reporting the news accurately and responsibly. Have the audacity to throw off the yoke of political correctness and follow your consciousness.
Kindest Regards,
Paul Troon
Note (1). Under the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act) it is possible to legally purchase a fully automatic weapon (machine gun), silencer, sawed off shotgun or other “destructive device.” PROVIDED, you pass the background check, and pay the appropriate BATF transfer tax. If you doubt this, please feel free to contact your local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Ask about NFA transfers. It is interesting to note that since 1934, when this law was enacted, I am aware of only a single incident of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime, and that was by a POLICE OFFICER.
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:26 pm 21. myth buster:RE: EMPs
We have a trump card for retaliating after an EMP- 14 Ohio Class SSBNs. They are shielded by hundreds of feet of water and each carries 24 8×475 kiloton nuclear missiles.
Dec 6, 2008 - 5:40 pm 22. Militant-Infidel:submandave, thank you for your comments and for your service. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, every tin-horn Sunni dictator in the region will develop or buy their own (price is no obstacle). Widespread nuclear proliferation in this area, so well known for political, emotional and civil stability (/sarc off) would be an unmitigated disaster. The image of sending children into the garage to learn the finer points of playing with matches comes to mind.
Iran (or Pakistan for that matter) will not send their nuclear “present” with a nice “return to sender” contrail attached. One of their surrogates will deliver their present for them and provide at least plausible deniability, a situation made even better when several regimes are nuclearly armed. During the Cold War, we at least had the somber comfort of knowing that the USSR wasn’t going to outsource their WMDs.
While the Mullahs in Tehran have few qualms about sending somebody else to “paradise”, I doubt they have much personal desire to become a grease spot in a glass desert, even if it will hasten the return of the 12th Imam. But this is beside the point. With widespread WMD proliferation, a WMD attack on the US almost becomes a freebie. Deterrence is not an option with a “Death Cult”, particularly when any number of Cultists may be the perpetrator. The way to deal with suicidal attacks is clear (N.B. Kamikaze), kill them before they kill you. The quickest way to cure suicidal ideation is to show them death. Throwing into the mix some WMDs doesn’t change the rules, it simply alters the stakes. Unfortunately, we don’t have the stomach to play in this “high Stakes” game until we have lost several hands.
When survival is at risk, it is better to be respected and feared rather than liked. Things WILL change when OUR survival is in the BEST interest of the Mullahs and the ISI. I long for the day when they PRAY for our good health.
MI
Dec 6, 2008 - 6:54 pm 23. Militant-Infidel:Paul Troon:
My BS alarm went off with that one as well, but I just chalked it up to “sloppy journalism” without thinking about it, as it is so common. But you make an excellent point, we should demand better, since this is PJ Media and not the NYT, CNN etc. If the journalists wants to “editorialize” on a subject they are not knowledgeable about, they should at least confirm their statements with somebody knowledgeable on the subject.
This is Pajamas Media after all.
MI
Dec 6, 2008 - 7:35 pm 24. deguello:I find it amusing that a nation that entrusted nuclear weapons,not to mention control of the organs of internal security,like: ATF FBI to a marxoid chicago thug,with the geostrategic knowledge of an earthworm,should be worried over Iran’s possession of such a weapon.Rob M: If you don’t want to be targeted;leave LA;I left NYC and never looked back.
Dec 8, 2008 - 10:44 am 25. Paul:Prevention is better than cure. I hope Israel has the guts to damage, if not destroy, the Iranian’s nuke program. An earlier post accurately described an anti-missile defense as a do-or-die situation and I agree. However, I would expect an Iranian sponsored attack to come by ship. Bring the nuke close to the shore and set it off before our sensors and response could nullify the threat. The resulting dirty wave would do immense damage.
Dec 10, 2008 - 8:58 am 26. Robert:The only silver lining is that if DC is the target we could make a new start w/o scads of Liberal weenies.
The Muslim world is more vulnerable to bio attack than the Western world.
Dec 10, 2008 - 9:28 pm