dc0de wrote:
And this is only NOW on the front pages?

This has been available to terrorists for some years, however, the difficulty in transporting any nuclear material has made this an unpopular choice.

However, when you take into account the lack of control this country has on it's borders, it's a wonder why this hasn't happened yet...

If illegal drugs can move into our country, why can't nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons?

Wouldn't a city like LA make a nice target? Mix up some Sarin, Anthrax, and some dirty nuke, to make it a trifecta?

But hey, that's my 2¢, YMMV.

Security versus terrorism is an illusion. All one would need to wreak havoc would be enough poison, a bathtub, and a pump with 13 lbs. of pressure or better. There are lots of ways to kill massive amounts of people in this country. Plenty are easier than going for the nukes and major chemical weapons. The threat isn't so much in the tools as much as it is in the people and groups who are trying to coordinate their use.

dc0de wrote:
This has been available to terrorists for some years, however, the difficulty in transporting any nuclear material has made this an unpopular choice.

With regard to Al'Queda, this isn't their modus operandi. They usually perform low tech attacks that are creative in terms of methods and targets. Al Queda hasn't used an ABC weapon. I think its clear that ABC weapons need to be treated with extreme care and that no immediate threat is required to justify that care. However, this report seems to be digging for a justification anyway in light of the fact that this isn't likely to be an Al'Queda plot. Instead they argue that eco-terrorists are going to deploy nuclear weapons! Thats about as crazy as arguing that anti-abortion activists are going to start bombing preschools. Radical groups usually don't commit acts that directly undermine their own goals. Ecoterrorism thus far has consisted of arsons targetting car dealerships, wealthy housing developments, and bio-technology research. AFAIK, no people have been killed in Ecoterrorist attacks. This doesn't mean they aren't serious, but the idea of an organized covert group with the resources to obtain a nuclear weapon blowing up a few city blocks and spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere in an attempt to make the planet more sustainable for human life is nonsentical. This is not a likely scenario.

Decius wrote:
the idea of an organized covert group with the resources to obtain a nuclear weapon blowing up a few city blocks and spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere in an attempt to make the planet more sustainable for human life is nonsentical.

[ Well, one could argue that detonating a nuclear device is inherently non-sensical, rendering the motivations of the perpetrators somewhat less subject to rules of logic.

That being said, I basically agree that ecoterrorists or any other domesitc terrorists aren't the most likely danger... I think this story came about more because of the current season of 24 than anything else.

As far as this not being Al Quaeda's M.O., well, i'm not sure they're coherent enough to say that cateorically, but I will say that the scrutiny (and there is scrutiny) placed on nuclear and radiological weapons makes them rather less attractive than, as you say, the homegrown, harder to trace stuff, which is no less effective in accomplishing their goals, as we've sadly seen.

As a postscript, the Department of Homeland Security has a top level office called the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which is tasked with, well, detecting the transport or acquisition of nuclear/radiological material that could be used in such an attack. Their capability and capacity is not something i'm qualified to assess, but I thought I'd at least note that someone has been assigned to the problem...

k wrote:

Decius wrote:
the idea of an organized covert group with the resources to obtain a nuclear weapon blowing up a few city blocks and spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere in an attempt to make the planet more sustainable for human life is nonsentical.

[ Well, one could argue that detonating a nuclear device is inherently non-sensical, rendering the motivations of the perpetrators somewhat less subject to rules of logic.

That being said, I basically agree that ecoterrorists or any other domesitc terrorists aren't the most likely danger... I think this story came about more because of the current season of 24 than anything else.

As far as this not being Al Quaeda's M.O., well, i'm not sure they're coherent enough to say that cateorically, but I will say that the scrutiny (and there is scrutiny) placed on nuclear and radiological weapons makes them rather less attractive than, as you say, the homegrown, harder to trace stuff, which is no less effective in accomplishing their goals, as we've sadly seen.

As a postscript, the Department of Homeland Security has a top level office called the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which is tasked with, well, detecting the transport or acquisition of nuclear/radiological material that could be used in such an attack. Their capability and capacity is not something i'm qualified to assess, but I thought I'd at least note that someone has been assigned to the problem...

I appreciate everyone's input, and it's correct, it's NOT going to be al Qaeda's M.O., and most likely, no-one is likely to use this method.

I guess I was just being sarcastic, but I can't remember, and since I can't use *sarcastic* TAGS on my posts... well, I guess that I can't let you know how I feel that the Reuters article is one of the dumbest pieces of press I've seen in some time.

The best time to have seen a weapon like this, was back in the middle 90's, when Russia was selling nukes like water. There were *cough* 'several' *cough* mirvs that went *cough* 'missing' from former Soviet Union storage, and haven't been found since.

This planning for semi-nuclear and 'fizzle' weapons has been in place in our country since before the end of the cold war, and the Nuclear Response Teams have been in place for longer than I can remember.

I guess my whole point was, it must be a slow news day at Reuters, when they rehash an old, worn out, belabored point, from days gone by...