Chance of nuclear detonation in the US

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it was during the last NH Democratic debate that the moderator stated that there is a 30-50% chance that a terrorist will successfully detonate a nuclear device in a US city over the next ten years. Did I hear that correctly?

 

[jim mcnamara]

See the third blog from Graham Allison:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/how_likely_is_a_nuclear_terrorist_attack_on_the_united_states.html

His book and this site:
http://www.nuclearterror.org/ (which is kinda like the anti-Goldwater television ad from 1964) are the source. I think. Michael Levi (same blog discussion )has a different percent... you can play with the blast maps, I annihilated my home town, killing at least 8 people, 2 coyotes, and 40 head of cattle.

None of these guys think it's a zero probability deal. So, I'll just remain hidden among the tumbleweeds and yucca...

 

[Evo]

I annihilated my home town, killing at least 8 people, 2 coyotes, and 40 head of cattle.

:rofl:

On the down side, I'm so glad that we've furnished a tool to help nuts figure out where to get the most bang for their buck.

What happened to all that plastic sheeting and duct tape everyone was buying after 9/11? That's good for nuclear attacks, right? :uhh:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What happened to all that plastic sheeting and duct tape everyone was buying after 9/11? That's good for nuclear attacks, right? :uhh:

Yes, as long as you put your head between you legs and hide under your desk when the bomb goes off.

 

[mgb_phys]

Barman: Did you say the world is coming to an end? Shouldn't we all lie on the floor or put paper bags over our heads?
Ford Prefect: If you like.
Barman: Will it help?
Ford Pefect: Not at all.

 

[Evo]

Yes, as long as you put your head between you legs and hide under your desk when the bomb goes off.

:rofl: They made us go into the hallway and kneel head first toward a wall, placing one arm over the back of our necks. We were told this would prevent flying glass from hitting our necks...

I should get some of these for Jim's cows.

 

[chemisttree]

I think it was during the last NH Democratic debate that the moderator stated that there is a 30-50% chance that a terrorist will successfully detonate a nuclear device in a US city over the next ten years. Did I hear that correctly?

Yep.

GIBSON: I want to go to another question. And it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city.
GIBSON: I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years.
Some estimates are higher. Graham Allison (ph), at Harvard, says it's over 50 percent.
Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind. And I want to put them to you here.
On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?
Senator?
EDWARDS: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
EDWARDS: Well, let me say first, this is the very point I was making a few minutes ago.
In the short term, we're faced with very, very serious threats about the possibility of these nuclear weapons getting in the hands of a terrorist group or somebody who wants to attack the United States of America.
The first thing is we have to immediately find out who's responsible and go after them. And that is the responsibility of the president of the United States.
Because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology, it means they could have gotten another nuclear weapon into the United States that we're unaware of. We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them.
EDWARDS: Secondly, it is the responsibility of the United States -- and by the way, what I'm about to say doesn't just apply to a nuclear attack. It applies to this crisis that exists in Pakistan right now with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
It is the responsibility of the president in times like this to be a force for strength, principled strength, but also calmness.
It is enormously important for the president of the United States not to take -- to react and to react strongly, but to do it in a way that is calming for the American people and calming for the world.
Because it would be an enormous mistake for the president of the United States to take a terrible, dangerous situation where millions of Americans or thousands of Americans could have lost their lives, and to ratchet up the rhetoric and make it worse than it already is.
GIBSON: Let me come to the two Sam Nunn questions to you, Senator.
OBAMA: Well, as I said, I've already been working on this. And I think this is the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront.
We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons.
That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration.
We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology. We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now.
These are all things that we should be taking leadership on. And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long- term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.
GIBSON: And I know, Senator Clinton, you've worked on this, as well.
CLINTON: Yes, I have.
GIBSON: But in terms of retaliation, this is not likely going to be a state that sets off a nuclear attack (inaudible), it's going to be a stateless group.
CLINTON: Well, the first part of your question was, what would we wish we had done. And I have worked on this in past legislation to move in the direction that I think we should go to have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
CLINTON: There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the United States government is working together. I don't think we've done what we need to do on homeland defense. You started that segment talking about the ease with which ABC smuggled things into this country. We haven't done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment that is necessary to protect us from this kind of importation.
But let me just add that when you look at where we are, the stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere. I mean, part of our message has to be there is no safe haven.
CLINTON: If we can demonstrate that the people responsible for planning the nuclear attack on our country may not themselves be in a government or associated with a state, but have a haven within one, then every state in the world must know we will retaliate against those states.
There cannot be safe havens for stateless terrorists who are in these networks that are plotting to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and be smuggling into our country or elsewhere the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc.
So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation.
We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists, that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face a very heavy retaliation.
GIBSON: Final word, Governor?
RICHARDSON: Charlie, when I was secretary of energy, that was one of my responsibilities: securing nuclear stockpiles, nuclear materials, mainly with the Soviet Union.
RICHARDSON: I went there many times. We made progress.
But since then, there has been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross, presumably, a border; that could be smuggled in in a cargo ship with our very weak port security.
If I'm elected president, I will do two things. First, I will seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union and other nuclear states to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, but also a treaty on fissionable material, where you have verification, where you try to secure those loose nuclear weapons from states like North Korea and others that could be drifting into the international community.
RICHARDSON: But most importantly, I think we have to realize that the challenges America faces internationally, they're transnational. They're stateless.
It's international terrorism. It's nuclear terrorism. It's environmental degradation. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Making us less dependent on fossil fuels. Those are the transnational challenges that are going to require international cooperation.
And this president believes in unilateralism. This president believes in going military first. This president believes in preemption. You discussed this in the Republican debate. My foreign policy would be different.
GIBSON: I'm going to...
RICHARDSON: There would be realism,...
GIBSON: I'm going to move on.
RICHARDSON: ... human rights and principles.
GIBSON: I'm going to move on.

http://abcnews.go.com/Story?id=4092530&page=4

 

[Astronuc]

EDWARDS: Well, . . . .

What a start.

In the short term, we're faced with very, very serious threats about the possibility of these nuclear weapons getting in the hands of a terrorist group or somebody who wants to attack the United States of America.

Well . . . .

The first thing is we have to immediately find out who's responsible and go after them. And that is the responsibility of the president of the United States.

And if the cannot be identified?

Because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology, . . . .

Or it simply means they were given a device, or have access, but they do not possesses the technology necessarily.

Most of the technology is dual use, so the technology could be obtained or transported separately to the US, then assembled. Getting the fissile material into the US would be the trickiest part, but it's doable. Hopefully those motivated won't figure that part out.

 

[chemisttree]

Getting the fissile material into the US would be the trickiest part, but it's doable. Hopefully those motivated won't figure that part out.

I'll bet they could smuggle it across the Rio Grande on elephants while a mariachi band plays on...

I'm sure that Ron Paul's idea of letting market forces sort it out (while we worship the constitution as God) will keep us all safe.

 

[Astronuc]

I'll bet they could smuggle it across the Rio Grande on elephants while a mariachi band plays on...

Considering what does flow over that border, they probably could.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sure that Ron Paul's idea of letting market forces sort it out (while we worship the constitution as God) will keep us all safe.

Huh?

...We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

As for the Constitution, we have already seen what happens when we have a renegade king who ignores it - chaos.

 

[chemisttree]

I was referring to this nonsense:

Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism


Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

As opposed to the current bounty on his head!

"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden."

The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.

"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

Ron Paul thinks that letters of marque and reprisal issued for private individuals, the CIA or our army (operating under amazingly restrictive ROE) can do more to capture Bin Laden than the full force of arms. An amazingly naive and foolish view IMO.

Ron Paul's idea on the security fence:

You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What should we do?

Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Get rid of welfare?

All the welfare benefits.

Including government-paid health care?

Absolutely.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sources? Also, it appears that Paul is talking about an additional tool for use in the so called war on terror. I don't understand your objection here.

 

[Mk]

There was an episode of Penn and Teller's: Bull****! that had some illegal immigrants build a fence and then break through it.

 

[edward]

Considering what does flow over that border, they probably could.

A local group drove a 2 1/2 ton truck across the border into Mexico in a remote location. They loaded up a big box that had been previously stashed and put it in the back of the truck.

They then drove back into the U.S. and on to Phoenix. No one noticed.

 

[denverdoc]

If they did, so what? Let's assume the device is roughly the equivalent of a Hiroshima sized bomb and not some dirty chemical weapon. Depending on location they might take out a couple of million people. Thats less than a percent of the population. More folk from neighboring countries would enter to fill the partial vacuum. A lot of enterprising spirits would figure out ways to make lots of money. Some of the current budget spent on the war machine might possibly have to be diverted to cover clean up and compensation. Politicians would make hay, and goats will bray. Life will go on.

If anything, it might motivate in earnest a real effort to decommision aging weapons worldwide and to try to stuff what we can find back into Pandora's box, instead of spresdng technology a la the recent deal to Pakistan. Now that was a smart move.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When six guys with box cutters flew some planes into buildings, we started two wars; in one case we attacked the wrong country but any country would do; we trashed the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions; we implemented the use of torture and secret prisons; we allowed spying on US citizens without legal oversight; we threatened [tried] to use nuclear weapons for "conventional warfare", and we re-elected the people who did all of this.

==> Set off a nuke in a US city and the ME is a glass parking lot.

 

[denverdoc]

When six guys with box cutters flew some planes into buildings, we started two wars; in one case we attacked the wrong country but any country would do; we trashed the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions; we implemented the use of torture and secret prisons; we allowed spying on US citizens without legal oversight, and we re-elected the people who did all of this.

==> Set off a nuke in a US city and the ME is a glass parking lot.

True, as your sig quote implies, our biggest fear is ourselves. Its weird but admirable how folk in the mideast have accommodated the threat of instant terrorist death. Some take a plucky attitude to the cafe knowing it may be their last cup of cap, but all the more reason to enjoy it. Others want to build walls. We seem as a country to be the wall building type.So to your conclusion--Plenty to be said for that strategy, up until the time it begins to erode and weaken the foundation on which its built. That of course is the post 9/11 netherland we occupy, and unfortunately I concur with your conclusion that it would not lead to a wellspring of pacifistic temperament. But acting as if this is a certainty or even high probability has its own perils as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perils, no doubt, but it must be recognized by all as a real possiblity. I believe that many people today simply cannot conceive of the awesome power that US reserves. As cold-war children we were much more aware of this reality. And once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle... I am afraid to even guess at the totality of the consequences.

If you ask me, the real peril is our enemy not clearly understanding this.

 

[denverdoc]

Perils, no doubt, but it must be recognized by all as a real possiblity. I believe that many people today simply cannot conceive of the awesome power that US reserves. As cold-war children we were much more aware of this reality. And once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle... I am afraid to even guess at the totality of the consequences.

If you ask me, the real peril is our enemy not clearly understanding this.

True, my daugters have never had nuclear nightmares--I had them regularly between say 10 and 25. The connection to Hiroshima/Nagisake has been lost. People don;t even talk about Nukes except in connection with the kind of scenario you describe--but they are still out there, in large numbers and the entire enterprise gives greater grip to the catastrophe you describe...