Sovereign countries -- the bulwark of the liberal world -- would have an abominable choice: To not respond for lack of an identifiable perpetrator; or to maraud all the dark corners of the planet with the same destructive passions of their invisible enemies. Either response would effectively end sovereignty as we know it …..

I’m not sure I agree with that conjecture. The response of the West marauding in the dark corners of the world might actually restore the full concept of sovereignty – that nations have both rights and responsibilities for what happens in their borders, that they cannot turn a knowingly-blind eye on the actions of those they sponsor or allow, but do not claim. A nuke in anyone’s city is far too high a price to pay for that sense of full responsibility to be restored. But, since that sense has already been lost, a nuke might well end up being the price that is demanded anyway.

Cicero

Welcome to my backyard. Perhaps when you get here we can share a drink or two.

As to your fears concerning a nuclear strike. Sure I'm a worried but not to the point that it makes me want to move or consider this place off limits. As I see it, if it happens here I'll not be around for any consequences that follow. In that vein whatever I would hope for or want to happen in the aftermath is a moot point.

Championing social causes at the expense of the War on Terror while nursing a genuine fear that our nation's capital might be made into a fireball is more than a paradox.

Of course, you can say the same for tax cuts.

In reading the Japanese Book of Rings one thing that strikes you is a certain fatalism. Man seems to fear death - once that is removed then one can continue with certainty. Its funny in way, yet most major religions preach that the after life is so much better than where we are now. I too live outside ground zero (they call it on the adc map with radiating rings showing distance). Why worry? Look at the targets on the east coast - maine shipyards to pensacola. In DC you have NSA, NASA, FBI, CIA, the seat of governemt - hopefully you should feel better than living in hayseed nowhereville. More targets, but more enforcement. Bah - don't worry about any attack. first what can you as an ordinary citizen do? Second worry more about surviving an attack. Its not the death but the slow pain we fear.

What did YOU do to prevent a nuclear strike today?

It should be our public policy that a nuclear strike against us will result in the instant nuclear reprisal against every rogue nuclear regime we dont like. That is a powerful disincentive in itself.

Realistically, forensics would reveal to us where the nuke was developed. Much good as it would do us.

"a nuclear strike against us will result in the instant nuclear reprisal against every rogue nuclear regime we dont like."

Mark, the problem is that this list needs to be very long and inclusive to keep some third party from nuking a city to get us to do their dirty work. So on your list put all countries with a large Muslim population (Indonesia, France, England....)and then Russia, China and NK. Now what about India? some of their Hindu fanatics might like us to wipe out the Muslims or the Chinese or both. When you get done with this list, the simpler solution might be to get serious about the space program, and then move off planet.

_ Their opinion is still that President Bush lied regarding WMDs in Iraq,_

And they are still right.

Maybe he lied, maybe he didnt. I was always under the impression that intellegence is an inexact science based on hearsay and conjecture. Why else would it be spying instead of straight up asking - "Excuse me mad dictator, yes you who have gassed your own people, got any still laying around?"

Sort of reminds me of the kids (not me) sneaking a joint down in the basement of thier parents house. Ya hear the door open upstairs and you start fanning the smoke outside. Now imagine smoking a joint then your parents calling saying they will e home tomorrow. Tomorrow comes and they call and say we'll be home day after tomorrow. This then goes on for several months. Hell you had time to smoke that bag, buy another, smoke it and steam clean the house and furniture. They couldnt find any clue - especially with friends willing to help you smoke it.

Now WMD are different, takes more space than a house has to make enough to kill a few hundred thousand right? How much ricin does it take? Where can you hide a test tube of anthrax in a city of 1 million?

Not saying anyone lied or not but with my kids (and yes they are of military age) I'd rather Bush say "I think so" and act then say "well maybe they dont" and be dead wrong.

Taking into account that two books by Tom Clancy sadly came into reality (Debt of Honor and Op-Center, Balance of Power), who knows what might happen with The Sum of All Fears

Look at this a (#8): mon ami inside the reactor containment building.

God bless the Israel Air Force

Concerning the Nuclear Response...

I know that it sounds hopelessly "Berkeley" to say so, but I believe that if we were to sustain a nuclear attack, the following would work against America rapidly escallating the counter-strike into "whacking all entities that we just don't much like at the moment":

First, though we rapidly surmised that the al Queda organization (and Usama bin Laden in particular) was behind the quad of hijackings and kamikazi attacks, it took us a curiously long time to actually counter-attack anyone. Months to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan -- but they only succumbed as a target because of the porosity of their borders, their long-standing as a refuge for demented loons, and the empty-nest of Binnie in Saudi Arabia. Seemed like the right place to go -- we followed our nose so to speak.

Second, Iraq (if anyone cares to really remember) was not held out as being related to 9/11, but rather became the focus of an America suddenly on the offensive, not at all satisfied with the former "status quo" that had every crackpot, despot, demagog and internationally recognized cretin given 19+ chances to reform themselves before the august deliberations of the United Nations. America decided that there would be no more monkeying around: Afghanistan was as likely to be "a player" in the ultimate retribution that needed to be metted out (if for no other reason than to satisfy the need for American catharsis), as a street drug dealer from the hood is likely to be the "king-pin" of West L.A.'s drug problem.

Third, The ultimate entities were rightly and quickly given names: the Axis of Evil, which was one short list indeed. Iran, North Korea, Iraq with passing reference to Syria, Yemen, radical Indonesia and so on.

Fourth, America then decided that Iraq would be a perfect pincer [alongside Afghanistan] around Iran, ace on the list. So Iraq it was, and the U.N. begrudgingly admitted that although it was unutterably unilateral for America to do be doing so, her offensive against Iraq was the power behind Resolution 352 (or whatever it was). And notwithstanding the rather extraordinary cabal of nihilists, peace-niks, anti-Americans, Euroweenies, pro-Jihadists, pan-Arabists, and the like, everyone really understood that America was extraordinarily pissed, and was going to get blood from an onion, even so.

___

But who exactly does one target should that a nuclear weapon go off, say, in tony Denver Colorado, laid-back Medford Oregon, bustling Seattle, Nathaniel Hall Square [Boston], or most strategically, not in Washington DC, but Palm Beach, or Miami, or Disney-world, ... or London, Milan or Lisbon? Yokohama, Bangalore, Seoul or Mexico City?

Who is the culpable entity? Oswamy, the al Q, the Peaceniks For World Dominion or somesuch?

I believe American response would be carefully measured, extraordinarily determined, would be very dark, very imposing. Yet, I doubt that a nuclear response would come -- by virtue of it being at least as immoral as the initiating attack itself. America can win no points, can fall no further than to engage in the same kind of mindless enterprise as committed by the terrorists.

Goat;
I tend to agree; absent a known state sponsor, it would be very hard to do. But -- nuking an Iranian reactor site, e.g., might be in the cards.

"I believe American response would be carefully measured, extraordinarily determined, would be very dark, very imposing."

You can make book on that. I'll also make book on a unilateral strike and we wont give a damn what anyone else thinks. We'll not ask for help but if you want to offer help and proceed on our terms you're more than welcome to join us. Otherwise get the hell out of the way because there will be hell to pay.

As for those in political power that believe they can keep the American populace at bay they will be shouted down and sent to the corner they came from. They will be forced to stand up and deliver or they will be removed in favor of those that will.

"Mark, the problem is that this list needs to be very long and inclusive to keep some third party from nuking a city to get us to do their dirty work. So on your list put all countries with a large Muslim population (Indonesia, France, England....)and then Russia, China and NK"

No, no, thats not what i was suggesting. We go after the nuclear aspect. The idea is that if nations like NK and Iran insist on pursuing nukes despite our warning, in the event of an attack they are going to be assumed to be guilty. It seems highly unlikely a nuke will sneak out of France or England. Russia and China are unthreatenable, because obviously we arent going to start a nuclear holocaust. The point is that the rogue regimes will have a dilemna, any given one may believe their nukes are defensive in nature and wont be a problem, but them will have to worry about whichever of their Axis of Evil brethren is the least stable. KIJ may think he is more clever than the West, but he knows tyrants and I doubt he will sleep well with his fate tied to whichever Mullah is the craziest. Another upshot is such a move discourages them working together.

"America can win no points, can fall no further than to engage in the same kind of mindless enterprise as committed by the terrorists."

That may be true in practice, but when you are talking about nuclear war you must automatically begin thinking in a fantasy plane. That is how the entire Cold War was fought. A big part of deterrance is making sure your opponent is uncertain what provocation will actually spark a nuclear exchange. Bashing into the Fulda Gap? Sinking a carrier? Seizing a neutral?
What we would actually do if the day came is ultimately far seperated from what we claim we will do. Would we actually murder 50 million (mainly) innocent Iranians? Maybe, maybe not, but it is critical that the Mullahs believe we would (or even might) and honestly it is just as critical the Iranian people believe it, because they are some point are responsible for their masters. If they wish to ensure their safety from American nuclear retribution, they will need to take to the streets and chase out the bastards. And that is a cold hard fact.

USMC, et alia

Thanks for the reply. One thought that is recurring is that if there is a nuclear attack anywhere in the world, it will source from one of the well-known nuclear nations as an unambiguous "set up" of that nation. For instance, if Islamabad [Pakistan] were to be targeted (see below), then corruption within India or China would launch an Indian or Chinese missile+nuke at Pakistan.

The indictment becomes unimpeachable: did not the missile come from China? Yes.

Did it not contain an isotope signature clearly akin to historical Chinese atmospheric nuke tests? Yes.

Is there not enmity and discontent regarding the Hindu Kush / Pakistan / Tibetan border? Yes.

Looks, walks, smells, quacks, eats, craps and radiates like a duck. Must be a duck.
________________

In actuality, it isn't likely that the Chinese can be undermined so. They're a pretty xenophobic lotta, and their language, customary monoculturalism, stoic militancy would be damned difficult to undermine even through a decade-long infiltration, buy-out or other way. Now, Russia on the other hand ... may well be "the duck", since they're widely regarded as having lost their 'hard code of honor' in dealings military, economical or political. And they have a lot of nukes sitting around.

So if you add this to the equation, what then does America's response become? I have to believe that if we single-handedly could have invented, re-invented and re-re-invented (perhaps a couple of dozen times) the "metric of the Cold War", and had the confidence (some might argue "gall") to advertise it broadly virtually every 3 months in the Scientific American journal, well... I also think that we're level headed enough to view even a strike originating in Tblisi or Uturrusk and headed toward Rome ... isn't likely the work of the Russian gub'mint.

As I said, even then and perhaps especially in this scenario -- due to the fantastic amount of unexploded nuclear ordinance sitting on that side of the fence, it is rather obviously most probable that we would express incredulous outrage, would instantly get the Russians falling all over themselves to prostrate their fealty to the dastardly undermining of their national defense arsenal, welcoming America in to take a good ol' look-see and figure out who exactly the perps were. It might take a decade to piece togther the perptree, but once found ... America's response would be carefully measured, extraordinarily determined, would be very dark, very imposing, and most certainly would entertain the strategic use of nukes to get results.

GoatGuy

GoatGuy

"It might take a decade to piece togther the perptree, but once found.. "

It had better be done well before a decade comes about. Americans will not sit idly by waiting for the next shoe to drop. In your scenario if one happens to show up on our shores do you believe the American People are going to wait for another to be sure were hitting the right target?

I don't think so. I think it would be in America's best interest to display the wrath of Panodra's Box in a highly visible unforgettable manner as expeditiously as possible. Seems I recall a movie that dealt a tit for tat simply for the mistake of shooting off one them nuclear missiles. In the process NYC was given up for error.

Given Mark's explanation in #14, I guess he has a point. Of course our retaliation would have to be non-nuclear on Iran and NK, unless the wind is blowing just right. I personally wouldn't mind saying "oops sorry" to China for a nuke in the Pyongyang, but the SK's might feel put upon if the wind blew in their direction.

On the other hand the notion that we would drop a nuke just North of Seoul might concentrate their minds on the NK problem a bit more...

USMC ~

A pleasure discoursing with you today. Truly, "that side of me" tends to agree with you. Yet, to lash out with great weapons of Hell and Wrath at targets chosen statistically, theoretically ... is like pin-the-tail on-the-Donkey, but with machines and flamethrowers. There's going to be a lot of unfortunate collateral damage to those singed by the blind dragon.

Worse, if the scenario of America lobbing a few 'demo-bombs' at likely but not necessarily culpable hosts plays out, then there is little to prevent the actual perp from rapidly escalating the attacks (showing off American impotency) using deep-cover operatives executing 'soft-WMD' actions on the ConUS. If anything, the failure to secure Usama has underlined the intrinsic advantage of the 'invisible super-hero' over the 'big old military machine'. (I'm not complaining, just sayin')

I agree -- from the American electorate perspective, waiting more than 12 months to execute SOME decisive, pyrotechnically well covered operation would be an outrage. As it would be, there would be a lot of turnover in the gub'mint due to, well, the whole blessed civilisation freaking out, and wanting to "Do Something!!!".

Unfortunately (for us), if ever such an attack were to occur on ConUS, it would likely mean the suspension of much of the tenets of the Constitution for a spell. 9/11 was bad enough (but to our credit, we have had the liberal backbone strong enough to keep our borders open, our educational institutions available, our libraries, government offices, our banks, hospitals, economy and general 'way of life' largely without practical imposition by the New Rules.) As one of my sparring partners holds, the most powerful terrorist attack wouldn't be against the obvious [NYC again, or Chicago, or LA, or WDC, or...], but would be against Minneapolis-St.Paul, Wichita, Lincoln, Palm Beach or Old Slo (N. Orleans).

NYC was NYC, not America from most American's perspective: the great Apple, the icon of Americanism, the Disneyland of cities. But Wichita, or Palm Beach, or Nawlins... now that's too damned close to home, that shakes the soul. [Like all men chosen to shoot a prisoner on a firing squad, each believe that they had the gun with the 'prophylactic blank', absolving them of guilt of murder. A nuke in NYC lets the Wichita'n or the Lincolnian sleep at night. Its far away, its a war in the clouds.]

Yet, there is a way to address the 'let-em-see-what-we-got' idea that you present: to destroy the Ka'aba and the "Holy City" of Meccah. Assuming that we're 99% certain that ultimately a disgruntled Islamicist is behind the nuclear attack, then taking down either the first, or second icon of their religion will have a decidedly chilling effect on further aggression. It becomes so banal, yet so simple: "strike us again, bastards, and another of your holiest of holies will be given a stratospheric view of heaven."

Might as well make enemies that understand that we're a SUPERIOR enemy, than to try to keep the bridges and viaducts open to "friends" that in the end are worse enemies behind the lines.

#9

Making WMD isn't hard. Just mix some of the cleaning stuff you have in your house.

GoatGuy

"Unfortunately (for us), if ever such an attack were to occur on ConUS, it would likely mean the suspension of much of the tenets of the Constitution for a spell. 9/11 was bad enough (but to our credit, we have had the liberal backbone strong enough to keep our borders open, our educational institutions available, our libraries, government offices, our banks, hospitals, economy and general 'way of life' largely without practical imposition by the New Rules.) As one of my sparring partners holds, the most powerful terrorist attack wouldn't be against the obvious [NYC again, or Chicago, or LA, or WDC, or...], but would be against Minneapolis-St.Paul, Wichita, Lincoln, Palm Beach or Old Slo (N. Orleans)."

On this we both agree whole heartedly. If people were worried about concentration camps after 9/11 be prepared. People will do whatever they believe is in their best interest for survival.

As for NYC being the magical city in the Wizard of Oz, I'm not sure most Americans agree with that view. I would tend to think that most Americans look at NYC not just from the financial side and bluer than blue. They see the Statue of Liberty. They understand the significance of Ellis Island. They see the all American of sports New York Yankees. What they see of the Big Easy and American heritage of all the cities you mention are the same. Each in it's own right has provided for the greatest of all melting pots.

It will matter not where the attack occurs and whether or not Americans will look upon the loss any differently than anywhere else. Even Mayberry RFD for it's easy going too simplistic life for the rest of the nation would stand as the largest ICON for the moment.

As to my response of fire with fire it may well be that an error would lead to further attacks by the actual perp(s). Then again it may well turn into the enough is enough I know who did it and where they are at you want them here they are but please don't do that again (not that there are that many that could do anything substantial about it). As Dad once said in for a penny in for a pound and if you're going to play the game of poker be prepared to lose because everyone isn't a winner.

I have to agree the discourse has greatly enjoyed.

Assuming that we're 99% certain that ultimately a disgruntled Islamicist is behind the nuclear attack, then taking down either the first, or second icon of their religion will have a decidedly chilling effect on further aggression.

Yikes. Total war against, what, a third of the planet? And 99% certainty is probably unatainable. What about the crazy from NK?

Which is why, I hope we all can agree, rogue nations cannot have WMD.

Patrick

"Yet, I doubt that a nuclear response would come -- by virtue of it being at least as immoral as the initiating attack itself. America can win no points, can fall no further than to engage in the same kind of mindless enterprise as committed by the terrorists."

I totally disagree. Once the nuke goes off, the conflict is no longer about politics (or even morality) but about pure survival. It very quickly becomes an us or them proposition. And I very strongly believe that those with their finger on the button will choose "them". (Think about the responsibility of the choice, the oath of office, and what it means to be the one making the choice.) And for thsoe of you who may have missed it, I highly recommend you read the Belmont Club's Three Conjectures.

PD Shaw

"Which is why, I hope we all can agree, rogue nations cannot have WMD."

We keep trying to push that point home but too many are not listening and tend to believe gold and silver will eliminate the possibility of everything turning crimson. Do I wish this business of nukes had never been invented? You bet, but we can not undo what has already been done. On another note anyone who thinks nuclear disarmament across the board is a possibility is smoking something other than tobacco.

We are discussing, of course, the classic 3 Conjectures scenarios. Those interested in the strategic and escalation logic of these scenarios are urged to tune in to that Winds piece and the 3 links therein.

The 3 Conjectures are valid, but incomplete. Cold War logic still applies, not between terrorists and states, but between state sponsers and nuclear powers. Its easy (startlingly so) to forget post Cold War that any discussion of war in the nuclear age can never be taken out of nuclear context. There are simply still underlying Cold War dynamics at work. In fact they may need to be restressed to some of our Axis friends.

There is a difference between idealism and reality - though both are important. Personally I don't care if the gov listens to every word i say as long as they don't abuse the knowledge. Let them filter my email - tap my calls - whatever it takes to prevent a nuclear strike. We need liberalism to keep many things in check - how the knowledge is used for instance. But it is a governments first mission to protect it's people and way of life. I hope our intelligence gathering agenices are clandestine and amazing. As long as they can differentiate between stopping threats and manipulating things that should be left alone. One hopes somewhere common sense rules.

>>Personally I don't care if the gov listens to every word i say as long as they don't abuse the knowledge.

How exactly are you going to stop them from abusing that knowledge?

Your relative anonymity is your most important protection against oppression. You surrender it at great peril.

If you aren't anonymous you'd better have money. A LOT of money.

GoatGuy has posed some important questions about uncertainty; how can we be sure that a nuclear explosion comes from a certain state, in order for us to retaliate.
I would say it is a question of probabilities.
A terrorist organisation cannot produce nuclear explosives; an originating state is required, either as a sponsor or a via theft from a state nuclear arsenal.
The scenario of stolen nukes is still worth working to eliminate. However, it is likely far less likely now than it was. The two most probable sources were Russia and Pakistan.
From the few reports of US/Pakistan cooperation on installing safeguards on Pakistani nukes, and the subsequent silence on that front, I'm inclined to assume the US has eyeballs on the Pakistan arsenal.
As to Russia; Putin and his key men are ex-KGB; the Chechens would love to light off a nuke in Moscow. My deduction would be nuclear security improved way beyond levels under Yeltsin. And anyone sniffing around Russia to acquire one is more likely to aquire the old Dzerzhinsky Square 9mm terminal headache.

Then there are active state suppliers. An even shorter list. As of now, a terrorist nuclear device would be very likely be North Korean supplied. Retalion would be targeted appropriately.
The situation changes markedly for the worse once Iran becomes able to produce nukes. (I do not believe this point will be reached, in fact, but if...)
There is then a temptation for one or the other, to exploit uncertainty.
For that reason, there would have to be an explicit pronouncement: any nuclear attack on the US homeland or its overseas interests will result in an immediate nuclear response targeting all known and suspected nuclear installations, key military targets, and national leaderships, of both Iran and North Korea.
Protests that such a response under conditions of uncertainty would be "inappropriate" invite two replies:
- only this can provide deterrence, if pre-emtion is not chosen
- to avoid the peril, opt for verified nuclear disarmament.

If there was an attack, tracing the source of the nuclear material might not prove anything. US nuclear facilities lose material all the time. What if we traced the source and it was ours?

Terrorism is basically a hostage situation. After 9/11, terrorists basically told the United States that if we didn’t do what they wanted, more Americans would die.

The best way to deal with a hostage situation is to find out what the hostage-takers value, what they, specifically, can’t bear to lose. Threaten to destroy the thing that they value, and prepare to act on that threat.

Mutually assured destruction was an effective deterrent during the Cold War, but the threat of the literal end of the world is more than partly responsible for the destructive growth of the “anti-war” movement. Many pacifists around the world are so frightened that any conflict will ‘go nuclear’, they’re not willing to fight anyone at all.

When a large part of the West is not willing to fight Islamist fascism, we become more vulnerable, not less. Western pacifism has encouraged the growth of Islamist terrorism. Threatening to go nuclear, to kill millions in response to a suitcase bomb will scare people even more. They’ll demand more appeasement, not less, leading to a vicious cycle of appeasement and terrorism.

Mutually assured destruction was overkill. The question is, what do all of the potential attackers out there value? What can’t they bear to lose? Oil.

Al Qaeda values oil more than we do – it’s the source of their income. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, North Korea and even France can’t bear to lose their oil. Neither can we.

Threatening to destroy the world’s oil supply is a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario that would not result in the death of most of the world’s population – yet it’s a scenario that everyone wants to avoid.

When Volvo and BMW driving “anti-capitalist” pacifists are threatened with the real destruction of their economy and their livelihood, they might shut their mouths for a change. If we’re willing to sacrifice our own oil supply, the war could hardly be about the oil.

This response to a nuclear attack would give everyone, including us, a great incentive to prevent such an attack, by fighting the terrorist states and groups that threaten us. It would also give everyone, including us, a great incentive to replace the oil economy with something more efficient.

mary:
Would nuclear strikes effect the underlying oil bearing strata, as opposed to the surface installations?
And which oilfields do you hit? Saudi Arabia and Iran, I assume. That is not destroying the world supply of oil, just (part) of the Gulf supply.
I assume that you do not intend to target those of Iraq?
In any event, this looks to me rather like putting a gun to ones own head and threatening to shoot.
That Al Qaeda would not be willing to trade Gulf oil flows for a nuclear strike is uncertain. They might even regard that and its potential consequences - global economic collapse and the fall of the House of Saud - as a net gain, despite the harm to their own sympathisers and finacial sources.

Nuclear facilities "lose" fissile material largely through cumulative small discrepancies in the materials audit. And weapons grade materials are a separate case from reactor fuel.
State military sources remain the overwhelmingly most likely source. As security of arsenals is probably appreciably better now than pre-9/11, the greatest threat is an attempted "deniable" weapon sourced from N. Korea (now) or Iran (once their weapons material production comes on stream).
This threat can be minimised by a policy of decisive retaliation against both countries in the event of any strike.
And preferably by preventing the mullahs Iran acquiring such weapons.

A greater "doubt/deniability" factor makes a chemical attack seem more likely, if terrorists opt for "WMD". Whether the "W" would achieve "MD" is another matter.
Biological agents might be even better from the terrorist perspective; whether they have anything like the expertise reuired, at present, seems less likely than a capacity to make or obtain and at least crudely "weaponise" chemical agents.

Detrring these is another issue.
Imagine a future near to our best-case hopes, ten or fifteen years from now, where the Arab/Islamic world has been more-or-less democratised, Wahhabism in its present form gone, House of Saud and the Iranian mullahs replaced, political Islamism on the wane, nuclear proliferation checked.
BUT a smaller, fanatical, much more secretive al Qaeda (or a successor oranisation) survives underground, getting by on minimal funds. Enemies of the West and of the emergent neo-Muslim peoples.
And they mange to carry out repeated terror attacks with chemical and perhaps biological weapons. On both Western and Muslim targets.
Again, and again, and again.
For decades.
Who then do you strike back at?

#29

What about states that have serious issues with Iran like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Wouldn't giving terrorists a nuke be on their to-do list if you state that you would attack Iran regardless what?

North Korea has serious money problems so they could be temped to sell some of them. But I can name atleast two states that would buy nukes for prices outside what terrorists could offer so it is unlikely that North Korea would sell them to non-state actors

You also assume that making an atom bomb is to difficult for a terrorist organisation but that is not true. What is difficult is making the fissle material. That is now almost as well protected as nuclear bombs but they were not as carefule with it in the past so it is not impossible that you could find some lost material

Terrorism is basically a hostage situation.

Not necesary, for instance killing the brutal dictator by a terrorist act can't be described in this way because the new leaders would hopefully rule differently.

The best way to deal with a hostage situation is to find out what the hostage-takers value, what they, specifically, can’t bear to lose. Threaten to destroy the thing that they value, and prepare to act on that threat.

Taking the hostage taker hostage. Or as the terrorists would see it taking hostage of the hostage taker of the hostage taker

Al Qaeda values oil more than we do – it’s the source of their income.

Are you sure about that. I think than many see it as the tool the devil uses to corrupt them.

Terrorisme is a methode not a strategy.
Hostage taking is a strategy (atleast in the way you used it)

Some methodes are more inclined to some strategies but that doesn't mean that they can only be used in that way

#31

Large chemical attacks need large amounts of material so would almost certainly be done by chemicals that are present on site. (aka blowing up/sabotaging the chemical plant)
Small scale chemical attacks can be done by plants similar in size of xtc labs and getting the chemicals is easy if you have the money and know how to buy the chemicals.

Bio weapons ar easy but you need luck. Buy chicken in Vietnam, get the flu and fly to the US.

I pretty much accept the idea that there is going to be a nuke attack in America. It will be done by a nation-state and singular in nature. There will be not be front group used. The question is how to stop it.

I suggest we withdraw all of our troops from any country that will not spend a given percentage of their GNP on direct military expenditures. Those expenditures must be directly involved in force projection beyond their borders. It must be done within a very short period of time. We must leave if they don't do so.

The purpose of this is to force an examination of their foreign policy goals to determine whether or not their goals can be supported by the projection of force to secure them. A quick cursory glance says very few can do so without the cover of the American military shield. Worse, will be the realization that their economic survival is at stake because they cannot protect the supply lines for the goods and services necessary to run their economies.

Given this dichotomy one of the first things I believe will happen will be an examination of multiple use products that are applicable for the production of nuclear weapons. At this point many will find themselves dealing with a variation of Lenin's axiom about the seeds of destruction and hopefully act accordingly. Other issues will also fall as they may but the choice and responsiblities will be theirs.

You assume that the Europeans feel treatend military. I don't think they do.
The South Americans do feel treatend but i don't see how an American shield would help there.
So the only major region left is east asia where they already spend a lot and were this would be counter productive.

>>Threatening to destroy the world’s oil supply is a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario that would not result in the death of most of the world’s population – yet it’s a scenario that everyone wants to avoid.

What would power the farm machinery? What would supply power to the hospitals? What would power the transport grid that moves food to cities?

Sudden destruction of the world's oil supply would kill hundreds of millions of people, through starvation if nothing else.

Ahh, terrorism.

The point of the threat is to avoid a nuclear attack against America – if we go down, everyone goes down with us. If they don’t like it, too bad, they should have worked with us to prevent it. That’s what MAD is all about.

If you want to define MAD as terrorism, you can, but that means that the whole cold war was terrorism.

Currently, we are allied with Saudi Arabia in order to insure that the world has an oil supply. Everyone depends on Saudi oil.

If there was suitcase nuke attack against the United States, who would be responsible? North Korea and Iran are trying to openly develop nuclear weaponry. Why would the go the suitcase-bomb route when they can deliver the nukes the old fashioned way?

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11. They paid the paramilitaries, they trained them. Most of the “Iraqi Insurgents” are Saudis. Most of the prisoners in Guantanamo are Saudis. The terrorists in Beslan were paid and trained by Saudis, the terrorists in Indonesia, Thailand, Pakistan were trained and financed by Saudis. I don’t think there has been a single Islamist terrorist attack that wasn’t financed and linked to Saudis. If there was a nuclear attack, it wouldn't be hard to figure out.

a:
Israeli's nuke the US in oreder to provoke the US to strike Iran?
Pitch that as a thriller scenario. In reality Israel would be very unlikely to do this, for the very simple reason that if it ever came to light, finis Israel.
As for the Saudis, nuclear strikes in the Gulf area would do considerable short-term damage to their economy. And again, they'd have to be certain the truth would not emerge.
It is by letting North Korea and Iran know that they will both be struck that both will be discouraged from passing weapons to third parties.

Terrrorist production of nukes from "lost" material: it does have to be the right material, and of the right vintage. And only some weapon types are likely within the terrorist capability, types that can be distinguished after detonation.

If it turns out that the weapon came from theft, and Iran and North Korea have been struck in error: why, how unfair! DearieMeWhatAShameNeverMind.
Meddle in matters nuclear and the potential downside is catastrophic. So don't do it.

(I do not think a mullah-ruled Iran will be permitted to acquire such weapons in any case.)

mary:
Counter-oil strike would not mean "they all go down". It would not destroy all oil, it would disrupt some supply, for a period of time dependent on the scale of attack.
I repeat, which oil fields are targets?

Saudi oil is not essential. Take it out, you still have oil. Just much more expensive oil. Expensive enough to cause global economic crash? Maybe. And what are the political outcomes of that? With Japan having its economy as a consequence of revenge on someone else, and China in turmioil too, you can kiss the goodbye any friendly relation with Asia for half a century.

Sure, you take down the House of Saud in the process. Who replaces it, it these circumstances? Al Qaeda has already shown some willingness to target Saudi oil production. Granted, this may have been intended to frighten the House of Saud rather than a serious strategy, but oil is a potential target for al Qaeda in addition to being a potential asset.
Al Qaeda do not think in terms of rational correlations of power and economic forces. Their concepts is largely based on a politics of paranoia and fantasy. Oil is to them a potential source of money for Islamic revival, and a potential economic weapon, but also, at the same time, a pernicious source of corruption.

Al Qaeda has already shown some willingness to target Saudi oil production.

Al Qaeda says that they are willing to target Saudi oil fields, but they never do. Al Qaeda says that the Royal House of Saud is their sworn enemy, yet they never target the Royals.

The Saudi Royals claim that they are not working with al Qaeda, but they still pay millions to their terrorist paramilitaries. They employ and they pay the salaries of the Wahhabi imams who preach jihad around the world.

Did you ever think that maybe they might be working together? That they both might be lying to us?

With liars, actions speak louder than words. Every action al Qaeda and the Saudi royals take shows us that they are working towards the same goals. They have occasional conflicts, which are usually taken out on the foreigners, a group that all Wahhabis have contempt for. Their actions also indicate that they value their oil and their economy above everything else.

A downturn in the world’s economy and the destruction of a totalitarian apartheid regime is morally less horrific than a nuclear ‘strike’ against thousands, maybe millions of innocent civilians.

The purpose of this threat is to prevent an attack. Another purpose is to motivate people to replace the oil economy. We have the technology to get rid of this dependence, but as we’ve seen in our ‘alliance’ with the regime that wants to destroy us, it’s hard to change.

Military expenditures may be to constricting a phrase to explain the goal I wish to achieve. The purpose is to force everyone to realize the cost of economic disruption on a grand scale, i.e. reducing the opportunity to use a nuke by sneaking it into OUR country and theirs.

Take a look at what started with a power company in Ohio a few years ago. By simply not clearing trees from around its transmission lines power was lost in parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York for a couple of days(the system worked, even though the operators didn't know what was happening, because the switches were tripped shutting down electric transmissions of greater and greater amounts of electricity over fewer and fewer transmission lines. This kept the lines themselves from being destroyed). This ended up being mere inconvience and a small economic loss of output.

Had this been a deliberate attack with the purpose of destroying the lines themselves what would the loss be? It shouldn't be to hard to begin expropolating other damages that a nuke would inflict on the economic structure of the USA.

The thinking in to many capital's of the world is the cowboy sheriff will ride to the rescue. The only way to disabuse them of that notion is to force them to take on the costs of defending themselves militarily and economically. Once they take a look at the cost of disruption they should realize that a nuke would be the most disruptive action. It should be obvious that the easiest option to take to avoid the disruption is to stop selling multi use goods.

Cicero,

Exactly what kind of Liberals do you interact with? Are your 'friends' ONLY those of which provide you with positions for salacious comments afterword. I consider myself a hawk on most issues, but my experience with Liberals (at least the ones I've known for many years) are more varied than your experience. I know of none that would have commented on your choice of city in a 'target' way. I find your use of such a small 'sample' was just that, your group. Not what I've come to expect from the 'so-called' balanced approach I've seen previously.

If we are to succeed in this war on terror, we'll need at least a good percentage of those on the 'other' side to make this work. We can thump our chest all we want, but that will not work. Insults will not bring us a greater security. I have no love for the left, but I worry about the right...too much power corrupts.

This kind of thinking is bordering on the surreal to me but I guess that's what stimulates one's mind and keeps it healthy and vibrant in the long run.

If a rogue nuclear bomb were ever brought to explosion in a city, I like to imagine that the popular reaction would be one of an uprising against countries producing and stockpiling nuclear warheads.

Rather than any one country rushing blindly to war in an effort to please an understandably infuriated but perhaps somewhat shortsighted electorate I hope to see a reaction of considered afterthought.

When viewed from a technical perspecive the conflict at its heart boils down to the question of this: What can we do to stop deranged individuals from creating havoc in our civilisation by turning its assets and infrastructure upon itself?

This question is very important. The late modern society that most readers of this blog find themselves in is increasingly becoming a risk society where the quality of individual lives is improved at the same time as it is becoming dependent on the utilisation of technology and expertise concentrated in the institutions of modern life. The careful regulation of the power of these institutions to affect people's lives is a vital prerequisite for the maintenance of civilisation. As technology progresses and enables more power (military, economical, social) to be stored in single institutions, society becomes at the same time more vulnerable and dependent upon the safe and proper use of these same institutions.

Montesquieu taught us of the necessity of organising the governance of society into a seperation of three powers - legislative, executive and judiciary. The wit of the people later conceived of the possibility of a free press as constituting a fourth such power. The daily flow of political activities in a society based on the division of powers consisted very much of these powers taking action to keep each other within their remits - and thus keeping the system in balance.

It seems to me that technology or technological development as a force brought on and reinforced by its interplay with economic and social globalisation is becoming an increasingly likely candidate for nomination as the fifth power in this complex game of checks and balances. It is a force that threatens to wreak havoc on the whole system. The perfect illustration of this dangerous development is the question of what to do to prevent deranged individuals from turning the assets and infrastructure of a society toward the same society. This question was relatively straightforward to answer in the days when weapons technology was constrained to the rifle or cannon and there were no, sophisticated and inter-dependent infrastructure between cities that could be hi-jacked (in the case of air travel) or poisoned (in the case of running water).

As a response to this question a solely military strategy would in my view be far too blunt and inaccurate an instrument. Much rather the technical focus in a targeted campaign against 'abuse of the system' would be directed toward increased control of the infrastructure.

Already we see strong efforts among governments to massively boost their control of society's important assets and infrastructures in order to better respond early and effectively toward the potential for abuse. Barbed wire, x-ray scanners, wiretaps, national id cards and biometrics are all examples of how society tries to regulate and control access to vital or vulnerable assets and infrastructure.

This works very well up to a point. Of course for each of the assets to be guarded a risk assesment is performed to prioritise and balance the investment of resources into controlling access against the likeliness of abuse as well as the potential for harm in case of abuse.

I think the above post points out a very important fact in relation to these cost-benefit assessments of risk and control: For some technologies - such as nuclear weapons and possibly other types of WMD and even genetic engineering once the technology is sufficiently matured - there is simply no level of control infrastructure that is high enough to effectively counterbalance the potential harm inflicted by the abuse of such assets.

For these technologies I believe we need to ask ourselves much more fundamental questions as a society. The question that needs to be posed is 'should we as a society allow this technology to be in use at all?' Can we establish a level of control with the asset that ensures it is sufficiently unlikely to be used for harmful purposes relative to its potential for causing harm?

In the case of nuclear technology, I fear it is a matter of time before deranged individuals such as extremistic terrorists prove to us that the answer is no.

Of course the traditional counter argument will be 'if we do not have this weapon technology then how can we discourage other nations from having it?' - ah the typical dilemma of the hegemony. I do not have an answer to this question but I would reiterate my impression that the fifth power - namely technological development - is rapidly taking us to a point where the significance of the relative standing of nation states is dwindling when compared with the potential for individuals to cause irreperable harm against society.

If a rogue nuclear bomb were ever brought to explosion in a city, I like to imagine that the popular reaction would be one of an uprising against countries producing and stockpiling nuclear warheads.

What is a “rogue nuclear bomb?” Would this be a nuclear bomb that had achieved self-awareness and deliberately transported itself to the center of a city with the intention of killing thousands?

Or are you describing a terrorist attack while simultaneously deleting the terrorists from your description in order to blame the nukes, not the terrorists, for the attack?

If a “rogue” terrorist hacker brought down the nation’s infrastructure with a massive, crippling spam attack, should the public respond with an uprising against the IT industry and the makers of Viagra? That wouldn’t make any sense. Blame the perpetrator, not the tools.

Terrorists and those who sponsor them are to blame for terrorist attacks.

Current Islamist terrorist groups like al Qaeda are not “deranged individuals”. They’re state-sponsored paramilitary groups that are a smaller part of the Islamist/Ba’thist alliance. Syria supports Hizbollah, Iran sponsors Hizbollah & al Qaeda, Saudi sponsors al Qaeda, the Sudanese Islamist government provides a meeting place and gold storage facilities, Pakistan provides a fairly small nuclear umbrella.

It is a war between nation states - the Islamist/Ba’thists vs. the non-Islamist/Ba’thists.

Nuclear technology is one of our best weapons in the war against terror-supporting societies. Newer, safer pebble bed nuclear reactors could supply much of the energy that we’d need to power a hydrogen economy.

Without nuclear weapons, America would still be a formidable fighting force. Although we don't want to, we could probably destroy the world a few times without nukes. I don’t think any other nation but China has that same ability. That’s why I think we should support the abolishment of nuclear weapons. Do you agree?

Of course, in a disarmament situation, we should demand that the other guys go first.

Every society is vulnerable to attack. Lo-tech states are actually more vulnerable than high-tech states. The terror states that are currently waging war against us could probably be destroyed by a few household chemicals in the proper proportions. Militarily, these fragile desert societies are very weak. That’s why they refuse to declare war against us, although they’ve been fighting us for decades.

There are some individual anti-American groups that have the potential to inflict terror, but for now our worries about Greenpeace will have to stay on the back burner.

for the very simple reason that if it ever came to light, finis Israel.

Reality does not exist, only spin. You don't want to be seen wrong if you have just annihilated 80 million people. Your enemies will also "proof" that Iran had nothing to do with it.

we could probably destroy the world a few times without nukes.

World is really big.

_"It is a war between nation states - the Islamist/Ba’thists vs. the non-Islamist/Ba’thists.

Nuclear technology is one of our best weapons in the war against terror-supporting societies."_

I think some technologies have such a potential for harm when applied by the wrong hands and for the wrong reasons that originators and legitimate users of such technology should be burdened with an objective responsibility for the consequences of any use or misuse of their equipment.

This is not a particularily novel concept. It has been applied in the laws of various jurisdictions for ages.

The public interest rationale behind the concept of objective responsibility is of course to give the legitimate users of potentially dangerous technology a strong incentive to introduce proper security and control of the use of their assets. A supplementary rationale is to insure that only those who have a sufficiently strong incentive - economic or otherwise - can actually afford to put such technology to use.

The line of my argument is that the general security challenge for the 21st century will not be defined as winning a war being waged between those nation states who are islamist/ba'thist and those who are not. In fact putting those two factions together under the same hat seems to me to reveal a severe lack of understanding of the ideological and historical underpinnings of either movement.

In my view the general security challenge of the 21st century will be to address the fact that technological development makes it increasingly possible for deranged individuals to deal severe blows to society by simply targeting the vulnerability of society's infrastructure to abuse.

Nuclear technology is only a small albeit frightening part of this scenario. If you look at the examples of Timothy McVeigh, Kim Dae-Han, Theodore Kaczynski or Shoko Asahara I think you will find that you do not need to be a terrorist group with the backing of a "bath'ist/islamist regime" in order to inflict severe damage upon society. Why even the regrettable 9/11 incident could have practically been carried out by any odd group of sufficiently fanatic individuals - such as the Montana Militia or the Branch Davidian - wielding box cutters and taking flight training classes. The same holds true in my view of the 3/11 attack.

That US armed forces might be able to tear the world apart several times over with the use of conventional weapons seems to me to be a bit of a peculiar motive for advocating the abolishment of a nuclear strike capability. I would again point to the danger of abuse of these assets as the prime motivator for wanting to get rid of them.