Nuclear arms summit...

What you believe does not make it real.

Click to expand...

What you don't believe does not make it unreal.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with this post, or any post before this.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with everything discussed.

A threat can't be real, it is by definition a fabrication or intent and has no reality only possibility.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Threat (disambiguation).
A threat is an act of coercion wherein an act is proposed to elicit a negative response. It is a crime in many jurisdictions.

Yes, all the good people can sit and talk about how good they are and how they're trying to better the world, while those with ill intent do whatever they want, highly effective.

Click to expand...

You also said this:

At best they're guessing about severity, and there's no actual risk values associated to this versus say spending the same amount of money on bettering communication between the factions that are actually the problem in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'll let you argue with yourself

Quote your sources, there is no concrete definition of what a dirty bomb is, it's just two words put together your opinion of what a dirty bomb is does not mean that's the only way nuclear materials could be employed uising the exact same words as they're just words with very broad definition.

Click to expand...

It's the most often used definition. Do a little research, and you’ll know.

Nukes as in nuclear bombs are NOT the problem it's the radioactive material that is and delivery methods that can be used to distribute the materials lethally. All it takes to purify to lethality nuclear materials is a freegin high speed spinning tub =) Doesn't have to make it so that the material can go critical, it just has to make it radioactive enough that it can be put into a form that can be diffused in a lethal manner to the population.

Click to expand...

False. If that were the case, then all countries would have a bomb. The equipment is out of reach for most rogue nations and terrorist organizations ( right now that is )

Which because the rogue states aren't part of this summit renders it useless for this purpose.

Click to expand...

Not useless. As already discussed, keeping nukes out of the hands of these rogue states is one purpose. But it would be naive to think this treaty will be the one and only effort.

Dirty bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dirty Bomb : Homeland Security News

Well, just use Google...

Well, just use Google...

Click to expand...

Indeed. **broken link removed**

You really seem stuck on terrorists building a nuclear bomb. I'm sure it's desirable, but a lot more work than they usually put into their attacks. 9/11/2001 attack, they only learned enough to steer the plane, they didn't need to take off or land. I think they would be more inclined to steal a ready made warhead, and stuff in a backpack or stolen car, than build from scratch. If the did acquire some raw material, they would more likely pack in with conventional explosive and make a 'Dirty-Bomb' (see links above).

It's not just me. Terrorists would do anything to cause harm, and that would include everything from setting off conventional bombs to the most destructive bombs possible.

Must admit that my knowledge of terrorists, comes from watching the news, so will have to accept your expertise in the field... But they do seem to keep it cheap and simple, minimalistic in effort. They aren't constructing huge bombs, but placing several smaller backpackers strategically. Think all this 'dirty' business, is just that. Propaganda to sell another method of control, and spend a few billion tax dollars on who knows what. It's just another non-issue, being hyped up, like the closed threads.

If a poorly constructed, low grade 'dirty bomb' was used, it would carry the same terror value as a high tech nuke, but at a very small fraction of the cost and effort. Which is more consistent with most of the previous attacks. Doesn't really matter about the death, injuries, or damages, it's the fear and headlines they are after. Sure, the greater the damage, the great the effect. Even the lowest quality material, would require testing and clean up, cause the effected people to fear what will come of their exposure for years. And every bomb there after, will be suspected of being 'dirty'. It's the random attacks, that keep people on edge, never knowing where or when, or how bad it will be. They don't need to expend their resources on a warhead grade weapon, since they have doing so well with just a backpack full of explosives. Just don't see the logic. Also consider that not all homemade explosives go boom as expected. A lot of effort, for a maybe, and a great deal of expense, very low chance of success.

For 9/11, they didn't buy the planes, just tickets to ride. They didn't complete pilot training, just enough to steer the plane. A lot of death and destruction, for very few dollars. This was probably their most 'technical' attack, in that they actually had to spend some classroom time.

Kind of wonder what will happen next year... Obama promises to withdraw the troops, but promised to have the troops home last year, when he was campaigning. Pretty sure this is a re-election issue, either something people will remember at election time, or something to pass on to the next president. I don't see a second term, but not seeing much for competition either. If there was a serious candidate, he'd be stepping up, and getting some media every opportunity, and there have been plenty lately.

I don't know about that. I can't think of a single terrorist attack that was only intended to scare people. Every attack has been either to kill, maim or disrupt commerce and cause property damage. The attack in Bali was n a crowded disco, so planned to maximize the number of deaths and injuries. The attacks on Madrid were on commuter trains during the time when they would be crowded with people. Thus, the attackers not only killed alot of people, but disrupted vital commuter lines. In Riyadh, the attacks were on communities where many Americas were living. In London (if I'm not mistaken) the attacks were again on crowded commuter centers (though not as damaging) In Mumbai, the attacks were on the financial center, where the disruption of commerce was one goal. The IDE's in Iraq are not intended to scare people, they are intended to kill and maim, and the overwhelmingly majority number of fatalities and injuries suffered by troops have been at the hands of these devices. Finally, the attacks on 9/11 were at the heart of America's financial and commerce centers, as well as the most densely populated areas in the country (lower Manhattan) And on the center of US defense. In their most destructive attack ever, the Al Qaeda spent months planning, coordinating and training for the attacks. It should illustrate not only how much damage they intend to inflict, but also the lengths they will go to achieve it.

Furthermore, it would be exceedingly naive and irresponsible to assume their methods won't evolve. The lesson of every war ( or jihad as it is ) is the enemy will always evolve, improves their methods, intelligence and battlefield technology. As the world's terror organizations and rogue nations endeavor to launch more spectacular and destructive attacks, the logical goal would be these weapons, which has the potential to inflict the kind of damage, death and disruption they seek. Further, some of the world's worst terror organizations have the resources to acquire anything they need to deploy these weapons, as do the world's worst rogue states. Further still, there has been intelligence reports released that efforts by terror organizations are presently attempting to procure these weapons.

I'm not an expert, just someone watching the developments and understanding what the threats are. I have to research continually to keep up with all the incoming information. I don't always get it correct, but I keep digging until I understand the issues. And I am aware that locking down the weapons won't by itself guarantee safety, but is just a part of a policy that includes many more facets all directed towards the goal of mitigating the risk as much as possible. We've already witnessed the results of doing nothing. I don't want to go back to that failed policy.

I would think most people are scared of getting blown up, anytime, any place, no place is safe. Of course the want to get the maximum effect, for the effort they put into the attack. You really give them too much credit, their great is weapon is fear. On the hijacked planes, they simple used box-cutter type knives, under a buck at most any store. The trains and subways, maybe the hotel, were done with standard issue, suicide bombers. You don't see there is a huge leap from what they have been using, and nuclear bombs? Poison gases are pretty easy to make and deploy, but they don't. Don't recall them using poisons of any kind, yet. Not too tough to grow bacteria either, but nothing in that field either. They use what they can get their hands on, to best possible effect, with minimal effort, just that simple. Partly, because they are constantly on the move, they don't sit long enough to set up a research lab, or manufacturing facility. They might take control of one, or sneak a member in briefly, but nothing permanent.

It's tough to separate the truth from the propaganda sometimes, or which 'bad guy', we need to keep an eye on most, too much finger pointing sometimes. This one, I think is intended to empty our wallets. Just a way to allocate funds away from more important issues, and not have show an accounting of how the money is spent, or show any tangible results. Kind of like last years emissions issue...

Not really so. They trained and organized for years for 9/11. Al Qaeda operatives were sent to the US with proper immigration papers, new identities, apartments, flight school enrollments, weekly stipends and everything else they needed to blend into US society. They used box cutters because that's what they were allowed to carry on the planes ( also used bomb threats because they knew the crew and other passengers would cooperate if they though the planes would be blown up) No, I don't think I'm giving them too much credit. They've shown they will go to extreme measures to plan and organize if that means they can kill or maim more people and cause more destruction and disruption. In fact, chemical and biological agents aren’t all that easy to manufacture, or they would be using it more. But an attack using saran gas was made in Tokyo in a crowded subway which killed a number of people. But I’m sure you forgot about it because it didn't make as big an impact as the big boom attacks. No doubt, however, that chemical and biological attacks remain a threat, and it's probably important to get control over the chemical and bio threats as well ( remember the anthrax attacks, they weren't so successful as bombings have been ) Nuclear bombs are certainly something the terrorists can get their hands on, if there is enough on the black market or in unsecured and unstable areas. They would be easier to acquire and deploy than chemical or bio agents, and would cause much more damage than conventional bombs. For these reasons, this material represents one of the worst threats.

Oh, I didn't know it was so tough to purchase a few jugs of household chemicals at the local Walmart. Why bother, since nuclear warheads are so easy to find at the flea market or Ebay. They aren't perfectionist, just as long as it gets the job done. You can't secure everything that could be used as a weapon. I'm not say they wouldn't mind getting hold of some nuclear weapons, or they wouldn't use them if they could, just that I don't believe its a high priority.

The Gulf War has to be a huge inconvenience for them, and kind of looks like its going to end soon. A nuclear attack would bring it on, much worse than before. I think most countries lost interest, when no WMDs were found in Iraq. Wouldn't a detonation be proof positive, that these guys need to be put out of business?

Well, we were focused on the middle eastern terrorist, guess you need to shift gears, and dodge over to domestic terrorism. Should have included a truck load of fertilizer...

What's that? Weapons of mass disinfection? HA!

Terrorists can cause far more havoc without resorting to dirty bombs. They can poison a community water supply, shut down a power generating station, infiltrate a data base, and their favorite... fly a loaded plane into a populated target. Their intentions are to instill continuous fear and disrupt normal life in whatever cowardly method they muster up.

HiTech said:

Terrorists can cause far more havoc without resorting to dirty bombs. They can poison a community water supply, shut down a power generating station, infiltrate a data base, and their favorite... fly a loaded plane into a populated target. Their intentions are to instill continuous fear and disrupt normal life in whatever cowardly method they muster up.

Click to expand...

He's an easy sell on propaganda, everything the governments say, must automatically be the gospel. He doesn't realize that most all nuclear material, is already fairly secure, just for basic health and safety reasons. It can be some truly nasty stuff, so needs to be handled carefully, not flushed down the toilet, or sent to the local landfill.
Anything lost or hidden, is likely to stay that way, regardless of treaties, unless somebody is actively searching for it, if it actually exists in the first place. Just another useless government agency, that gets to spend billions of dollars, and not having to actually produce anything.

HarveyH42 said:

He's an easy sell on propaganda, everything the governments say, must automatically be the gospel. He doesn't realize that most all nuclear material, is already fairly secure, just for basic health and safety reasons. It can be some truly nasty stuff, so needs to be handled carefully, not flushed down the toilet, or sent to the local landfill.
Anything lost or hidden, is likely to stay that way, regardless of treaties, unless somebody is actively searching for it, if it actually exists in the first place. Just another useless government agency, that gets to spend billions of dollars, and not having to actually produce anything.

Click to expand...

And who would that be? It's OK with me if you don't care much for defending your country or way of life. Those of us who do aren't buying propaganda. We're assesing the threat and understanding the action that is required. For all of the reasons I've shown, it is a real good idea to get control over the loose nukes. The material that's supposedly secure isn't all that secure, and remains a threat to the peace and stability to nations. Terrorists will expliot any weakness in the system to thier advantage, as they have demonstrated over and over. So go ahead and stick your head in the sand. I'd rather be proactive.

HarveyH42 said:

The Gulf War has to be a huge inconvenience for them, and kind of looks like its going to end soon. A nuclear attack would bring it on, much worse than before. I think most countries lost interest, when no WMDs were found in Iraq. Wouldn't a detonation be proof positive, that these guys need to be put out of business?

Click to expand...

Enough evidence of residual items and such were found but the hardcore proof was likely swept out of the country to Syria or elsewhere. Remember that months and months of time was wasted as we waited for Iraq to comply/deny with searches. Plenty of time to move things out and tidy up afterwards.

HA! No WMD's were ever found. When I wrote my Senator about this, he wrote back to inform me that he was SURE they would trun up. When they didn't, and I wrote back he responded and said he was sure evidence of a WMD program would turn up. When that didn't happen, and I wrote back, he responded that it was the right thing to do even though no weapons and no evidence of a weapon program was ever found. yeah right, the lying motha. The government's hand picked weapons finder said the weapons were never there.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the second attack on Iraq, the military did find questionable evidence, albeit nothing worthwhile to claim an active WMD program. A small cache of abandoned machinery and support items were found, but it also appeared to double as possible pharmeceutical purposes. There were intelligence reports of a trail of equipment into Syria, but that would have presented a whole new Pandora's Box for the West to deal with. Sadaam had plenty of time to clean and dust his house. Now, not to come off like I'm siding with Sadaam or the like, if any weapons were transported to Syria or other open-arms state, I would think evidence of some sort would have leaked out by now, let alone the huge temptation for terrorists to use them against the coalition troops.

All else aside, I disagree with the government's decision on the second attack. It's been very costly in numerous ways, repercussions will be felt for years, lives have been lost on both sides of the planet, and Iraq is still a turbulent nation. That's not to say that I do not support our troops though. They deserve the best equipment and means to carry out a job they are "ordered" to do.

Saddam was so g-r-r-r-eat at hiding stuff, he couldn't even hide himself He dug a hole and hoped that nobody would look in there. How am I supposed to believe he wiped away every trace of evidence of an active WMD program? Honestly, that would require that I am gullible beyond belief. Bushes own man in the field said no WMD's, no programs. But bush never listened to his intelligence or any other agency. If Dick fed it to him, he ate it like a starving man.

HiTech said:

Enough evidence of residual items and such were found but the hardcore proof was likely swept out of the country to Syria or elsewhere. Remember that months and months of time was wasted as we waited for Iraq to comply/deny with searches. Plenty of time to move things out and tidy up afterwards.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured Sadam was stalling for a reason, we hammered him pretty good the first time (daddy Bush should have finished the job), had to know we be back. Also got a hunch we haven't found everything underground. I don't think we are anywhere near finished over there, and the pull-out is purely for political reasons. We will have to go back, and start all over again within a year. Instead of a sham democracy, we should have just claimed it as our own. The people over there need a strong leader, not a guide from the side-lines, but then again, we're in the market for a strong leader too. Guess they are in short supply these days. Doesn't look like anybody is going to challenge Obama in 2012, or they would already be working on it.

Part of the first gulf war, was that there would be regular weapons inspections. So, he would have been very careful, know he could be forced at anytime to let the inspectors in. He knew he would have much time to cover up. Still, he claimed to have powerful weapons (didn't actually say nukes though), had the cash and the friends who could provided them, and he already had shown several times that he didn't have a problem with killing lots of people. Whether or not he actually had the weapons in Iraq isn't that important, he had the means to get them, and failed his agreement to allow inspectors in. Bush really didn't need to use WMDs as an excuse.