Nuke or Bio Terror Attack in US "likely" by 2013

[NorthSideSox72]

According to a panel convened by Congress, we are likely to see a biological or nuclear terrorist attack in the US by 2013.

 

This is a scary propsect obviously, but here is the discussion I'd like to start...

 

1. What can Obama's administration and the new Congress do that will actually mitigate the risk?

 

2. If it happens, will it end up helping, or hurting, the sitting President?

 

[bmags]

Stuff like this I kind of feel like Congress is just covering their bases. I'm not saying we are invincible by any means, obviously, but what the hell do you do with this info. Within the next 4 years, there will be an attack with bio or nukes on US soil. That is the most generalized crap I've ever heard.

[NorthSideSox72]

Stuff like this I kind of feel like Congress is just covering their bases. I'm not saying we are invincible by any means, obviously, but what the hell do you do with this info. Within the next 4 years, there will be an attack with bio or nukes on US soil. That is the most generalized crap I've ever heard.

What, if anything, do you think can be done to minimize the risk?

 

[southsider2k5]

It will happen ( I don't know exactly when), and because of the constitution a President is very limited in what he can do to prevent it. There are too many holes in this country, and you can't close every one, no matter what some people think.

[mr_genius]

According to a panel convened by Congress, we are likely to see a biological or nuclear terrorist attack in the US by 2013.

 

This is a scary propsect obviously, but here is the discussion I'd like to start...

 

1. What can Obama's administration and the new Congress do that will actually mitigate the risk?

 

2. If it happens, will it end up helping, or hurting, the sitting President?

 

1) Intelligence and surveillance of possible terrorist groups is key. I have a feeling Obama will continue surveillance programs.

 

2) It would end up being a one and done for Obama if it happens.

 

[lostfan]

It will happen ( I don't know exactly when), and because of the constitution a President is very limited in what he can do to prevent it. There are too many holes in this country, and you can't close every one, no matter what some people think.

Unfortunately the way to most completely mitigate it is to curb civil liberties and essentially become a police state. And since I take intelligence-related college classes I see people discussing this in class periodically, where I hear people basically say that. When I tell them that what they're calling for is basically becoming like China, they either back down, don't respond, or deny that's what they mean.

[Balta1701]

1) Intelligence and surveillance of possible terrorist groups is key. I have a feeling Obama will continue surveillance programs.

2) It would end up being a one and done for Obama if it happens.

1. No one has disputed the given right of the President to wiretap anyone overseas that he so desires. Of course he'll continue surveillance directed at actual national security threats.

 

2. It wasn't for Bush.

[southsider2k5]

Unfortunately the way to most completely mitigate it is to curb civil liberties and essentially become a police state. And since I take intelligence-related college classes I see people discussing this in class periodically, where I hear people basically say that. When I tell them that what they're calling for is basically becoming like China, they either back down, don't respond, or deny that's what they mean.

 

Exactly. I have said it before, and I will say it again, people ARE going to die in terror attacks and there is NOTHING the government as it exists today can do about it.

[mr_genius]

2. It wasn't for Bush.

 

The Republican party, in general, is more trusted on issues of national security (fair or not) by the general public. Bush was seen as someone who would get tough on terrorism. The Democrats (fair or not) have more of a reputation of being softer on terrorism. Also, after the attacks in 2001, there has not been an attack on US soil; if Obama is in office and terror attacks ressume he is going to catch the blame, just like the Republicans got the blame for the stock market crash.

 

 

[Balta1701]

What, if anything, do you think can be done to minimize the risk?

The key on the nuclear issue has to be to control the old Soviet fissile material stockpiles, something that Obama has already been highly active on, working on the old Nunn/Lugar program.

 

No matter what people say about Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc., it is nearly impossible to produce the material needed for a weapon on your own without having access to huge facilities, an awful lot of time, some darn good scientists, and a lot of money. Barring nuclear reactors suddenly becoming vastly cheaper, the already-processed material, mainly from the Soviets, are your main threat.

 

In terms of bio-weapons...same deal. For them to be effective, they have to be something worse than the common cold. You could conduct a 2001 anthrax attack level assault without significant skill, but to do anything more than that, the best way to pull it off is to get access to some of the material that the Soviets weaponized and mass produced late in the cold war. They made some really, really nasty stuff. The 2001 Anthrax attacks were, lets say, annoying, but they didn't have the ability to spread themselves like a true bioweapon, where each person you infect becomes a carrier who can infect others. The Soviet stockpiles can do that.

 

It's also probably worth stockpiling the smallpox vaccine, because frankly, if I wanted to pick a bio weapon to use to truly harm a country, some variant of that would be my choice.

[NorthSideSox72]

The key on the nuclear issue has to be to control the old Soviet fissile material stockpiles, something that Obama has already been highly active on, working on the old Nunn/Lugar program.

 

No matter what people say about Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc., it is nearly impossible to produce the material needed for a weapon on your own without having access to huge facilities, an awful lot of time, some darn good scientists, and a lot of money. Barring nuclear reactors suddenly becoming vastly cheaper, the already-processed material, mainly from the Soviets, are your main threat.

 

In terms of bio-weapons...same deal. For them to be effective, they have to be something worse than the common cold. You could conduct a 2001 anthrax attack level assault without significant skill, but to do anything more than that, the best way to pull it off is to get access to some of the material that the Soviets weaponized and mass produced late in the cold war. They made some really, really nasty stuff. The 2001 Anthrax attacks were, lets say, annoying, but they didn't have the ability to spread themselves like a true bioweapon, where each person you infect becomes a carrier who can infect others. The Soviet stockpiles can do that.

 

It's also probably worth stockpiling the smallpox vaccine, because frankly, if I wanted to pick a bio weapon to use to truly harm a country, some variant of that would be my choice.

 

I tend to agree with you on nukes, I think that risk is mostly about existing weapons and materials. That's a key area to address.

 

On bio-weapons, stockpiling vaccines and antedotes for the most likely, most easily weaponizeable (is that a word?) stuff like small pox is a good idea. But if I had to choose something like that, I'd actually go with something hotter and faster that has no vaccine - a hemorragic fever like Ebola, Marburg or Hanta, for example. In a densely populated urban center, if it got a good enough seeding, it could move a lot faster than it could be contained.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

The Republican party, in general, is more trusted on issues of national security (fair or not) by the general public. Bush was seen as someone who would get tough on terrorism. The Democrats (fair or not) have more of a reputation of being softer on terrorism. Also, after the attacks in 2001, there has not been an attack on US soil; if Obama is in office and terror attacks ressume he is going to catch the blame, just like the Republicans got the blame for the stock market crash.

 

I agree with this, but I think whoever is President during the next attack, be it D or R, will catch a lot of blame from the other side for not preventing it.

[Flash Tizzle]

It's appropriate this information was released today. On Friday, during a discussion of the Mumbai terror attacks someone in our class asked our professor (who works with the Chicago Police Department in matters concerning anti-terrorism) whether or not Al-Qeada could orchestrate such a coordinated event on American soil. I expected him to say yes, since they obviously planned a far more elaborate attack seven years ago; but he doubted it since, in his words, "Al Qeada isn't going to act until they're confident they can kill more people than 9/11." Commando style attacks would almost be beneath them. He brought up a good point that since they're the foremost terrorist organization in the world, it's almost an issue of ego. Anything less than 3,000 dead and you're showing weakness.

 

To answer your questions:

 

1. First you have to atleast some general knowledge of ways in which they're going to administer these biological or nuclear weapons. For biological, you're probably going to have someone flying in from a foreign country with the agent in their system. I suppose all international airports should have their quarantine kits updated in the event of terrorism. Nuclear weapons as you've all discussed are impractical on the scale of Hiroshima unless some rogue nation wants to lose their most populated cities. Any attack of nuclear origins would be a dirty bomb, which could be assembled from radioactive material collected from a hospital combined with a conventional explosive. We should do our part to make sure radioactive materials are disposed of properly, or atleast monitored on site. I could easily see a terrorist entering medical school and finding his way to collecting material over the course of several years. An additional point may be to install radiation beacons in our southern friends, Mexico. If by some chance a live nuclear warhead is entering this nation it's going to be through that s***hole.

 

2. I believe It depends if whatever the means exploited by the terrorists were opposed by Obama. If he's extremely lax on bolstering security throughout our borders and a terrorist does happen to sneak material through there, it won't look too good for him.

 

Although, you know what -- if we're likely to be hit by a nuclear or biological attack by 2013 then Israel should be due for one any day now. When that happens I'll begin to loosen my collar.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Flash Tizzle

[Balta1701]

If by some chance a live nuclear warhead is entering this nation it's going to be through that s***hole.

Honestly, I disagree. Nuclear weapons are heavy. You need some sort of vehicle to move them, unless you're doing multiple shipments and you have the ability to do the assembly within the U.S. Even then, moving the pieces are heavy (plutonium/uranium have really high densities) and you don't want to risk having something go wrong where you expose the material beforehand because you dropped your backpack.

 

Moving a bomb across that border would probably be harder than you think. you need to use a vehicle, and vehicles go through checkpoints.

 

If I was a foreign terrorist and I wanted to bring a bomb in to the U.S., I'd either try to find a port that didn't have a solid radiation sensor system (I think major upgrades on those were included when the Dems passed the 9/11 commission recommendations about 1.5 years ago), or more simply, I'd charter a boat, park it 20 miles or so offshore of somewhere like Maine or Oregon, someplace where the coastline is pretty luxurious and open but where there is highway access without a lot of security, and I'd bring it ashore in a small boat. I believe the state of Oregon has somewhere between 1 and 2 troopers who's job it is to patrol their coastline. I think that's by far your easiest access point. No sensors of any sort, the only thing that stops you is blind luck, and if you pose as tourists having a campfire from their SUV or someone doing some fishing, there's no real reason for suspicion.

[NorthSideSox72]

Honestly, I disagree. Nuclear weapons are heavy. You need some sort of vehicle to move them, unless you're doing multiple shipments and you have the ability to do the assembly within the U.S. Even then, moving the pieces are heavy (plutonium/uranium have really high densities) and you don't want to risk having something go wrong where you expose the material beforehand because you dropped your backpack.

 

Moving a bomb across that border would probably be harder than you think. you need to use a vehicle, and vehicles go through checkpoints.

 

If I was a foreign terrorist and I wanted to bring a bomb in to the U.S., I'd either try to find a port that didn't have a solid radiation sensor system (I think major upgrades on those were included when the Dems passed the 9/11 commission recommendations about 1.5 years ago), or more simply, I'd charter a boat, park it 20 miles or so offshore of somewhere like Maine or Oregon, someplace where the coastline is pretty luxurious and open but where there is highway access without a lot of security, and I'd bring it ashore in a small boat. I believe the state of Oregon has somewhere between 1 and 2 troopers who's job it is to patrol their coastline. I think that's by far your easiest access point. No sensors of any sort, the only thing that stops you is blind luck, and if you pose as tourists having a campfire from their SUV or someone doing some fishing, there's no real reason for suspicion.

 

I'll tell you the best way to get it into the US - over water, from Canada. You could take a boat from a Canadian great lakes port to, say, Chicago, without drawing any kind of notice at all. Or alternately, you can portage and canoe your way across in Minnesota, and look like every other person with a boat and large pack.

 

[StrangeSox]

How do you get it into Canada in the first place?

[Balta1701]

How do you get it into Canada in the first place?

Canada has a moderately enormous shoreline, and it's only growing as the ice pulls back. If I'm complaining about the 1-2 guys that patrol the coast of Oregon for example...imagine that problem in the 2nd largest country in the world.

[StrangeSox]

Canada has a moderately enormous shoreline, and it's only growing as the ice pulls back. If I'm complaining about the 1-2 guys that patrol the coast of Oregon for example...imagine that problem in the 2nd largest country in the world.

 

How much of the coastline is really navigable by small ships that wouldn't be noticed?

[Balta1701]

How much of the coastline is really navigable by small ships that wouldn't be noticed?

Now that the ice is pulling back, a huge majority of it. The difficulty isn't getting off of the ships. The difficulty would be getting it from a ship to a road.

[NorthSideSox72]

Now that the ice is pulling back, a huge majority of it. The difficulty isn't getting off of the ships. The difficulty would be getting it from a ship to a road.

If we're talking about a small package, small enough to fit in a Duluth pack, then getting it ashore would be quite easy.

 

[whitesoxfan101]

I am not smart enough to answer question 1, but the answer to question 2 is it depends on how the administration reacts. Even though they ended up going overboard with the patriot act and phone wiretapping and so on, the INITIAL reaction of the GWB administration after 9/11 was good, or at least was preceiving to be very good by the public (if you remember, his approval ratings for a while were very high after 9/11). The reason he got re-elected is he was supposedly "tough on terror", and that goes directly back to his administration's 9/11 reaction. Just my opinion, and I agree with Flash's professor who said Al-Qaeda won't act again on American soil until they can top 9/11. In that sense, maybe the lack of activity attackwise on our soil the last 7 years is a byproduct of us preventing "the next big one" and not us preventing terrorism in general. If they wanted to set off a bomb in a mall and kill a dozen people, they could do it even here in America. But they have their eyes on bigger things.

[southsider2k5]

I am not smart enough to answer question 1, but the answer to question 2 is it depends on how the administration reacts. Even though they ended up going overboard with the patriot act and phone wiretapping and so on, the INITIAL reaction of the GWB administration after 9/11 was good, or at least was preceiving to be very good by the public (if you remember, his approval ratings for a while were very high after 9/11). The reason he got re-elected is he was supposedly "tough on terror", and that goes directly back to his administration's 9/11 reaction. Just my opinion, and I agree with Flash's professor who said Al-Qaeda won't act again on American soil until they can top 9/11. In that sense, maybe the lack of activity attackwise on our soil the last 7 years is a byproduct of us preventing "the next big one" and not us preventing terrorism in general. If they wanted to set off a bomb in a mall and kill a dozen people, they could do it even here in America. But they have their eyes on bigger things.

 

"topping" 9-11 is a vague concept though. Imagine an attack in the style of the recent Mumbai attack, except done on the biggest malls, or tourist attractions in the US simultaniously. They wouldn't have to kill as many people, but the lasting economic impact of the fear potential could actually do much more damage to the country as a whole. That could "top" 9-11 easily. Imagine an attack on the water supply's of the nations biggest cities. People would have a fear of drinking water and showering. How devistating would that be? Body counts aren't the only way to measure effectiveness.

[bmags]

"topping" 9-11 is a vague concept though. Imagine an attack in the style of the recent Mumbai attack, except done on the biggest malls, or tourist attractions in the US simultaniously. They wouldn't have to kill as many people, but the lasting economic impact of the fear potential could actually do much more damage to the country as a whole. That could "top" 9-11 easily. Imagine an attack on the water supply's of the nations biggest cities. People would have a fear of drinking water and showering. How devistating would that be? Body counts aren't the only way to measure effectiveness.

 

true, and all though this may be piped up by India police to appear they stemmed off something worse, the Mumbai terrorists had aspirations of 5,000 deaths. I don't think this type of terrorism is too beneath Al Qaida. Think of the theatre in Russia overtaken by Chechnyan rebels. About 200 killed. Imagine a coordinated attack on 10 high populated areas with lax security.

 

As David Foster Wallace said, (this is kind of out of context and you see his point in the whole scheme of things more) what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

 

I think it's a little overblown but thought provoking.

[southsider2k5]

true, and all though this may be piped up by India police to appear they stemmed off something worse, the Mumbai terrorists had aspirations of 5,000 deaths. I don't think this type of terrorism is too beneath Al Qaida. Think of the theatre in Russia overtaken by Chechnyan rebels. About 200 killed. Imagine a coordinated attack on 10 high populated areas with lax security.

 

As David Foster Wallace said, (this is kind of out of context and you see his point in the whole scheme of things more) what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

 

I think it's a little overblown but thought provoking.

 

Great post, and I agree 100%. Another great "soft" target would be elementary schools. They usually don't have much in the form of security, that is normally reserved for more "dangerous" high schools. Imagine if people were scared to send their kids to school?

[Balta1701]

true, and all though this may be piped up by India police to appear they stemmed off something worse, the Mumbai terrorists had aspirations of 5,000 deaths. I don't think this type of terrorism is too beneath Al Qaida. Think of the theatre in Russia overtaken by Chechnyan rebels. About 200 killed. Imagine a coordinated attack on 10 high populated areas with lax security.

 

As David Foster Wallace said, (this is kind of out of context and you see his point in the whole scheme of things more) what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

 

I think it's a little overblown but thought provoking.

Here's the thing that sort of undersells me on that concept...why exactly wouldn't it have been done already if the group was willing to do that? All you need is the manpower and maybe $50,000 and a couple of weeks to go to U.S. gun shows. You could arm an army with that kind of money, without having any ID checks, with the equipment available regularly for sale in the U.S. It could have been done a dozen times by now if the manpower was there.

 

The fact that it hasn't been done I think is an argument that the groups after us just aren't yet that interested in this sort of attack.