Opinion Piece: An American Hiroshima

9/11 and the original bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka (I'm not old enough to have be around but do admit to feeling queasy about the effects afterwards) were bad enough. I don't know if I want to be around if this particular situation happened. More importantly, what if they chose somewhere other than NYC? What about London or Washington, D.C.? Heck, Toronto even.

Terrorism is about inflicting fear on society. Me thinks they are often doing a good job of it. :(

Quote:

---

Source: Spiegel Online

An American Hiroshima
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Published: August 11, 2004

ASPEN, Colo. — If a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, a midget even smaller than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, exploded in Times Square, the fireball would reach tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

It would vaporize or destroy the theater district, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal and Carnegie Hall (along with me and my building). The blast would partly destroy a much larger area, including the United Nations. On a weekday some 500,000 people would be killed.

Could this happen?

Unfortunately, it could - and many experts believe that such an attack, somewhere, is likely. The Aspen Strategy Group, a bipartisan assortment of policy mavens, focused on nuclear risks at its annual meeting here last week, and the consensus was twofold: the danger of nuclear terrorism is much greater than the public believes, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to reduce it.

Graham Allison, a Harvard professor whose terrifying new book, "Nuclear Terrorism," offers the example cited above, notes that he did not pluck it from thin air. He writes that on Oct. 11, 2001, exactly a month after 9/11, aides told President Bush that a C.I.A. source code-named Dragonfire had reported that Al Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.

The C.I.A. found the report plausible. The weapon had supposedly been stolen from Russia, which indeed has many 10-kiloton weapons. Russia is reported to have lost some of its nuclear materials, and Al Qaeda has mounted a determined effort to get or make such a weapon. And the C.I.A. had picked up Al Qaeda chatter about an "American Hiroshima."

President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to New York to search for the weapon and sent Dick Cheney and other officials out of town to ensure the continuity of government in case a weapon exploded in Washington instead. But to avoid panic, the White House told no one in New York City, not even Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Dragonfire's report was wrong, but similar reports - that Al Qaeda has its hands on a nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union - have regularly surfaced in the intelligence community, even though such a report has never been confirmed. We do know several troubling things: Al Qaeda negotiated for a $1.5 million purchase of uranium (apparently of South African origin) from a retired Sudanese cabinet minister; its envoys traveled repeatedly to Central Asia to buy weapons-grade nuclear materials; and Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted, "We sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other Central Asian states, and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase [nuclear] bombs."

Professor Allison offers a standing bet at 51-to-49 odds that, barring radical new antiproliferation steps, a terrorist nuclear strike will occur somewhere in the world in the next 10 years. So I took his bet. If there is no such nuclear attack by August 2014, he owes me $5.10. If there is an attack, I owe him $4.90.

I took the bet because I don't think the odds of nuclear terror are quite as great as he does. If I were guessing wildly, I would say a 20 percent risk over 10 years. In any case, if I lose the bet, then I'll probably be vaporized and won't have much use for money.

Unfortunately, plenty of smart people think I've made a bad bet. William Perry, the former secretary of defense, says there is an even chance of a nuclear terror strike within this decade - that is, in the next six years.

"We're racing toward unprecedented catastrophe," Mr. Perry warns. "This is preventable, but we're not doing the things that could prevent it."

That is what I find baffling: an utter failure of the political process. The Bush administration responded aggressively on military fronts after 9/11, and in November 2003, Mr. Bush observed, "The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them." But the White House has insisted on tackling the most peripheral elements of the W.M.D. threat, like Iraq, while largely ignoring the central threat, nuclear proliferation. The upshot is that the risk that a nuclear explosion will devastate an American city is greater now than it was during the cold war, and it's growing.

In my next column, I'll explain how we can reduce the risk of an American Hiroshima.

---

That's a scary thought... One time I am very glad I live in the midwest.

Quote:

---

One time I am very glad I live in the midwest.

---

I wouldn't make that assumption. While getting "more" is probably part of their goal, terror and fear are the first part. Oklahoma is a good example of terror hitting an area other than a big, major city. What better way to strike fear than to hit where it's not expected. People will be even more paranoid then.

The problem about develop wide destruction weapons is sometime your enemy will have the same weapons as you.
As USA is the only major nation in the world (speaking about army/weapons), what about USA propose that everybody destroy all nuke weapons (USA including) and revert again to regular war?
Although building an atomic bond is "easy", those guys cant make one without the proper tecnology, that inst avaliable on store next door. They can get one :
1) stealing components
2) stealing a complete bomb
3) buying a complete bomb
Options 2 and 3 are worldwide available (Russia, China, Israel, Pasquitan, India)
If nobody produce bomb and/or components, no one will have one. easy, isnt it?
But USA, despite having a huge arsenal of "regular weapons", still wants to keep its nuclear weapons.
Lets offer other example: instead thinking about Al-qaeda, what about the USA terrorist (home made ones)?
I think they have more chances to get one (maybe from USA arsenal) than those crazy Al-qaeda guys.

Please dont compare 9/11(a tragedy) with Hiroshima/Nagazaki bombing. Its not the same subject and are uncomparable.

Quote:

---

Please dont compare 9/11(a tragedy) with Hiroshima/Nagazaki bombing. Its not the same subject and are uncomparable.

---

It wasn't meant as a comparison between the two but rather a comment on the destruction that man can do for a variety of reasons (whether the goal is to achieve terror or submission, the end result is often the same: death and destruction).

Quote:

---

other than a big, major city

---

Oklahoma City is no tiny potato. Not New York but decently a half million people not including the entire metro area. Can you picture a well placed bomb in a closet here ? A janitor bringing in a large trashcan in the middle of the night and placing it in room 7 on the 20th floor?

Keep in mind these guys are smart, and strategic. Striking at a small, remote, low-populated area isn't out of the question either. The idea is that if they did so, they'd get the message across that nowhere is safe. You can go the big city, you can go to the remote farm lands, but they'll still get you, hence striking terror. That's the goal. So we need to keep our guard up on all fronts and assume nothing.

They blow up my town, they wouldn't kill 1000 people. I think that would be quite a waste of a nuke. If they did ANYTHING around me, they would blow up Whiteman AFB, where the B2 Bomber is housed. I live about 15-20 miles from there, so if we ever get in a nuke war with another county, I will die quite quickly. That sounds much more fun than a life not worth living as a slave or with radiation sickness.

cacosapo, those parts aren't necessary. The only component need is a nuclear reactor. These component everyone speaks of are for air delivery of the payload involving avionics etc. You wouldn't want the bomb to go off on the launch pad or airplane so componenty are needed to arm and detonate the bomb. All that is really needed are:

1. Some decent *nium (uraniam etc) or some other matter of potential fissionable magnitude
2. A detonator
3. A target

Ok so how does one make a nuclear detonator? All you have to do is keep two pieces of fissionable material below critical mass and then bring them together very fast. It's popular to use a gun chanber to do this. Another way is the "soccer ball" principle using implossion for detonation. That was used in a movie back in the 80 or early 90s called the Manhattan project or something. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaka were very simple. No "advanced" components were needed, in fact they weren't even tested before deployment. Just two clumps of Uranium and a gun barrel type detonator.

Our saving factor so far has been the ability to handle weapons safely. This has been the limiting factor so far. There are other advanced methods of detonation which provides for the massive weaponry we stockpile but all that is needed for mass destruction is about 16 kg of uraniam at 88 percent mass and a detonator you can make at a hardware store.

//EDIT Here I drew one up based on the design of FatMan and LittleBoy, the bombs used in WW2 (in the name of science) assuming it get's uploaded.

(Briefly off topic)

Quote:

---

That was used in a movie back in the 80 or early 90s called the Manhattan project or something.

---

Wasn't that the movie about the Navy ship in which the men ended up welded into the steel because of an Einstein time travel/teleportation mishap or something (and based on a "true" story!)? That's what I've heard, been wanting to see it. The real event is a REALLY interesting story.

(more off topic) That was a great movie about an Aircraft carrier from today going back in time and they have the option to stop Pearl Harbor from happening. Imagine a 90s Enterprise class fleet versus a 1930/40s Japanese carrier? I might have the names mixed up. This one is about a geek kid designing a bomb out of a soccer ball. The real theory exists and has been tested. It's an implosion device and you could probably google "soccer ball principle".

(One last off-topic post, as the mental image is just too good to not share. ;) )

First thing I thought of with that was the image of a mushroom cloud rising and someone yelling "GOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!" :D

(he lied, there is one more)

Heh, maybe I should try that next game :D You don't need to live to win a soccer game ;)

Ok, you can explode a nuclear reactor. But a nuclear reactor is a HUGE device, so inst good as a choice for terrorist.
To make a bomb, you need a kind of Uranium that is uncommon. And the device that detonates it need some tecnology.
If is that so easy, Brasil would have its own A-bomb, that currently it doesnt (thanks GOD).
So you need:
- raw material - Uranium (cant remember number)
- special tecnology to make the bomb SMALL - you cant just drop a nuclear reactor from a plane or carry on a truck.
And countries that have those tecnology are those ive mencioned before.
That tecnology is used ONLY on nukes... so end the tecnology production will stop bomb production.
destroy bomb will end the threat. simple isnt it?
its like bio-war. Stop research (big researcher- Uncle Sam) will stop bio-threat too.
When someone develop a way to kill millions, someone WILL use this way. Maybe against the developer....

That brings up a great point -- Why in the world are our nuke reactors not more heavily guarded? I think we have one here in Arkansas, and I'm not too terribly keen about that...

If you think about it, the people who die in the nuke blast are the lucky ones. Instant death. The rest of us will die slowly from radiation poisoning. What fun.

Another thing to think about for those of you that are paranoid. Not sure about the safety features of a nuclear reactor, but why not just blow up a nuclear reactor? Radation is everywhere killing millions eventually, power is out (causing more panic), and you might just get some good fireworks from it. I am within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor and I think about someone flying a plane into it or causing a meltdown. Scary stuff.

Uranium get's manipulated (doped) to determine it's critical mass. You don't have to blow up a reactor, you get some uranium, manipulate it then pretend it's exhausted uranium then "dispose" of it. You mention Brazil, they may not care to work on it because that is not a desire but Pakistan did, so did India and Korea and Libya and on and on. We know what happens when reactors get blown up (Chernobyl). I am not saying all reactors have weapons grade material, but they have the ability to make it at the facility becase they have uranium.

How does one enrich uranium or plutonium? It's not difficult enough becasue the US is chasing it down all the time. First many countries stock pile the stuff. Germany, France, US, Britain, on and on and on and on. 2nd it is only "kind of" hard and once was a secret lifted from the west as we helped countries develop nuclear power facilites. Finally, these particles come from the earth, even soil can have particles or Uranium in it. Large pockets only occur in specific areas that we have found, some in countries with very lax controls on who, how and when it is mined. Africa for instance.

Plutonium 238 is artificially produced by bombarding a uranium isotope. 1 kg of Plutonium is about the same as 19,000 TON of explosives (depending on the text book). That's a punch!!! and 1 or 2 kg doesn't weigh very much much; we humans move larger objects around like toys. Place them at predetermined distances apart and you can sneak in the equivilent of a 10 megeton bomb and not be as easily detected. I should stop since I am giving out ideas.

Oh, one more thing, getting rid of all the weapons grade materials cannot be done.
Someone will always have access to it, because nuclear power will be needed even more in the future AND the half-life for Plutonium is 20,000 years! I could go into about 7 more ways to make weapons grade **** from low grade reactor fuel but I am stopping now but I focus on Plutonium because it doesn require a centrifuge etc and seems most likely to be abused since it can be made from low grade stuff. Peace all. :)

My 2 cents:

Anything can happen. Hell I have a higher chance of getting shot in the street rather than being blown up by a nuclear bomb. If we start to get scared, and afraid that it "might" happen, then the terrorists have already won. I would seriously put the media into the Axis of Evil category. They often blow things out of porportions and do more harm than good. By all means i'm not saying to let our guard down, but do not live in fear that it might happen. Again, there's a million other things that will most likely kill you before you get blown up.

Heh heh, the media is a weapon of mass destruction! Or mass idiocy...definately one of the two... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AngelicKnight
(Briefly off topic)

Wasn't that the movie about the Navy ship in which the men ended up welded into the steel because of an Einstein time travel/teleportation mishap or something (and based on a "true" story!)? That's what I've heard, been wanting to see it. The real event is a REALLY interesting story.

---

You're thinking of The Philadelphia Experiment, with the USS Elderidge. Weather or not it happend is still up for debate. But there is some very interesting evidence. Including the possiblity that Einstein's unified field theory was actually completed. Many think it was not. If indeed it was, it would change our entire field of physics, time, and space.

Thanks Quad, now I remember! I definately need to see that one eventually...That topic could easily make a good thread of its own, I love talking about the Philadelphia Experiment. ;)

Quote:

---

the half-life for Plutonium is 20,000

---

half life of Plutonium is 250 000 years.............

Quote:

---

Ok, you can explode a nuclear reactor. But a nuclear reactor is a HUGE device, so isn't good as a choice for terrorist.

---

Reactors do not explode, they melt down........... The China Syndrome, wherin they melt into the earth, and keep on sinking until they come out in China (US reactors, UK would probably come out by Guam ?)

Quote:

---

Plutonium 238 is artificially produced by bombarding a uranium isotope. 1 kg of Plutonium is about the same as 19,000 TON of explosives (depending on the text book). That's a punch!!! and 1 or 2 kg doesn't weigh very much much; we humans move larger objects around like toys. Place them at predetermined distances apart and you can sneak in the equivilent of a 10 megeton bomb and not be as easily detected. I should stop since I am giving out ideas.

---

if 1Kg pluotonium = 20 Ktons, it would mean they need 500 Kg of plutonium for the 10 Megaton device................. not realistic. The Soviet 'City Killer' was 10 Megaton+, but more bang, requires LOTS more maintenance. Also Soviet technology required a bigger bang as they couldn't guarantee accuracy within 1 mile........ US tech can now drop within 10 METERS, hence US require 'only' kiloton warheads.....

tech note: for max efficiency ???????? air-burst at 5000 meters will give a 'better' kill zone than a ground burst, which is why the tech race was won and lost on delivery systems.
A ground burst will generate a lot more fall out ( irradiated particles of ground zero) but will make the initial blast zone smaller. 100's of meters instead of 1000's of meters.

Quote:

---

I am within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor and I think about someone flying a plane into it or causing a meltdown.

---

I've worked in nuclear power stations, and at one time I thought I was walking along a corridor, it was a WALL, more than 2 meters thick, and this was NOT the containment wall for the reactor. As the reactor is not a Hi-rise, its not a problem to make it real heavy, And the only planes to worry about are US planes loaded for bear. Which are not on the average terrorist shopping list. Wish list maybe.

Delivery therefore is restricted to physical delivery, and ground burst, max size propably within the 'small' kiloton range.
The terrorist isn't going to have too many of these, and so they need to make maximum impact, high profile targets with (preferably) live TV coverage: Olympics ? (No one said it was ONLY the US mainland at risk, your citizens are everywhere.)

Their planning will be in the range of YEARS, and they will have been theorising over target selection / delivery / impact / end result. They have already shown that they have NO moral or ethical barrieres to concern them, as they are doing 'Gods' work ?????????

As in the article, the threat is real, and it is not going to go away, YOU (USA) have to deal with this in your own way, you have the power, do you have the will to make it different.

This is NOT a military threat, this is a terrorist threat. A distinction both subtle and perverse.
They will attack (military) but not on a battlefield (terror). To fight them requires that you engage them on their level, it also implies that you fight on their terms:

No Surrender.
No Quarter.
No Rest.
No Medals.
No Glory.
NO SECOND CHANCE...........

They only have to be lucky ONCE.
You have to be lucky ALWAYS.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by cacosapo
The problem about develop wide destruction weapons is sometime your enemy will have the same weapons as you.
As USA is the only major nation in the world (speaking about army/weapons), what about USA propose that everybody destroy all nuke weapons (USA including) and revert again to regular war?
Although building an atomic bond is "easy", those guys cant make one without the proper tecnology, that inst avaliable on store next door. They can get one :
1) stealing components
2) stealing a complete bomb
3) buying a complete bomb
Options 2 and 3 are worldwide available (Russia, China, Israel, Pasquitan, India)

---

1-3 Russia

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by foxyloxley


half life of Plutonium is 250 000 years.............

---

Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years
Pu-241's half-life is 14.4 years.
Plutonium isotope with the shortest half-life of 20 minutes is Pu-233.
Plutonium-244, which occurs naturally, has the longest half-life of 80,000,000 years.
Pu-242 with a half-life of 373,300 years
All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lifes that are less than 7,000 years. This element also has 8 meta states, though none are very stable (all have half-lives less than 1s).

The isotopes of plutonium range in atomic weight from 228.0387 u (Pu-228) to 247.074 u (Np-247). The primary decay modes before the most stable isotope, Pu-244, are spontaneous fission and alpha emission; the primary mode after is beta emission. The primary decay products before Pu-244 are uranium and neptunium isotopes (neglecting the wide range of daughter nuclei created by fission processes), and the primary products after are americium isotopes.

Fact Sheet on Plutonium
Plutonium Basics

Some of you are forgetting that chernobyl was one of the worst built Nuke Reactors ever, and that is why it caused so much damage.

If terrorists REALLY wanted to hurt the U.S. with nukes, and reallly inflict terror, all they have to do is blast a nuke at about 1000-10,000 feet and the EMP blast would knock out electronical systems EVERYWHERE in a very large radius. Think about what would happen if they located the general location of one of the backbone routers...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by foxyloxley if 1Kg pluotonium = 20 Ktons, it would mean they need 500 Kg of plutonium for the 10 Megaton device................. not realistic. The Soviet 'City Killer' was 10 Megaton+, but more bang, requires LOTS more maintenance. Also Soviet technology required a bigger bang as they couldn't guarantee accuracy within 1 mile........ US tech can now drop within 10 METERS, hence US require 'only' kiloton warheads.....

tech note: for max efficiency ???????? air-burst at 5000 meters will give a 'better' kill zone than a ground burst, which is why the tech race was won and lost on delivery systems.
A ground burst will generate a lot more fall out ( irradiated particles of ground zero) but will make the initial blast zone smaller. 100's of meters instead of 1000's of meters.

---

Check this out Tsar Bomba
A dirty device derived from the Bassoon was weaponized to create the highest yield weapon the U.S. ever fielded, the 25 megaton Mk-41. The Tsar Bomba design was for a fission-fusion-fission bomb with a staggering yield of at least 100 megatons!

Quote:

---

Delivery therefore is restricted to physical delivery, and ground burst, max size propably within the 'small' kiloton range.
The terrorist isn't going to have too many of these, and so they need to make maximum impact, high profile targets with (preferably) live TV coverage: Olympics ? (No one said it was ONLY the US mainland at risk, your citizens are everywhere.)

---

Ahem.... If I can deliver this beast on land because it is so small, (suitcase), what is to prevent me renting a light aircraft and detonatiing it at the appropriate height?

That aside, from a terrorist point of view a ground burst is more "enchanting". Pick the right city on the west coast or in the western midwest. Wait for the appropriate weather conditions and "bang"..... They get their instant "kill" in the thousands, (possibly hundreds of thousands), then they sit back and watch the downwind hazard zone as all the cities there are evacuated to avoid the fallout. Significantly more crippling to the USA than whacking New York and watching your fallout cloud kill fish in the north Atlantic.......

lol I was trying to keep it simple. By saying, basically it doesn't take a "super power" to create a devistating bomb. The plutonium examples I used are not the most powerful because they do things that make it more explosive, and critical mass can be achieved with "spent" reactor fuels. Not very stable stuff but someone who hacks the heads off civilians doesn't really give a **** about "stability" do they?

All they have to do take 2 masses of plutonium (239) at around 3/4 critical mass and nring them together. That's it, no fancy detonator involved just a way to bring em together. They don't even have to make it safe just shield it somehow from outside, suicide missions are a specialty.

actually proper delivery, kill factor, etc. really aren't necessary if those objectives aren't available. al-quida has stated that they possess 3 suitcase nukes. if they detonated one (even if it wasn't a suitcase nuke) in say... mayberry...killing aunt bea, andy, their descendants and barney. announce to the world that this was a warning...and they have two more to use in major cities. that would, I think, satisfy their terrorist ambitions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
lol I was trying to keep it simple. By saying, basically it doesn't take a "super power" to create a devistating bomb. The plutonium examples I used are not the most powerful because they do things that make it more explosive, and critical mass can be achieved with "spent" reactor fuels. Not very stable stuff but someone who hacks the heads off civilians doesn't really give a **** about "stability" do they?

All they have to do take 2 masses of plutonium (239) at around 3/4 critical mass and nring them together. That's it, no fancy detonator involved just a way to bring em together. They don't even have to make it safe just shield it somehow from outside, suicide missions are a specialty.

---

What is your and everyone’s take on the plutonium that we get out of the Russian-USA disarmament program, allot is brought to the OAK Ridge nuclear facility in TN, along with barrels of Heavy Water ect... destination Yucca Mountain Project , Kerry and some scientist are making a deal out of that because of potential earthquakes at the mountain site?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
actually proper delivery, kill factor, etc. really aren't necessary if those objectives aren't available. al-quida has stated that they possess 3 suitcase nukes. if they detonated one (even if it wasn't a suitcase nuke) in say... mayberry...killing aunt bea, andy, their descendants and barney. announce to the world that this was a warning...and they have two more to use in major cities. that would, I think, satisfy their terrorist ambitions.

---

Oh, man, good point I forgot about that Tob1, "Russian military had lost track of more than 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs , any one of which could kill up to 100,000 people. "
Stupid, stupid Russians and that screwed up communist government failure, like most of them.

Quote:

---

To fight them requires that you engage them on their level, it also implies that you fight on their terms:

---

Too right, the sooner the USA, Australia, and british governments start covertly assasinating
even suspected terrorists, the sooner this issue will be resolved.

They need to realize that we are a people that is powerful, and will fight with whatever means
necessary to win this battle.

Morals, principals, human rights and legitimate targets are standards and views that are only
calculated by them to inflict the most amount of damage and suffering.

They need to be provoked into making a move and showing themselves, instead of waiting for
when it's too late and we have to clean up the mess. You can't see what doesn't move, make it
move.

Of course they are in planning stage, what's going to be the next target, and will we even see it
coming? I strongly doubt that all of the cracks have been filled, and much suffering and pain is to
come before this battle settles.

The threat of nuclear attack is not impossible, but a dirty bomb would be a better choice in creating the desired affect with minimal effort obtaining the materials needed.

There's a storm brewin and it's gonna be a lot worse than we have seen so far, only time and
the lack of aggresive direct actions will tell when and how we will be once again at the mercy of
these attacks.

tiDaLfAze23 i couldnt agree more but our governments know this. politicians are afraid of the reaction of the wishy-washy voters egged on by political advisarys that use any real action against them. our system is committing suicide!

gabrial for president! (travolta in swordfish)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by MsMittens
I wouldn't make that assumption. While getting "more" is probably part of their goal, terror and fear are the first part. Oklahoma is a good example of terror hitting an area other than a big, major city. What better way to strike fear than to hit where it's not expected. People will be even more paranoid then.

---

yeah.. i was 8 years old, sitting in my enrichment class in second grade.. in the basement of our school whenever the murrah building was demolished by timothy mcveigh... i doubt we are an unsuspecting target :)

(You could actually feel the ground shake from the bomb 45 miles away) - the southeast corner of our school had a few kids stumble into desks.

my dad was working on an oil well in a town called piedmont - 15 miles away. yeah he felt it, saw the smoke, and heard it.

nearly everyone i know knew someone that was killed in that attack, even though it was only 300+ people that were killed i believe, those people were friends and family of alot of people in my town.. one of my sister's friend's father was killed in it.

blah.. ****ing terrorists.

Quote:

---

politicians are afraid of the reaction of the wishy-washy voters egged on by political advisarys that use any real action against them. our system is committing suicide!

---

That's right, someone needs to step forward and declare that democracy, civil rights, baby
kissing votes and the reaction of the peple, at this such a time will be discarded, and a temp,
state of dictatorship will be implemented to resolve the present threat issues.

Why can't the worlds biggest power make its own rules and act according to the demand
that is currently pressing?

The more the

Quote:

---

wishy-washy voters egged on by political advisarys that use any real
action against them

---

keep the current government from making the needed decisions,
the harder it will become to control and limit the obvious threat that is posed and will take us all
to our knees.

I would rather read the history as a time of strenght and courage shown by the west to overcome
and defeat these scum terrorists, by implementing radical policy that goes against all common values of todays society. Rather than maybe not reading how we were weak and influenced by
public opinion, that had been the major factor in the decline and defeat of democracy and freedom
by our own reluctance to make a stand and fight.

Quote:

---

That's right, someone needs to step forward and declare that democracy, civil rights, baby
kissing votes and the reaction of the peple, at this such a time will be discarded, and a temp,
state of dictatorship will be implemented to resolve the present threat issues.

---

That would work.
But then you would be living in the type of country that you are trying to put out of business.....
Although I believe that of all the countries in the world, that America could just pull it off, AND return to what it had before.........

I disagree foxy, America would not return from a dictator that caters enough to the desires of the people and only the "right" people would be willing to give up absolute power. Those people ceased to exist a century ago. I could look around the private population and find those people, but non of them are in politics. I take that back, I wonder if Ronnie would have been one who could pull it off, or Kennedy?

Quote:

---

I wonder if Ronnie would have been one who could pull it off, or Kennedy?

---

I agree with your argument, as for those who MIGHT:

Ronnie : yes, a believer in whatever he was told.
Kennedy : JF yes. Teddy NNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOO !!!!

Might be too late for those two, just have to wait, as come the hour, comes the man.

I should have made it clear. Ted is not part of the "Kennedy" vocabulary. :) That's why he is still alive. Bobby was like his brother. R.I.P.

In the original article, the author mentioned something about having a bet.

Funny thing is, I have a similar 10-year bet with a friend of mine - it is worth £10 or equivalent in Euros and expires in about July 2011.

This was of course arranged before 9/11, and the basic premise is the same - I will owe her £10 if nobody nukes anything in the 10-year period.

Not doing too badly so far, over 3 years gone and nobody's got nuked yet.

Not sure what I will do with the money if I win, I really would rather lose :)

Slarty

No one has been nuked for over half a century. Stoping proliferation will ensure that legacy continues.