Jacoby wrote:
I said to protect from foreign countries and terrorists who may take control of those nukes. I think we're a lot more likely to be nuked by Russia, China, or Iran once they acquire nukes than any terrorist. Don't see what is confusing about that.
While it may be slightly concerning, there is a big difference between concerning and people declaring that nuclear terrorism is inevitable. I'll start being afraid once these guys start using anything besides crude IEDs made from household items.
From the Harvard Kennedy School Review 2011 Edition:
Quote:
The Threat
It is important to understand that nuclear terrorism is not just an obsession of the paranoid and conspiracy theorists. The threat of a nuclear terrorist attack has loomed over U.S. policy makers at least since September 11 and remains frighteningly possible. U.S. President Barack Obama labeled nuclear terrorism the “single biggest threat to U.S. security,” and placed a global spotlight on the need to secure fissile material (substances that can be used to make a nuclear bomb) and improve border security around the world to reduce the risk of a nuclear strike.
Although these efforts will mitigate the threat, they cannot eliminate it completely. A 2005 poll of security experts estimated the likelihood of a nuclear terror strike within the next decade at 29 percent (Belfer Center 2007), and Matthew Bunn, associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, arrived at the same conclusion through a mathematical model. Even if the actual likelihood of a nuclear attack is far less than these predictions, the devastating consequences demand preventative attention. Americans take everyday precautions for much less horrific disasters. Take driving, for example. The chance of being killed in a transportation accident over the course of a year is only one in 6,000, yet the government requires seat belts, enforces speed limits, and demands all drivers be licensed (National Safety Council n.d). These laws exist because the government wants to protect its citizens from the dangers of car accidents; surely the government could play a larger role to encourage the populace to be prepared for nuclear terrorism.
Looking beyond the bounds of a decade, Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and professor of government at the Kennedy School, calls nuclear terrorism “inevitable,” and many experts join him, claiming it is more a question of when than if.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k74756&pageid=icb.page414662
I don't agree that a state sponsored nuclear attack against the US is more likely than a terrorist sponsored attack with a nuclear device; the consequences there are not the death of a suicide bomber, but death for many people in the Country that initiates the attack. I'm not sure if Iran will be allowed to develop nukes, but if they do, there is a possibility they would be used against Israel; I doubt Israel is going to give them that opportunity.
What would China or Russia gain by attacking the US with Nukes?
North Korea is another story, all bets are off if they developed the capability of striking us; however, I imagine we will find a way to prevent them from getting that capability.
07 Jun 2011, 8:50 pm
