An Islamic Nuclear Attack on America is INEVITABLE

[bshole]

Islamic extremists are actively attempting to acquire nuclear weapons to unleash on the West. Four attempts have been thwarted thus far. Simple logic indicates that the FBI will be unable to stop all attempts. One of these attempts to acquire nuclear material will succeed.

Over the past five years the FBI, working in conjunction with local authorities in Moldova, have interrupted four attempts made by nuclear smugglers to sell radioactive materials to Middle Eastern extremists, including ISIS. According to the AP, “the latest known case came in February this year, when a smuggler offered a huge cache of deadly cesium — enough to contaminate several city blocks — and specifically sought a buyer from the Islamic State group.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/the-risk-of-a-nuclear-isi_b_8259978.html

 

[desura]

I think Washington fixates on Russia because political correctness doesn't apply to Russians. Yikes. That definitely is in the realm of possibility.

 

[Blue_Max]

How long do their imams have to scream "We are at war! Death to the west! Death to America!" before we accept it at face value?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I don't disagree with you bshole, the only thing that we should determine is our response when it happens.

 

[FIVR]

So Pakistan is going to nuke the US? They don't even have the ability to do so, all their weapons are pointed at India and they have no ICBM capable of hitting anywhere near us. They also have no submarines or bombers capable of hitting the US.


This article is dumb, but it serves to stoke inherent biases that racist people like desura hold dear. The reality is that the only true nuclear threats to the US come from North Korea, Russia, Isreal and China in order of likelihood to launch a strike on the US. Cesium is not even fissile enough to use to make a bomb.

The number of Americans killed this year by "islamic terror" is thousands lower than the number killed by US police. So you should be arguably far more scared of Officer Barbrady than Abu Muhammad al-Qaddafi or whatever.

 

[Ackmed]

What is dumb, is you trying to claim that all Americans killed by police isn't warranted. Then linking the numbers together. A lot of the time police have no choice. You continue your pattern is dumb posts into the new year, congrats.

 

[FIVR]

Oh yeah I forgot, they all deserved to die. 1200 a year is a small number to extrajudicially execute for the great peace we have enjoyed here in America. Also there is definitely no need to add those thousands dead to our execution numbers. That might make China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia look like tolerant nations.


Remember those 1200 are just the ones that were executed by cops and were reported. We still don't get numbers from all the departments, but preliminary evidence shows the actual number of people who die being arrested in the us is >2000 a year. That also doesn't include all the people who die from being abused in prisons and jails.

Now let's forget about all that and focus on the phantom menace of islamic terror. Nuclear islamic terror, no less.

 

[Ackmed]

Oh yeah I forgot, they all deserved to die. 1200 a year is a small number to extrajudicially execute for the great peace we have enjoyed here in America. Also there is definitely no need to add those thousands dead to our execution numbers. That might make China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia look like tolerant nations.


Remember those 1200 are just the ones that were executed by cops and were reported. We still don't get numbers from all the departments, but preliminary evidence shows the actual number of people who die being arrested in the us is >2000 a year. That also doesn't include all the people who die from being abused in prisons and jails.

There you go making dumb comments again. When did I, or anyone else claim, that everyone killed by cops deserved to die? The fact that you claim 1200 people were "executed by cops" shows your lack of reality.

 

[bshole]

So Pakistan is going to nuke the US? They don't even have the ability to do so, all their weapons are pointed at India and they have no ICBM capable of hitting anywhere near us. They also have no submarines or bombers capable of hitting the US.


This article is dumb, but it serves to stoke inherent biases that racist people like desura hold dear. The reality is that the only true nuclear threats to the US come from North Korea, Russia, Isreal and China in order of likelihood to launch a strike on the US. Cesium is not even fissile enough to use to make a bomb.

The number of Americans killed this year by "islamic terror" is thousands lower than the number killed by US police. So you should be arguably far more scared of Officer Barbrady than Abu Muhammad al-Qaddafi or whatever.

That literally has nothing to do with the article I posted. I specifically pointed out Islamist terrorist organizations as did the article. Neither the article nor I even mentioned Pakistan.

Here is more from the article:

It is likely just a matter of time before ISIS — or some other terrorist group — gets some radioactive material. We have been lax in clearing out abandoned radioactive material production sites and increasing the security of remaining ones. Between 1993 and 2013 the IAEA reported that there were almost 2500 confirmed incidents of radiological smuggling worldwide. 664 incidents involved the theft or loss of nuclear or radiological materials. 16 involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And these are just the ones that we know about.

 

[FIVR]

I agree with you, Nuclear Islamic terror is by far a more real threat. Reality FTW.

 

[bshole]

We spend 30X more on our nuclear aresenal than we do in monitoring and controlling nuclear materials around the world.

 

[FIVR]

If only we could spend billions monitoring shipments of cesium. Then we'd be safe and I wouldn't have to buy a new AR-15 rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammo every six months to protect my trailer from them muslim extremists and their nuclear capabilities.

 

[bshole]

If only we could spend billions monitoring shipments of cesium. Then we'd be safe and I wouldn't have to buy a new AR-15 rifle and 10,000 rounds of ammo every six months to protect my trailer from them muslim extremists and their nuclear capabilities.

We SHOULD spend those billions, I think that is my point. Why are we spending so much on our arsenal and only a fraction of that in preventing those materials getting in the hands of whack jobs? Read the article. They basically flat out state that we are going to get hit. The hit that we take will be on a scale exponentially higher than 911. Over 600 documented incidents of nuclear arms smuggling.... in what world does this not blow up in our face?

 

[desura]

So Pakistan is going to nuke the US? They don't even have the ability to do so, all their weapons are pointed at India and they have no ICBM capable of hitting anywhere near us. They also have no submarines or bombers capable of hitting the US.


This article is dumb, but it serves to stoke inherent biases that racist people like desura hold dear. The reality is that the only true nuclear threats to the US come from North Korea, Russia, Isreal and China in order of likelihood to launch a strike on the US. Cesium is not even fissile enough to use to make a bomb.

The number of Americans killed this year by "islamic terror" is thousands lower than the number killed by US police. So you should be arguably far more scared of Officer Barbrady than Abu Muhammad al-Qaddafi or whatever.

LOL, someone didn't read the article. Deflect Deflect. Never apologize. It works, I'll give you that, and whatever works is how a lot of life is.

Thing is this: I recognize that Muslims have their basket of grievances. And as long as they hold onto these grievances and more importantly, act on them, maybe they shouldnt be moving here to a country they despise so much.

 

[desura]

We SHOULD spend those billions, I think that is my point. Why are we spending so much on our arsenal and only a fraction of that in preventing those materials getting in the hands of whack jobs? Read the article. They basically flat out state that we are going to get hit. The hit that we take will be on a scale exponentially higher than 911. Over 600 documented incidents of nuclear arms smuggling.... in what world does this not blow up in our face?

Washington is fixated on prestige work. Russia is like the perfect prestige opponent where they can hate as freely as they want without feeling dirty and racist.

Like, Obama's favorite tv show is Homeland, a prestige tv drama, where everything is perfect, no messy desks, immaculate homes, etc.

The cesium danger is police work. Police work is not as prestigious as military work. It requires cooperation with the Russians. And Washington is paranoid enough that they might spin it as a sinister plot by the Russians to distract us from what they're really doing. I've seen articles in the Daily Beast claiming that Syria is a big Russian conspiracy to unravel NATO. This bureaucratic hostility is insane.

 

[zinfamous]

How long do their imams have to scream "We are at war! Death to the west! Death to America!" before we accept it at face value?

I think you guys are thoroughly convinced that whatever your read in the media--or whatever you choose to read--reflects exactly what the people assigned to these jobs are actually doing.

You don't know tit-all about what is going on with active FBI/CIA/NSA and special forces operations and you never will.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

So Pakistan is going to nuke the US? They don't even have the ability to do so, all their weapons are pointed at India and they have no ICBM capable of hitting anywhere near us.

Pakistan is not going to nuke the US. Neither are Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea or any other country that can be located on a map and turned into a parking lot with one phone call. When it happens (not if, WHEN) it will be a terrorist organization that acquires a single suitcase nuke and smuggles it into NYC, DC, LA, Chicago or Houston. They can/will pop it off because they don't fear reprisals.

It won't be a long range ICBM, a medium range missile or a short range missile. It won't be launched by a sub or a long range bomber. It's going to be delivered in the back of a van or the hold of a cargo ship.

 

[bshole]

You don't know tit-all about what is going on with active FBI/CIA/NSA and special forces operations and you never will.

I do know they failed to prevent 911. I do know there have been over 600 documented incidents of nuclear materials smuggling, I do know that 4 incidents of nuclear materials being acquired by terrorists were thwarted. That is a sufficient basis to call for more resources to combat the threat. Monitoring nuclear materials is infinitely more important than bombing Syrians.

 

[jeff_in_MD]

That literally has nothing to do with the article I posted. I specifically pointed out Islamist terrorist organizations as did the article. Neither the article nor I even mentioned Pakistan.

Here is more from the article:

Didn't see the report you talked about from the site but did it talk about where the nuclear materials are coming from?

 

[leper84]

I don't disagree with you bshole, the only thing that we should determine is our response when it happens.

Eliminate every extremist in the middle east until they are begging for mercy. It would probably end up as a world war and take reinstating the draft, but that would be the only way to put an end to radical islam. Otherwise we can keep ignoring it and watch the attacks grow in severity, or we can keep doing what we've been doing for a decade and a half and go bankrupt as a nation barely managing the issue, all while stirring the pot. Only thing for certain is the problem is not going away and they do not want peace.

 

[desura]

Eliminate every extremist in the middle east until they are begging for mercy. It would probably end up as a world war and take reinstating the draft, but that would be the only way to put an end to radical islam. Otherwise we can keep ignoring it and watch the attacks grow in severity, or we can keep doing what we've been doing for a decade and a half and go bankrupt as a nation barely managing the issue, all while stirring the pot. Only thing for certain is the problem is not going away and they do not want peace.

That is what the Iraq war was supposed to be. Iraq war was supposed to be our intervening before Munich, you know, how they say Hitler could have been stopped with an early show of force.

Iraq didn't work out because the underlying culture is completely alien and unreceptive to American culture and institutions. German culture already shared a fair amount with American culture, which is why rebuilding worked so well. Iraqi culture not at all. Not in the least.

 

[Commodus]

Here's the problem, and it's pointed out in the article: the actual prospect of a serious nuclear attack by terrorists is pretty small. They don't have the resources to build full-on warheads (they'd need state sponsorship for that), and a "dirty bomb" would be more about a lingering worry than a catastrophe. Not exactly something that will make the US rethink its foreign policy, is it?

Moreover, I don't think groups like ISIS are all that eager to attack the US directly with nuclear weapons. Do that and it guarantees a dramatic response that hurts their cause more than it helps. ISIS sets off a dirty bomb in New York? The core of ISIS is reduced to dust in the full-scale military response that follows. This wouldn't completely eliminate terrorist organizations (one of Bush Jr.'s biggest mistakes was believing neocons who thought that conventional military ops could solve all terrorism), but these outfits stand to lose a lot.

I'd be more concerned about nuclear weapons being used as deterrents or for scorched earth policies. Oh, you defeated us in Mosul? Well, we'll make sure Mosul is dangerous to live in.

 

[jeff_in_MD]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3848473&page=1

 

[desura]

Here's the problem, and it's pointed out in the article: the actual prospect of a serious nuclear attack by terrorists is pretty small. They don't have the resources to build full-on warheads (they'd need state sponsorship for that), and a "dirty bomb" would be more about a lingering worry than a catastrophe. Not exactly something that will make the US rethink its foreign policy, is it?

Moreover, I don't think groups like ISIS are all that eager to attack the US directly with nuclear weapons. Do that and it guarantees a dramatic response that hurts their cause more than it helps. ISIS sets off a dirty bomb in New York? The core of ISIS is reduced to dust in the full-scale military response that follows. This wouldn't completely eliminate terrorist organizations (one of Bush Jr.'s biggest mistakes was believing neocons who thought that conventional military ops could solve all terrorism), but these outfits stand to lose a lot.

I'd be more concerned about nuclear weapons being used as deterrents or for scorched earth policies. Oh, you defeated us in Mosul? Well, we'll make sure Mosul is dangerous to live in.

No. ISIS has already shown that it will do utterly despicable terrorist attacks. They exhibit a moral depravity coupled with an Islamic fervor.

Especially with it losing ground, there is a desire for vengeance. What better way to get vengeance than a dirty bomb? It isn't that hard to make one. Just a conventional bomb with radioactive material packed inside. And how could the USA respond, especially if it doesn't control territory? The Chomsky people would decry any retaliatory measures the USA uses as hitting innocent people, which would get played around in the Muslim world more in their never-ending grievance mongering.

MAD theory doesn't work when the other guy doesn't have anything you could target and destroy.

 

[bshole]

Moreover, I don't think groups like ISIS are all that eager to attack the US directly with nuclear weapons. Do that and it guarantees a dramatic response that hurts their cause more than it helps. ISIS sets off a dirty bomb in New York? The core of ISIS is reduced to dust in the full-scale military response that follows. This wouldn't completely eliminate terrorist organizations (one of Bush Jr.'s biggest mistakes was believing neocons who thought that conventional military ops could solve all terrorism), but these outfits stand to lose a lot.

I disagree. Four thwarted attempts by terror organizations to get their hands on nuclear materials is scary as all hell and is VERY indicative of a high level of interest.

What is more helpful to America, stepped up funding for nuclear material monitoring or more intervention in the Middle East? To me the answer is obvious, blatantly obvious... stop creating people who loathe us by terror bombing their infrastructures and take that cost savings and pump it into monitoring.