An Islamic Nuclear Attack on America is INEVITABLE

[Muse]

Nuclear is a hydra-headed beast. The worst are, well, hydrogen or cobalt bombs. Beyond most terrorist organizations. However, what isn't beyond them is dirty bombs. Get some radioactive material and disperse it -- it is vile, but conceivable.

"Inevitable?"

"There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening." - The Medium is the Massage

 

[feralkid]

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.

Did you just learn the word "prestige" or do you actually talk like this in real life?

 

[sandorski]

A dirty bomb is nothing like a Nuclear Warhead. We're basically talking about Irradiating a few City Blocks versus flattening a City here and irradiating downwind for potentially 100s of square kms. It is entirely possible for a Dirty Bomb to go off and no one die from it, at least not immediately.

 

[JSt0rm]

Did you just learn the word "prestige" or do you actually talk like this in real life?

he is a russian so forgive its his second language

 

[IronWing]

Which is why for us to win we must dominate and destroy islamic culture as it exists today.

ISIS is already working on that one.

 

[Jaskalas]

A dirty bomb is nothing like a Nuclear Warhead. We're basically talking about Irradiating a few City Blocks versus flattening a City here and irradiating downwind for potentially 100s of square kms. It is entirely possible for a Dirty Bomb to go off and no one die from it, at least not immediately.

The evacuation itself might kill more.
But the cost... the refugees, by the millions if in the wrong spot...

 

[sportage]

This is the same type of GW Bush hysteria that forced us "The US" into war. Then, after the fact and after the deaths and after the cost we learn the threat wasn't serious in the first place. But by then it is too late.
You know... America has this belief that we are the enlightened society destine to survive and destine to lead and destine to prevail. What if that was not the case?
There are a lot more of them than of us, or soon will be.
Christianity is a dying religion.
Soon there will be a lot more Muslims than Christians on the planet.
If Christians are not careful, Christianity could be the endangered religion.

The chances of finding that out has been upped sufficiently since the US election.
The chances for the US to engage is now much more of a possibility.
And with this idiotic assumption they would be harmed and we would not.

If America went to war on the ground against North Korea or a pissed off Putin, absolutely nuclear weapons would be introduced on the ground .
And that would not mean hundreds of dead troops, that would mean hundreds of thousands of dead troops, American troops, in one single day.
How long could America's military fuel that type of engagement?
And after the draft has begun, and it most definitely will, would the Trump kids go fight?
Would they join in to "fight for America"?
Of would once again double talker die hard Trump loyalist Kelley Conway need to explain to the rest of America why daddy's business is far more important for the Trump children?

 

[WackyDan]

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.

The Cesium and other elements they wish to desire are not to build a true nuclear warhead, but a dirty as fuck bomb. Your response suggests you don't actually understand that.

 

[woolfe9998]

This stupid bickering about "mooslims" and "fear mongering" leads me to conclude that few of you actually read the OP's article. It's a pretty sober assessment, and perhaps not quite as alarmist as the OP interprets it to be. The author points out something that surprises me - that likely not one person would die from radiation spewed by a dirty bomb. Doesn't sound a lot like fear-mongering to me. Moreover, it discusses evidence of international trafficking that is at least concerning enough to not dismiss.

Most importantly, the author suggests several courses of action to reduce future threats that are pretty sensible, like coopering more fully with Russia in both nations securing their waste and fissile materials, putting more funding into prevention of international trafficking in fissile and radioactive materials, etc. These are things that no sane person should oppose. They are things that we should be wondering why they are not being done already.

In truth, I think the near term threat is extremely low, as the author pretty much admits. But in the long run? Perhaps there is cause for concern, particularly when we decide to dismiss completely reasonable suggestions on something as important as nuclear security as "fear mongering" about "mooslims."

 

[werepossum]

This stupid bickering about "mooslims" and "fear mongering" leads me to conclude that few of you actually read the OP's article. It's a pretty sober assessment, and perhaps not quite as alarmist as the OP interprets it to be. The author points out something that surprises me - that likely not one person would die from radiation spewed by a dirty bomb. Doesn't sound a lot like fear-mongering to me. Moreover, it discusses evidence of international trafficking that is at least concerning enough to not dismiss.

Most importantly, the author suggests several courses of action to reduce future threats that are pretty sensible, like coopering more fully with Russia in both nations securing their waste and fissile materials, putting more funding into prevention of international trafficking in fissile and radioactive materials, etc. These are things that no sane person should oppose. They are things that we should be wondering why they are not being done already.

In truth, I think the near term threat is extremely low, as the author pretty much admits. But in the long run? Perhaps there is cause for concern, particularly when we decide to dismiss completely reasonable suggestions on something as important as nuclear security as "fear mongering" about "mooslims."

Agreed. Personally I'd like to see a lot more resources devoted to tracking incoming radioactivity and checking incoming traffic - nuclear weapons are hardly the only (or main) threat. My greatest fear is an EMP burst or two, launched from a sacrificial converted freighter offshore. Second would be a small yield bomb smuggled in by truck, with damage limited to one city. Suitcase nukes are the province of the Russians. If any remain, I suspect they are heavily guarded because Moscow is the most likely target of those most likely to steal them in Russia. But I suspect they were all dismantled long ago, as surely the shielding is inadequate for long term storage.