The Iranian Deal: Munich II

My hope is that this truck was simply picked at random and stolen and that it wasn't part of a more nefarious plan. They will not be able to bring it across the border as easily as people can get across. There are radioactivity monitors installed that will make it nearly impossible.

Terrorists aim to exact damage - presumably, the inclusion of radioactive materials increases the amount of damage they can do.

National Security officials classify dirty bombs as a "high probability --- low consequence" threat.
I understand that Cobalt 60 can cause cancer - but I don't think it will kill people or destroy things that quickly. The fear it provokes is more than the damage.

The key to responding is not being intimidated or afraid.

I would imagine that a terrorist in possession of a dirty bomb is easier to find than one that has a box cutter in their pocket.

IMO ---- "Dirty bomb" fears are largely based on hysteria and hype. The psychological (and therefore - economic) cost is greater than any damage any such theoretical device could ever exact.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41891.pdf

An RDD attack is likely to expose few people to a dose of more than a few rem per year.

While there have been thefts of radioactive material and attempts to use it for malevolent ends,14 there has not been a successful RDD attack, for reasons such as the following. Terrorists would
need to learn about radiation for self-protection. They would need to learn which radioactive
materials would be suitable for an RDD. They would have to obtain the material despite security
measures. They would have to move the material past detectors at U.S. ports and elsewhere. They
would have to acquire the other bomb components, assemble the bomb, and place it, steps that
law enforcement might detect. Forensic analysis might reveal the perpetrator of the attack,
possibly leading to retaliation and deterring state assistance. While no one reason presents an
insurmountable obstacle, the combination may help explain why an RDD attack has not occurred.

A dirty bomb is a lot of hype, but, with the current news media, think it would make people panic and actually do more damage in the hysteria than the actual bomb...or would the media agree to censorship to cover up an actual dirty bomb explosion, pretending it was an normal accidental explosion.

well then, Fred - you've have a conspiracy

---

pick your poison ---- conspiracy or fear

---

Ain't it great?

The tin foil gang makes money either way (damn - I'm in the wrong business)

bailey bud wrote: IMO ---- "Dirty bomb" fears are largely based on hysteria and hype. The psychological (and therefore - economic) cost is greater than any damage any such theoretical device could ever exact.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41891.pdf

An RDD attack is likely to expose few people to a dose of more than a few rem per year.

While there have been thefts of radioactive material and attempts to use it for malevolent ends,14 there has not been a successful RDD attack, for reasons such as the following. Terrorists would
need to learn about radiation for self-protection. They would need to learn which radioactive
materials would be suitable for an RDD. They would have to obtain the material despite security
measures. They would have to move the material past detectors at U.S. ports and elsewhere. They
would have to acquire the other bomb components, assemble the bomb, and place it, steps that
law enforcement might detect. Forensic analysis might reveal the perpetrator of the attack,
possibly leading to retaliation and deterring state assistance. While no one reason presents an
insurmountable obstacle, the combination may help explain why an RDD attack has not occurred.

I agree, it is mostly psychological, but that is the goal with terrorists... and it's effective. 9/11 didn't effect most of us personally, but mentally, it did enough to kick our economy in the nuts for a while. Imagine dirty bombs going off in different parts of the country in a short period of time... that would definitely hurt us in a big way. Had the Boston bombing been dirty, it would be a whole new level of panic.

look - when TSA strip-searches a 4 yr old kid or a 75 yr old woman ---- the terrorists have already won ---- they don't need a dirty bomb.

The key to defeating terrorism is a resolve not to be afraid.

It's that simple ----

Unfortunately - the USA is pre-wired to be paranoid, to over-react, and to go clinically insane --- make someone scared and offer a solution for their fears (no matter how irrational) --- and pow --- you'll be a millionaire overnight.

bailey bud wrote: look - when TSA strip-searches a 4 yr old kid or a 75 yr old woman ---- the terrorists have already won ---- they don't need a dirty bomb.

The key to defeating terrorism is a resolve not to be afraid.

It's that simple ----

Unfortunately - the USA is pre-wired to be paranoid, to over-react, and to go clinically insane --- make someone scared and offer a solution for their fears (no matter how irrational) --- and pow --- you'll be a millionaire overnight.

I agree, but facts are facts, this is a country that is becoming more and more scared because the collective "we" are becoming more and more dependant on government for our personal safety. You can tell people to not be afraid, but that's not the kind of society we're evloving into.

I suppose you could convince someone to depend on a survivalist group - or to depend on
Smith & Wesson ---- which simply transfers the dependence. (granted - a dependence on your M&P likely costs less than your dependence on some government agency).

We're spending less time on productive endeavors, and more time on absolute bunk
(be it government or organizational).

Maybe we can just agree that it's the norm to feel more vulnerable than our ancestors who really had to face some nasty circumstances and hardships.