From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 04:03:26 MDT
--- Ramez Naam <mez@apexnano.com> wrote:
> From: Spudboy100@aol.com [mailto:Spudboy100@aol.com]
>
> > Dirty bomb only a matter of time, says MI5
<snip>
> Personally, I fully expect a nuclear (not just
> radiological) terrorist
> attack against the US in the coming 10 - 20 years.
> I believe current
> US foreign policy makes this event more likely
> rather than less. So
> I'm already aghast at Bush.
>
> mez
I'm no expert, but here's my two cents
I think nuclear weapons are just too hard to come by.
Biologicals take an IMO unlikely combination of years
of specialized and sophisticated training with a
way-over-the-top psychosis, particularly if you're
talking about novels formulations of great virulence
and communicabilty. Chemicals are perhaps easier, but
dilution from dispersion makes a large attack more
difficult. I doubt a large attack.
CBRN (formally CBN) attacks are quite "dramatic" and
"galamorous" in the popular culture. But I worry more
about the low-tech "low-hanging fruit", largely easy
and largely unexpected. The kind of attack suggested
by the article (which now wouldn't qualify as
unexpected). The kind of things we never hear about,
because it would be grossly irresponsible to go around
publicizing them, but that people with specialized
knowledge identify as a vulnerabilty.
I can think of two, horrible beyond belief, and likely
off anyone's radar.
But, a question. Such vulnerabilities seem abundant.
And in plain sight. If they're easy as well (maybe
they're not, I could be wrong, I'd certainly like to
be), how come we don't see more of them? Somehow I
don't think it's because the CIA, FBI, et al are
particularly on the ball.
Best, Jeff Davis
"We call someone insane who does not believe as we do
to an outrageous extent."
Charles McCabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 04:13:32 MDT