The only reason that AQ didn't nuke New York on Sept 11th is that they did not possess nukes.
Nadine, if they don't have nukes, then we have nothing to fear from their nukes.
You're measuring their wickedness, not their threat. They may be the most wicked people on earth. I can't argue that they're not wicked. But intent is only part of the risk equation. If if they don't have the means to express that wickedness, then the threat is low no matter how motivated and monstrous they are. They remain a potential threat, not a threat.
When they get nukes, if they get nukes, and when they get a way to get those nukes here, then the risk goes way up and we should be very afraid. I still submit it makes no sense to be afraid of what they would do if they could do when we know they can't do it. It makes sense to wipe them out or keep them from getting nukes or both, but fear at this point is not rational.
Don't forget that I live within blast range of even a small nuke targeted at the Pentagon. If they ever get a bomb, I will react with appropriate fear, I assure you. In the meantime, there are plenty of more fearsome things out there.
I notice that the more people have studied the terrorists, the more they seem to disagree with you.
I would be very interested in seeing any risk assessments that contradict what I have said. I have seen nothing that indicates that they have a deliverable arsenal of any magnitude. |
