"Yeah, you really know what you're talking about."
That I do.
"A 1kt device -- one of the 50 lb. "suitcase nukes" such as those missing from the Soviet's inventory -- "
I am perfectly aware of those devices. Your point? What are the chances that any terrorists would be able to get their hands on one or more? Reasonably close to zero.
Ok, run this scenario. Say one, somehow, falls into the hands of terrorists. And, say they are able to smuggle one in, somehow. And say they are able to successfully plant one somewhere and set it off. What happens?
Well, for one, there are only two countries that can build something like that. The US and Russia. We can figure rather quickly whether it was one of ours or not. Now, the Russians aren't stupid. They certainly would realize we would be rather cross with them if such a thing were to happen. So, their motivation for selling or giving one away is small. And their motivation for being sure it doesn't happen is quite large.
The thing you choose to ignore is that the KGB had control of those nukes, not the army. And the KGB stayed intact during to chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union. In addition, the KGB is still intact, but operating under a different name. And, if anything, they are stronger than they were under the USSR where they had to compete with the military. Those nukes were their prize assets, they know exactly where each one is. Now, that raises a different issue and that is at least one KGB defector claims that those nukes have already been smuggled into the US and are set up. But that is a different issue.
"Again, we're talking about a crude, 1kt device that weighs 50 lbs that could be sneaked into the United States in a standard 55 gallon drum with plenty of room to spare."
This is what I am talking about. There is nothing crude about those devices. They are among the most sophisticated nuclear weapons ever produced. A crude nuclear weapon is on the order of the Little Boy. It is a bog simple and robust gun-type of bomb that is virtually guaranteed to go off, no refinement based on testing required. However, it weighs tons. And, unless you can lay your hands on a very large bomber, it can only be delivered inside of a container. To make it smaller requires a great deal of sophistication. To get it into the 20kg range, well...
"You and Z just spout this crap off without knowing a damned thing about what you're talking about."
As with the SDI discussion, you are the one who spouts without knowledge. All you do is show, at best, a shallow understanding of the issues.
"Now, perhaps you are okay with a small risk of such a detonation, but I'm not. I'm glad there are people with the gumption and commitment to protect you from your own ignorance."
And now we veer off into Fantasyland. It has been your team that has fought, tooth and toenail, to keep from scanning cargo containers. And, despite the Democrats managing to ram the legislation through, the administration has been trying to cut it out of the budget ever since. Suitcase nukes are not the problem. Radiological bombs are. That terrorist could conceivably build themselves. I am not sure what your team is committed to doing, but keeping this country safe is not it. Now, talking about it and whipping up unlikely scenarios they can do. But, when it comes to actually taking measures, it is all talk and no action.
Scanning containers has been an obvious no-brainer for years. I know I have talked about it. All I can guess is none of the Republicans could figure out how to skim money off of port security. Because they certainly did their best to shoot it down. Many ports don't even have fencing around them. One company I worked for does the wireless networking for many of the ports in North America. Now, I certainly hope things have changed in the last 6 or so years, but in many ports you could walk up to the containers in the yard with a bolt cutter if you were careful. Given that you read in the papers every once in a while how some illegals being smuggled in have been discovered inside of a container in one port or another, I suspect that hasn't changed. |
