Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (393690)	6/23/2008 11:19:40 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1579048

There is no basis to assume that a nuclear terrorist attack is orders of magnitude higher than an asteroid strike. About this, we disagree. There is at least a reasonable chance of there being 100 loose Russian nuclear weapons in the world. However, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are told that several countries possess large stockpiles of plutonium, that there exists some 230 metric tons in Belgium, France, Germany, India, Japan and Russia, both the US and Russia have "enormous" stockpiles of military plutonium and HEU from dismantled warheads, over 100 research reactors are fueled with HEU, many of which are not secured adequately, tons of Russian nuclear materials are stored under "inadequate security". In short, there is plenty of material available, and there are plenty of smart people who are willing to put in the effort. As I pointed out, you haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what the probability of SOME kind of nuclear device being brought into an American city. But it is very obviously higher, by orders of magnitude, than that of being struck by an asteroid over the next couple of decades. It isn't close. Especially so much higher as to counter the statistical expectation to the point of being far, far higher The odds of being struck by an asteroid over the next couple of decades are exceedingly small. The kind of damage you suggested is highly unlikely in any event. Even if the probably of AQ obtaining a nuclear weapon -- by theft, purchase, or assembly, is certainly higher than 0.001. Were that not the case, nobody would be concerned about it. Consider the remarks of noted bin laden expert, Michael Scheuer (former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit): "About the the prospects of a nuclear terrorist strike on the U.S. by al-Qaida, he says: "I don't believe in inevitability. But I think it's pretty close to being inevitable. ... Yes, I think it's probably a near thing." Now, this guy is no dummy on the subject. And his view is not isolated. IN 2002, documents were captured from AQ that clearly proved they had a strong emphasis on developing a nuclear weapon, so the intent and desire clearly was present at that time. The point of all this verbiage is to convey that you are 100% wrong in your understanding of what the likelihood of AQ getting its hands on, and at least ATTEMPTING to detonate some kind of nuclear weapon here in the next decade or two. You and other liberals like Z who discount the idea do so out of ignorance. Many people who are far better informed than you or me have made the case that an attempt is forthcoming.