Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on December 02, 2008, 09:07:39 PM
-
U.S. Can Expect 'Biological Weapons' Terror
Attack By 2013: Report
Tuesday December 2, 2008
By Pamela Hess, The Associated Press
(http://www.citynews.ca/images/2008-12/dec0208-biologicalgetty.jpg)
A new report says the United States can expect a terrorist attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013.
The warning comes from a bipartisan commission in a study being briefed Tuesday to vice-president-elect Joe Biden. It suggests Barack Obama's administration should bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists.
"Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing," states the report, obtained by The Associated Press.
It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.
The commission is also encouraging the new White House to appoint one official on the National Security Council to exclusively co-ordinate U.S. intelligence and foreign policy on combating the spread of nuclear and biological weapons.
The report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former senators Bob Graham of Florida and Jim Talent of Missouri, acknowledges that terrorist groups still lack the needed scientific and technical ability to make weapons out of pathogens or nuclear bombs. But it warns that gap can be easily overcome, if terrorists find scientists willing to share or sell their know-how.
"The United States should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists," the report states.
The commission believes biological weapons are more likely to be obtained and used before nuclear or radioactive weapons because nuclear facilities are more carefully guarded. Civilian laboratories with potentially dangerous pathogens abound, however, and could easily be compromised.
"The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device," states the report.
It notes that the U.S. government's counterproliferation activities have been geared toward preventing nuclear terrorism. The commission recommends the prevention of biological terrorism be made a higher priority.
Study chairman Graham said anthrax remains the most likely biological weapon. However, he told the AP that contagious diseases - like the flu strain that killed 40 million at the beginning of the 20th century - are looming threats. That virus has been recreated in scientific labs, and there remains no inoculation to protect against it if is stolen and released.
Graham said the threat of a terrorist attack using nuclear or biological weapons is growing "not because we have not done positive things but because adversaries are moving at an even faster pace to increase their access" to those materials.
He noted last week's rampage by a small group of gunmen in Mumbai.
"If those people had had access to a biological or nuclear weapon they would have multiplied by orders of magnitude the deaths they could have inflicted," he said.
Al-Qaida remains the only terrorist group judged to be actively intent on conducting a nuclear attack against the United States, the report notes. It is not yet capable of building such a weapon and has yet to obtain one. But that could change if a nuclear weapons engineer or scientist were recruited to al-Qaida's cause, the report warns.
The report says the potential nexus of terrorism, nuclear and biological weapons is especially acute in Pakistan.
"Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan," the report states.
In fact, commission members were forced to cancel their trip to Pakistan this fall. The Islamabad Marriott Hotel that commission members were to stay in was blown up by terrorist bombs just hours before they were to check in.
"We think time is not our ally. The (United States) needs to move with a sense of urgency," Graham said.
-
As long as they hit the east coast, it's all good....
-
There is nothing to fear, it's not like we have a nation we give lots of money for oil develop atomic/biologic/chemical weapons ::)
-
what's the batting average of this bi-partisan commission?
who the fuck is making these predictions and why should I care?
-
what's the batting average of this bi-partisan commission?
who the fuck is making these predictions and why should I care?
I don't know, ...but it looks to me like someone is trying to psychologically soften people up for something in the works.
-
-
I don't know, ...but it looks to me like someone is trying to psychologically soften people up for something in the works.
Or warn us of a possible pending attack....also it said US, ur Canadian Jag. The invisible canadian fence and ur Lib body armor should protect u. ::)
-
Hmm...at the current rate I may never return to the US.
-
As long as they hit the east coast, it's all good....
Thanks. If a nuclear bomb hit NYC, I would be either vaporized or die of radiation in very short order.
The liberals who think the threat of terrorism is overblown only need look at India to see what is in store ofr a mall or school in the USA.
-
Thanks. If a nuclear bomb hit NYC, I would be either vaporized or die of radiation in very short order.
The liberals who think the threat of terrorism is overblown only need look at India to see what is in store ofr a mall or school in the USA.
Which begs the question: why hasn't it happen if it's so easy? There are so many ways to commit terrorists attacks in the USA on a massive scale that are easy. Combine that with our wide open borders, to the point that we've have instances of the same person being deported 3 different times in one year, they catch him , send him back, he shows again....3 times.
The threat is REAL. But to what degree? I think we done our job well. We need to continue and shore up the borders.
-
Which begs the question: why hasn't it happen if it's so easy? There are so many ways to commit terrorists attacks in the USA on a massive scale that are easy. Combine that with our wide open borders, to the point that we've have instances of the same person being deported 3 different times in one year, they catch him , send him back, he shows again....3 times.
The threat is REAL. But to what degree? I think we done our job well. We need to continue and shore up the borders.
I believe that anything less than the carnage caused 9/11 will be seen as a defeat for the terrorists. Thus, I believe that they are plannning something much larger in scope and with much wider reaching effects.
A nuclear bomb during a sporting event like Sum of All Fears or something of that nature.
Look up a guy named Paul D. Williams. He was on Michael Savage a few times and talked about this and literally had me sweating by the time he was done. It was mostly about the AQ Khan network and paki scientists selling nuclear ideas, plans, etc to the terrorists.
Granted, its not easy to pull it off, but it is still game over for the USA if we are hit by a nuclear bomb.
-
Thanks. If a nuclear bomb hit NYC, I would be either vaporized or die of radiation in very short order.
The liberals who think the threat of terrorism is overblown only need look at India to see what is in store ofr a mall or school in the USA.
Oh yea, you're in the Bronx, I forgot.
Ok, be sure to go on vacation that day.
Maybe the Israelis can give you a heads up, a la 9-11?
-
Which begs the question: why hasn't it happen if it's so easy? There are so many ways to commit terrorists attacks in the USA on a massive scale that are easy. Combine that with our wide open borders, to the point that we've have instances of the same person being deported 3 different times in one year, they catch him , send him back, he shows again....3 times.
The threat is REAL. But to what degree? I think we done our job well. We need to continue and shore up the borders.
19 guys with box cutters started all this. Now with the 24 Jack Bauer-fed citizenry, every single terrorist worst-case-scenario is bandied about as if it is unavoidable. I hate alarmists. I like fried chickenwings (w/out that fucking buffalo sauce). But I hate alarmists.
-
Oh yea, you're in the Bronx, I forgot.
Ok, be sure to go on vacation that day.
Maybe the Israelis can give you a heads up, a la 9-11?
Im not Jewish but will play one for a day if I can be let in on the secret.
-
19 guys with box cutters started all this. Now with the 24 Jack Bauer-fed citizenry, every single terrorist worst-case-scenario is bandied about as if it is unavoidable. I hate alarmists. I like fried chickenwings (w/out that fucking buffalo sauce). But I hate alarmists.
I thought Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11?
-
I believe that anything less than the carnage caused 9/11 will be seen as a defeat for the terrorists. Thus, I believe that they are plannning something much larger in scope and with much wider reaching effects.
A nuclear bomb during a sporting event like Sum of All Fears or something of that nature.
Look up a guy named Paul D. Williams. He was on Michael Savage a few times and talked about this and literally had me sweating by the time he was done. It was mostly about the AQ Khan network and paki scientists selling nuclear ideas, plans, etc to the terrorists.
Granted, its not easy to pull it off, but it is still game over for the USA if we are hit by a nuclear bomb.
I disagree about it being seen as defeat. Any attack will be viewed as defeat for America because it will show America as powerless.
If a nuke hit America is game over for everyone. Our life as we know it will cease to exist. We will become a police state and the Middle east will become a parking lot.
-
i'm with ozmo on this one. cnn had theyre 'terrorist expert" on 360 last night and he brought up a good point. He said the usa's top scientists were the catslist behind the anthrax attacks...he said if the brightest mind could only muster up 5 deaths than what could some sand coons possibly have in store....
i think he had a legit point.
-
i'm with ozmo on this one. cnn had theyre 'terrorist expert" on 360 last night and he brought up a good point. He said the usa's top scientists were the catslist behind the anthrax attacks...he said if the brightest mind could only muster up 5 deaths than what could some sand coons possibly have in store....
i think he had a legit point.
Bio warfare is very hard to do....u have to weaponize it and deliver it in something that doesn't vaporize the shit ur trying to kill people with. Its much easier to do a Mumbai attack. Plus we have folks keeping an eye on who is doing what etc.
Ozmo makes a good point about the Middle East being a parking lot. We've let it be known that if we're hit by nukes...and its traced to muslim's...all bets are off. Its MAD for the Middle East.
-
i'm with ozmo on this one. cnn had theyre 'terrorist expert" on 360 last night and he brought up a good point. He said the usa's top scientists were the catslist behind the anthrax attacks...he said if the brightest mind could only muster up 5 deaths than what could some sand coons possibly have in store....
i think he had a legit point.
Remember the "DC Sniper"????
Those two clowns - Malvo & John Mohammed killed 13 people with 1 Bushmaster AR15 rifle and had DC abnd the whole area tied up for days!
BTW - Malvo was an illegal alien!
How quick we forget no????????????
-
Or warn us of a possible pending attack....also it said US, ur Canadian Jag. The invisible canadian fence and ur Lib body armor should protect u. ::)
But hopefully it wont.
-
what's the batting average of this bi-partisan commission?
who the fuck is making these predictions and why should I care?
Agreed... wtf are the yahoos who comprise this bi-partisan commission? A bunch of stuffed shirts in DC? Where are they getting their intel from? I mean wtf.
-
Bio warfare is very hard to do....u have to weaponize it and deliver it in something that doesn't vaporize the shit ur trying to kill people with. Its much easier to do a Mumbai attack. Plus we have folks keeping an eye on who is doing what etc.
Ozmo makes a good point about the Middle East being a parking lot. We've let it be known that if we're hit by nukes...and its traced to muslim's...all bets are off. Its MAD for the Middle East.
Think so? Think the rest of the world is going to let us mess up their oil supply?
-
Agreed... wtf are the yahoos who comprise this bi-partisan commission? A bunch of stuffed shirts in DC? Where are they getting their intel from? I mean wtf.
We warned India about the attack in October! If we had intel for that, imagine what else is out there!
-
We warned India about the attack in October! If we had intel for that, imagine what else is out there!
Oh I don't at all mean to imply that the threat of terrorism should be underestimated. I'm just curious who this nebulous, nameless, faceless "bipartisan commission" consists of.
If anything, I'm sure there are far more terrorism plots detected and thwarted on a daily/weekly basis than we ever hear about.
-
Thanks. If a nuclear bomb hit NYC, I would be either vaporized or die of radiation in very short order.
The liberals who think the threat of terrorism is overblown only need look at India to see what is in store ofr a mall or school in the USA.
They're saying the threat is not so much nuclear, but biological. It is too difficult for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear materials, so they may go biological. furthermore, the threat is not so much that terrorists could become biologists, but that biologist could become terrorists.
-
Bio warfare is very hard to do....u have to weaponize it and deliver it in something that doesn't vaporize the shit ur trying to kill people with. Its much easier to do a Mumbai attack. Plus we have folks keeping an eye on who is doing what etc.
Ozmo makes a good point about the Middle East being a parking lot. We've let it be known that if we're hit by nukes...and its traced to muslim's...all bets are off. Its MAD for the Middle East.
If they launch an attack that, hypothetically, kills 100k or so people (i.e. a nuke in a city), then I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of Muslim holocaust. I'd give Pakistan 1 day until it's a smoldering wreck.
-
I wouldn't do the same. But i would kill foreign soldiers occupying my country.
-
I wouldn't do the same. But i would kill foreign soldiers occupying my country.
Would that involve devoting 90% of your time to blowing up women and children at markets and torturing/beheading your fellow countrymen who happen to disagree with you and your plan of approach?
-
Would that involve devoting 90% of your time to blowing up women and children at markets and torturing/beheading your fellow countrymen who happen to disagree with you and your plan of approach?
one thing i can never see myself doing is waging war by targeting innocent women and children.
-
one thing i can never see myself doing is waging war by targeting innocent women and children.
Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all. Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.
-
Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all. Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.
I was talking about in the context of a foreign army occupying the United States.
Dropping the A-bomb on Japan is a difficult thing. I understand the reasons for doing and it makes sense, but in all honesty i could not be the one to decide to do it.
-
And ur a better man for it. I wouldn't blink if that was the only concern....its not so I wouldn't, unless we were hit first in some suitcase attack that could be traced back. I mentioned before that we'd do the grand tour of the Middle East...I didn't come up with it, its sort of a DOD rumor thats been around for a few years. Its better nobody goes down that road.
-
hahaha ahhhhh charlie is one funny bastard.
-
If they launch an attack that, hypothetically, kills 100k or so people (i.e. a nuke in a city), then I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of Muslim holocaust. I'd give Pakistan 1 day until it's a smoldering wreck.
I really think otherwise. I think this time around, with the president we have in power, we'd actually do some thinking and actually hit where it really hurts. Bombing Pakistan would only get an applause from the Indians, but it would put SERIOUS strains on the relations between the USA and China/Russia, who'd see an attack on Pakistan as a serious threat to their national security interests.
This time around, with the US being in such dire economic straits as we are now, if one of our cities gets attacked by WMD and we attack the first country that we think is harboring terrorists we can pretty much say NO ONE will help us at all. What will then take place is a HUGE military escalation against the US, which will bring the draft back in this country and as we all know, when the "ketchup gets squeezed out of the bottle, it ain't going back in the bottle" (a.k.a. war is assured).
-
Sadly, its the only thing that ended WW2 once and for all. Of course Japan was already losing, but our showing the world that we had the will to win by doing whatever possible is the only message that will work if we get hit and 100k people are killed.
You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?
I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.
-
You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?
I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.
Japan should be thankful for the bomb, if land forces were to go into the mainland Japan would have turned into a kamikaze nation and half would kill themself and the other half would die from collateral damage.
-
You do realize that every major commander in WWII, outside of the president, was against dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?
I still haven't found an adequate rational for the massacre at Dresden.
Did it end the war or not?????????????
Additionally, 100k of them is better than losing 100k of our soldiers.
Its war, you fight to win or dont fight at all.
-
19 guys with box cutters started all this. Now with the 24 Jack Bauer-fed citizenry, every single terrorist worst-case-scenario is bandied about as if it is unavoidable. I hate alarmists. I like fried chickenwings (w/out that fucking buffalo sauce). But I hate alarmists.
That's ridiculous. Buffalo sauce is a fantastic option to have open.
-
Japan should be thankful for the bomb, if land forces were to go into the mainland Japan would have turned into a kamikaze nation and half would kill themself and the other half would die from collateral damage.
That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen. According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.
-
That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen. According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.
Oh, so in your head, it is better to gamble with the lives of american soldiers, having already lost 240k between both fronts, than to put and end to it by dropping the bombs?
The generals are not always correct. Does the name General McLellan mean anything to you??????
And no, not your new favorite exspokeperson for the WH.
Truman did the right thing and saved many lives.
-
That's not what the military braintrust thought would happen. According to them, Japan was utterly defeated and trying to surrender.
You're pitiful, seriously.
-
Japan didn't want to surrender unconditionally. that was the issue. The allies wanted to dispose the empire so it wouldn't happen again.
to say Japan wanted surrender isn't the whole story.
-
Japan didn't want to surrender unconditionally. that was the issue. The allies wanted to dispose the empire so it wouldn't happen again.
to say Japan wanted surrender isn't the whole story.
exactly and if we had to invade with ground troops we would have likely taken more than that in causalties and that just our side not including theirs...that must have been one of the most gut wrenching decisions to ok that but it achieved its goal.
Its war, you fight to win or dont fight at all.
wish we would always abide by this statement.
-
exactly and if we had to invade with ground troops we would have likely taken more than that in causalties and that just our side not including theirs...that must have been one of the most gut wrenching decisions to ok that but it achieved its goal.
wish we would always abide by this statement.
Im not kidding. The liberal morons dont want to fight to win, and neither did we after the initial invasion of iraq.
Patton had it right. Initially, the more people you kill, the better, because it will end things sooner and less people will end up dying in the end.