Over the past few months I've seen the Democrats cry foul everytime President Bush or Vice President Cheney talk about an attack on our homeland, and it's time someone put this into perspecitive. Let's look at why the American public SHOULD be afraid, and what the most important issue of this election really is: Biochemical or nuclear attack within the borders of the United States of America.

Consider this scenario: Militant jihadists aligned with any of the multiple anti-American terror cells (Al-Queda is not the only one) decides that it is time to once again strike America. Unable to acquire nuclear fissele materials, they are able to acquire RICIN in a minute protected capsule delivery. Once they have the hundreds of thousands of tiny ricin capsules, patience and careful planning allow this deadly poison to be smuggled into the USA, perhaps into the hands of an established agent, with a long standing public retail store that allows access to the public.

Using chat boards, forums or even blogs (ack!), the terror cell contacts are activated nationwide. Perhaps a group of ten, both local and abroad, make travel plans to go on vacation with their family to the same city as the business is located in. All of these people look and act like normal, established US citizens. While they are there, they visit the store and make a purchase of a specified item, perhaps a fake cell phone or PDA or maybe even an article of clothing. Hidden inside such normal wares would be the encapsuated ricin, now being driven to different areas across the country. Tens of thousands of capsules could be hidden in such a small, personal item. And nobody would give a second glance to someone with a hollow cell phone or iPod.

This is where it gets scary. These average citizens have all taken jobs at food distribution & packaging plants. Coca Cola, Pepsi, Frito Lay (chip dips) and others only see these people as good, hardworking employees. Some may be specialists, some may merely work on the packaging line. Either way, ricin would be easy enough to smuggle in and distribute into these mass packaged foods.

Tens of thousands across the country would die.

Another scenario: The same terrorist cell has been able to acquire nuclear fissele material in the form of a 'suitcase bomb', sold onto the black market by a rogue ex-Soviet officer in the 90's (you know, back when these guys weren't getting paid and had to sell of military equipment to make a living). This scenario, the terrorists are once again patient, masking the radiation through heavy encasement and transporting the package to Mexico through illegal shipping means.

Once in Mexico, it is only a matter of patience to deliver this suitcase under the US/ Mexico border, using a series of established tunnels along the Texas border. A quick truck drive to a rented warehouse, the package is moved to a Uhaul truck, which then goes on the road to New York. Stopping only for gas, the Uhaul hits New York in under 48 hours.

Millions would die, New York state and much of the eastern USA would be uninhabitable.

In this last scenario, the terrorist forego the cost and hassle of acquiring nuclear fissle material and make a home made bomb, similar to what was used by Tim McVeigh. Except this time, they package it in a small private jet on a small private airfield somewhere in the remote Northeast. Their target? Indian Point nuclear reactor outside of New York.

Millions would die, New York state and much of the eastern USA would be uninhabitable.
And there are many, many more very real scenarios lurking in the minds of people that take no greater joy than to slaughter us.

Are you scared yet? You should be. This election has no greater issue than a WMD attack on American soil. The next time you hear John Kerry say the Republicans are using scare tactics to win votes, instead you need to ask why he isn't addressing a very serious concern about the future of US citizens. It's not fear mongering, it's our new reality.
Why are Democrats afraid to confront it?

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 12, 2004
You should be in the FBI... they need more imaginitive thinkers in their circles... esp. since most of them don't think at all...
on Oct 12, 2004
Wow, well I really hope this doesn't happen. I live in NJ, so I would get killed. Damn! That's why our Homeland Secuity is scewed up. Montana gets what $70 or something dollars per person! New York gets only a few. I was really scared about the Newark/ New York scare this summer. So I think NY, Ohio and other big states need more money per person than Montana.



on Oct 12, 2004
One point: all of the latest cases of Ricin being used against Americans have been by other, disgruntled Americans.

Are you seeing proportional improvements in security against the domestic terrorist?
on Oct 12, 2004
Wow, well I really hope this doesn't happen. I live in NJ, so I would get killed. Damn! That's why our Homeland Secuity is scewed up. Montana gets what $70 or something dollars per person! New York gets only a few.


Well, at least we know Wyoming is safe with all the security dollars alloted to them...

on Oct 12, 2004
d3adzOmbie:

The scenario you present (and most of the ones I've looked at over the past 3 years) rely on a complete revamping of the concept of what security means in a free country. As someone who travels to Canada quite often I can tell you that anyone who really wanted to get a weapon across the border would have no trouble doing so. Someone who wanted to ship a bomb into a port for transport across the U.S. would have no trouble doing so. Someone who wanted to assemble a truckload of explosives would have no trouble doing so. Someone who wanted to put explosives on a train would have no trouble doing so.

But you have one thing askew. Bush is not a Democrat. All of these vulnerabilities are here now. Security is not a political issue.

on Oct 12, 2004
Overall I agree with your statement - it requires only planning and patience to launch a probably successful terrorist attack against the US. But without extremely draconian measures (which probably still would be insufficient due to technical and technological limitations) there is no realistic way of guaranteeing that such attacks would be unsuccessful. Unfortunately when it comes to violent crime, it is near impossible for the police to prevent it unless they are either lucky or extremely well-informed. With a beat containing over 6 billion people global intelligence agencies will have a great deal of difficulty stopping such threats, although if they manage to break one link they'll probably be able to wrap up the others.

To the best of my knowledge the US lacks the technology to remotely prevent someone from exploding a nuke or biochemical weapon without relying on such weapons themselves. That noone has succeeded yet is probably more due to luck than anything else. The sad fact is though that although it would kill millions the chances of such an act affecting US policy is nearly nil, so realistically these attacks would be for absolutely nothing. But then again it's not always possible to rely on the intelligence of terrorists.
on Oct 12, 2004
This will be the last of my itermittent posts as I will get so IP banned for this.

Dear America,

The reason why 9/11 happened is because of America's support for Israel.

Don't take my word for it; take the word of the guy who actually planned 911 (Mohammed Rugback). He clearly states that his personal motive for masterminding 9/11 was because (like rougly 1 billion Muslims) he was pissed off about how America has supported Israel in the Palestinian conflict.

Are we clear on this? The reason why 9/11 happened is because of America's support for Israel.

Need more proof, a meta-reason? Who exactly is this Mohammed Rugback? No one seems to dispute he is member of Al Quada. So he likely got his orders from Bin Laden, if not money and a fatwah.

Ah, yes. The fatwah. Do you know why Bin Laden wants to fly planes into your buildings? Bin Laden offered the following provocations in his fatwah:

1. America's support for Israel (billion in weapons and pure cash) in the Palestinian confilct.
2. American military bases in the 'Muslim Holy Land" of Saudi Arabia.
3. Thousands of lives lost in the Iraq embargo.

More evidence that 3,000 people died on 9/11...because of America's support of Israel, not to mention various bullshit and sundry skullduggery Americans are pulling all over the Middle East. By the way, Ariel Sharon is a terrorist in the purest sense of the word (google it), not to mention a bloodthirsty Asshole. An Israeli official admitted last week that they're not even pretending to adhere to the roadmap to peace anymore, they're gonna do what the fuck they want. And they're going to do it with American weapons and money. As for America's other biggest ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, good news! They're holding they're first-ever kinda-sorta elections...er, soon. Bad news: women can't vote (or drive, work, or go to school without their husband's permission - hey security moms, how you digging that?). So America is in bed with some nasty folk in the Middle East and frankly hasn't done right over there.

Now, having said all of that, what do you suppose would be the best way to ensure New York City doesn't get nuked back to the stone age?

a) Elect Bush, invade more Muslim countries. Especially nuclear armed Iran, with their new missles that can reach Europe. What could possibly go wrong?
Continue supporting the Saudi dicatorship and the Israeli Terrorist/Prime Minister Areil Sharon. There's no way any of those hundreds of missing Russian nuclear warheads could've fallen into the hands of a group of oil and heroin rich Muslims.
c) Er...that's it.

Howsabout none of the above? Elect Kerry. Or vote Badnarik. But don't vote Bush. He has violated the trust of the American people. He lied to you and he lied to my Prime Minister when he asked us to invade Iraq because of Saddam's WMD; we told him to stuff it.

That's the great thing about being Canadian. We do good in the world and we are *always* on the right side, that's why no one is flying planes into the CN Tower. We didn't join in Vietnam and we knew Iraq was another bullshit war. True story: A Canadian got abducted in Iraq by Al Quaeda the other day. Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now is publisher of a military magazine. He was beaten and threatened with death for a few days, but was released with no 'hostaging' or deal making. He was told that he was the first westerner ever released by Al Quaeda, likely because he was Canadian. So when we had our e

Getting back to Bush. In addition to lying his way into war, he's done a shitty job waging the war. The majority of Afghanistan and Iraq are no-go zones, and the coaliton forces are confined to a few major cities. The rest of his foreign policy, not the least of which the Middle East portfolio, has been a well documented disaster. In poll after poll more people on this planet identify George Bush as the biggest threat to world peace than anyone else.

The best and smartest thing America can do to prevent another major terrorist attack is STOP PISSING OFF EVERYONE ON THE PLANET. Take away the motive for a terrorist attack (spare me the 'appeasement' bullshit - peace is not appeasement) and the likelihood of one occuring drops dramatically.

Bush has failed and he must go.


Onward and Upward,
David St. Hubbins





on Oct 12, 2004
fear...

mindless fear is always a good political tool, sooo, welcome to the machine, Tool...
on Oct 12, 2004
Funny we, the U.S., give as much money to the Israelis as we do the Palestinians, hmm guess some people don't like money?

- Grim X
on Oct 12, 2004
How Dare you David St. Hubbins- called our support for Israel- our greatest ally in the Mid-East and in the top top-5 in the world, the cause of 9/11. You are such a SOB. I'm a Jew and a supporter of Israel, so don't PISS me off with your stupid remark!A supporter of ISRAEL!
on Oct 12, 2004
Interesting article

But I think the key word is scenario.

There are thousands of different scenarios one can use in an unconventional warfare. This is very difficult to defend against. One has to defend against the scenarios that intelligence assessments have determined is a direct or likely threat. Be flexible to a continuing, changing threat, and take the war to the enemy.

The populace should be informed of threats and know what to do, but not driven to fear. Fear will only do the work for the enemy.

Security cannot be affected by emotion or indifference.
It's not a task that I envy the people that have to do it.
on Oct 12, 2004
I guess the office who shot and killed the 13year old girl and then emptied his pistol before dumping a clip from an assault weapon into her dead body is a grand example of something to make one go HM, Or a 10 year old girl shot through a window of her class room in the head, also.

I support those or Israel and Palestine that are sick of holding up their dead children as proot that the destruction is right...

Suport what you like, but throwing it around as a must follow to others is not ignorant, but if you want to get deeper into it. Totally against everything that our soliders have fought, killed and died for as citizen soliders.
on Oct 12, 2004
David St. Hubbins:

Not to be too confusing but what about the Air India bombing? I think that qualifies as a terrorist attack (although not Al Qaeda). The truth is that there is more than one reason for terrorism. Ask Tim McVeigh.... Well, not in this life, of course. And the Arar issue with CSIS?

We all have terrorism issues. The thing is, you either go to horrific lengths to stop it or accept that the possibility of an "event" will always be there.
on Oct 13, 2004
blah...

Bush wants to build more nukes himself. Talk about a madman with the bomb.
on Oct 13, 2004


The Truth Does Hurt.
3 Pages1 2 3