It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: 'High risk' of WMD attack in decade

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
According to a recent survey of 80 arms experts, there is a 70 percent chance that an attack with a WMD could happen in the next 10 years. It is believed that one or two countries will acquire nukes in the next five years and that number will increase to about five in the next ten years. According to the survey, the highest level of risk comes from the threat of a "dirty bomb", and the next highest threat from a chemical attack.
 



www.cnn.com
Most of the more than 80 experts surveyed in the report released on Tuesday believed one or two new countries will acquire nuclear weapons in the next five years, with two to five countries joining the nuclear club during the next decade.

The survey, commissioned by U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, also showed that four out of five people said their country was not spending enough on non-proliferation efforts.

The most likely scenario for a nuclear attack would be for terrorists to use a weapon they made themselves with material acquired on the black market, the survey said.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


One of the main points trying to be made by the survey is that much of the threat of nuclear attacks can be avoided with aggressive attempts to build and rebuild international relationships. IMO, it would be ignorant to say that the threat of a WMD attack somewhere in the world (not necessarily in the US) is not there, although 70 percent in the next ten years and 50 percent in the next five years sounds a bit high. But the skeptic in me has to ask why this report is being released. It comes at a time where the controversial Patriot Act II is being pushed through congress.

Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www.cnn.com
www.aclu.org




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Wow, no thoughts from anyone on this one? Oh well...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I'm sure the comment about terrorists being the most likely cause and the Patriot II being in the works while this is published are no coincidence.

Any ideas what sort of expert they get that opinion from? I would love to know, as it's probably some government payroll groups who have *some* benefit to scaring the crap out of us.

Not that I don't think anything will happen anywhere, but they seem like rather broad assumptions and the "percentage of likelyhood" (what did they run some computer game with different scenarios???) seems sort of high to me too.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Good post.

I liked the part about " four out of five people said their country was not spending enough on non-proliferation efforts." Also liked your comment saying that we need to aggressively build and rebuild relationships with other countries. Wotta concept!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
No where does it state the criteria the experts used to arrive at their conclusions, leading me to suspect that the conditions are arbritrary.

Good post, however.......I think that there will be something going on in the next decade......populations aren't decreasing.......



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
What kind of half-assed scare tactic is this!?! There could be an attack sometime, somewhere, somehow so allow us to take away your civil liberties in order to protect you. Ya, right! I could cover myself in bubble-wrap as well, but eventually I would suffocate.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
I could cover myself in bubble-wrap as well, but eventually I would suffocate.


Yes, but you would die unharmed by terrorists!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
thoughts?

you just gotta love this good for nothing statistics and people that come up with this numbers....

but they got to earn a living i guess....



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Oh Yeah! I am sure that this kind of "Research" goes hand in hand with Presient Bush's War on Terror - spreading even MORE Fear among population, therefore approving all the Military Spendings and Patriot Acts I & II and Guantanamo Bay / Abu Gharib Abuses - All in the Name of Liberty and Justice.

Patriot Act III Anyone?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   
With more nuclear power a dirty bomb is very easy :

1. Setup a nuclear waste disposal company you might even get a government grant!
2. Load the high/medium waste (liquid form is perfect) into a light aircraft.
3. Put a bomb in the light aircraft.
4. Fly the plane over any town/city and blown yourself up.

Result : One uninhabitable town for thousands of years.

The issue is not how which is extraordinarily simple its whether you can get hold of the materials.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
The posts criticizing the vagueness of the thread information are valid, but are indicative of the American complacence which we cherish. We want to be safe. We most certainly are not.
The post World War II nuclear threat is passed. The ICBM delivery systems in the arsenals of the superpowers have now been replaced by two legged Islamic martyrs sourced from their population of 1+BILLION worldwide.
The ten year prediction comes under the heading of "DUH". I wish it were not so.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
i'll find the BBC documentary on Dirty Bomb's, but they got leading members of the worlds Automic Agencies and all of them said a Dirty Bomb would have no lasting affect to the population due to the fact it would be to low yield.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
There was a portion of the excellet "Power of Nightmares" programmes that dealt with the dirty bomb scenario.
If I remember correctly, it was the US Energy Department that carried out a dirty bomb test and found that radioactive material was dispersed to such a degree that you'd you'd have to live in the detonation area for a year to receive a dangerous/fatal dose.
These things are just brought up periodically tp keep the fear alive.

You are far more likely to be injured or killed in a typical home accident than you are by terrorist action.

By the way Jonna, bubblewrap is no good at all. Nobody can resist popping the bubbles, therefore greatly degrading the protective properties



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
.
Bush's poll numbers are dipping into the 30s,

My Psychic abilities are beginning to sense an impending WMD attack (again).
.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The highest risk comes, according to the experts from a dirty bomb ? I agree with them in assessing at 100% the risk of a use of such a weapon, as it already has been used by the US in Iraq, in the form of a film of uranium dust spread all across the country.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Britguy, I assumed thats the BBC doco he was refering to as well. The Power of Nightmares was a fantastic series and well worth watching if any one here has not seen them.

A dirty bomb is a true terrorist weapon. Its impact comes from panic and fear but does not injure that many people.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
70 percent of what and 50 percent of what? I love statistics.

How big does it have to be to be a WMD? Or, how big until the Media recognizes it as a WMD? Is it number of victims, the device itself, or the area of effect?

Will the Media call it a WMD attack if a small sarin gas device kills a dozen in a New York Subway, or a dozen in Hollywood? What if the same device kills a hundred?

Or, if it's a "dirty" bomb or radioactive dispersal device? Is there a certain casualty threshold? Does it make a difference if it goes off outside Newsweek offices or Downtown Podunk?

What if the device never goes off, will it still be a WMD atack if it's unsuccessful? Or does it depend on who could have been affected?

We already know that the precursors for a binary gas weapon aren't WMD's acording to the Media. So we'll just have to wait and see what the Media newspeak definition of WMD's is at the time of the incident.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
WMD's are currently defined as biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
What kind of half-assed scare tactic is this!?! There could be an attack sometime, somewhere, somehow so allow us to take away your civil liberties in order to protect you. Ya, right! I could cover myself in bubble-wrap as well, but eventually I would suffocate.


Oh yeah, i forgot that most of the same people responding in here and proclaiming this must be more scare tactics were not also proclaiming that the US government must have been involved in the 9/11 attacks because they did not warn the population when there were rumors being spread by terrorists of attacks in the US....

So i guess noone who responded to this thread wants to know when terrorists make more threats against the US or the world, neither do any of you want to know anything about any other study having to do with terrorism.....

Hey, that's what denying ignorance is all about right?...


[edit on 23-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I'm interested in the study, but when the BBC put their Company on the line and say a Dirty Nuclear Bomb would do nothing, I tend to take that as meaning full. Especially when it was several hour long programs, interviewing several leading Scientists, who all agreed with it and they were attempting to make a balanced argument.

The only people who did say a DNB would do damage were those working for the Government of America and the U.K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join