Will the USA be safer?

How many of you armchair generals ride the NYC subway to work and back EVERY DAY? I don't see Saddam as any kind of a threat. The world is watching like a hawk as long as he's alive. Any attempt at mobilization and he's history. I see dubya as a threat by provoking some fringe fundamentalist into causing grievous harm to me and mine in my backyard. Nice to sit in Jersey, Ohio, or some other middle of nowhere USA and bang the drums of war, talking about short-term higher risks of terrorism. If anyone I care about is hurt from a terrorist attack in the coming months, I'd only have Texas's own silver-spoon cowboy to blame.

Now that its inevitable, I hope things move swiftly and with sound on-the-field judgment. Urban Baghdad, could be for our troops what Berlin was to the Russians. A bloodbath.
 
Because, ya know, the center of the world is NYC.

Austin wouldn't be targetted for being the capitol of texas and Bush's "hometown". Nor would LA for being the bastion of western immorality. Or DC, for being the capitol. Or Houston for being one of the largest ports of the US, plus a major oil referinery center. Or Boston, or ...,

Nope, its gonna be the NYC subways.

If you think you're the only people "at risk", you're thinking way too much of yourself.
 
RussSchultz said:
Because, ya know, the center of the world is NYC.

On that we can agree.

I'm sure you're REAL worried out there in Austin. Bush's home town. Yikes. Must be frightened every day ridin' your big car down the highway. Austin...criminy. Is that near Topeka, KS?
 
lol, no but i live about 20 miles from Topeka and i have a an old girlfriend of mine lives down in Austin. t'is a small small world. ;)
 
:)

OK, I don't really mean to compete for the "who's in greatest danger" trophy. Its just that the spectre of terrorism is very real here. The 2 towers used to be directly out my window across the river.

The firestation 8 blocks from me used to have 30+ firemen. All but 1 died 18 months ago. My wife watched the 2nd plane hit the tower from our front steps and a shower of burnt filing papers expelled by the explosion drifted all the way across the East river and descended on our block. I waited 5 hours to find out if a friend who worked on the 70th floor had lived. She was lucky, but there's a palpable sense here that retaliation for Bush's maverick decisions will hit close to home, and a US decision to invade Iraq casts a heavy penumbra.
 
Before I respond to Archie; In responce to the origional question of why fixed nation-states are the problem in the WMD game and not virtual states like Al-Qaeda:

http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/9-11/content/pdf/bioterrorism_vogel.pdf

archie4oz said:
Aum isn't even a 'he' it's a 'they', and it's not even Aum anymore it's Aleph...

I didn't remember Asahara's name, it's much easier to use a pronout then look it up.

I believe 'he' would be in reference to Shoko Asahara. Also the quality of the Aum's Sarin wasn't in question (it was quite capable as far as Sarin goes)

This is blatently false:

"Aum's Sarin was also of poor quality, having been synthesized hastily the day before and diluted with solvent so that the perpetrators would have time to escape before being overcome by the fumes. Had Aum produced high-grade Sarin and dispersed it as an aerosol--a fine, inhalable mist--the Tokyo attack could easily have inflicted thousands of causalties." http://cns.miis.edu/research/wtc01/pdfs/toxter_i.pdf

Q - "How deadly was the sarin used in Aum Shinrikyo’s 1995 attack?
A - Not very. Just prior to the attack, Aum hurriedly produced a low-lethality batch of sarin
"
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/weapons/sarin.html

"Despite the poor quality of the sarin and its inadequate delivery system, the scene under the streets of Tokyo that morning was terrifying" http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/attackdet.cfm?IncidentID=1033

"Due to the poor quality of the sarin gas and the inadequate delivery system, the casualty rate was low for a subway system that handles five million riders each day." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/etc/faqs.html


Just for an example with a fixed state, Iraq's Sarin which combined two precursors in a binary approach was of the following purity:

"Given that the locally manufactured DF had a purity of more than 95 per cent and the alcohols were imported and of 100 per cent purity, this process could be expected to yield relatively pure sarin"http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

Also they did succeed in producing strains of anthrax and various botulin toxins, however they weren't virulent enough (their anthrax being a vaccine strain) to kill the host before effective treatment could occur (which is a tricky balance with regards to biological agents since if it's too virulent it kills the host before it can spread).

And thats exactly my point, that without the help of dedicated and concurrent programs using the resources (not only financial as so many like to say) available to a fixed state - the production of weaponized Biological or Chemical weapons is close to none. For example:

First, as to what the group’ capabilities were and what they did do:

- They had virtually unlimited funds to procure appropriate equipment, which they did through front companies they had established.
- They had adequate facilities, and four years in which to work undisturbed.
- They had about a dozen people with graduate training, not all in the appropriate disciplines, but with the kind of academic training which in theory should lead one to understand how to go about learning what one needs to know.
- They had attempted to buy assistance and technology in the USSR to aid their efforts to produce both chemical and biological weapons, and despite the expenditure of several million dollars, they appear to have come away empty-handed, certainly insofar as obtaining information concerning biological weapons. This last point is particularly important as one real-world reference point relating to the frequently expressed fear of the likely ease of procuring such information from unemployed or poorly-salaried former Soviet experts. (It can also be noted that there have been other even more striking failures in efforts to buy information from former Soviet BW scientists.)

Second, concerning what the Aum group was able to achieve or not achieve:

- They attempted to produce two biological agents, Clostridium botulinum, to obtain Botulinum toxin, and anthrax, both of which are constantly referred to as organisms that should be relatively simple to work with. They failed to produce either, and so of course their efforts to “disperse†these also failed. In fact, they could not have produced any infective anthrax since they had obtained a culture of a non-virulent, denatured vaccine strain of the organism.
- They did not have any Q-fever cultures, and therefore they were not “working with†that organism (contrary to various reports). They had attempted to purchase a Q-fever culture from a Japanese academic researcher, but were rebuffed, which is again of particular significance.
- They did not have samples of the Ebola virus, contrary to various reports, though it does appear that they had hoped to obtain them.
- Finally, they did not do any “genetic engineering,†also contrary to some further misreporting.

There are two important points to be made. First, the Aum experience was a real, serious example, not the constant hypothetical evocations of unqualified, untrained “terrorists†being able to produce biological agents in “kitchens,†“garages,†“bathtubs,†and “home beer brewery kits.†Despite the expenditure of substantial time, effort, money and some requisite talent, their efforts totally failed.

http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/review/exp.htm

Actually the Aum killed 7 people in their first major attack (which wasn't the Tokyo subway attack which killed 12 and injured around 5000).

Your right, I stand corrected on the number killed. Although, only ~300 were injured, the 5,000 number is the amount of people who were hospitalized. (Which is seen in the above FAS paper)

In total the National Police found the Aum to have produced enough Sarin to kill roughly 4.8 million people with proper dispersion. That of course doesn't include the VX, phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide found after raiding their chemical facilities...

If i'm not mistaken, Aum had produced GB on only three occasions before the plant was shut down due to an accident, producing 30kg during the last of 3 times, which 20kg was used.

Also, they chose GB for a reason, it's perhaps the easiest Chemical Agent to make and the precursors are easy to find. This being said, they had the precursors to produce tons of GB, but not the ability.

Also, the stores of VX produced, for example, were tiny.


The underlying point here is that even with a Billion dollar empire, the will, and educated talent - a virtual state/entity like this can't weaponize Chemical/Biological weapons that are effective. It takes a state, like Iraq or North Korea. I often say history is the final judge and thus far...

.. Virtual states who've produced their own WMD have killed under 200 people in the last 25 years. On the Fixed state side, Iraq alone killed over 20,000 Iranians - only Iranians with Chemical or blister agents in 10 years. Thats not even counting the Kurdish villages totally destroyed.
 
Another great argument from you Vince as to why we shouldnt be risking a war with Saddam. Dont you guys think it odd he's willing to take you on? All he had to do was give up some mediocre wmds and yet he didnt even bother... he had plenty of conventional forces to stay in power and didnt need those wmds to keep the shiites and kurds at bay.

Im really befuddled by that... Couple questions you could answer Vince since you are a fountain of info. How many Iraqis went to study abroad in fields of biology or genetic engineering or other such related sciences that could be brought to bear in a bioweapons program and does any evaluation of that number of scientists and time spent since they studied be had as to how good saddams bio program is? I ask you as the US media is so busy flag waving and my access to european media modest I havent found anyone asking questions and having this info and speculation as to what such info might present.

My initial thinking that Saddam was again just miscalculating may not be that. He may only be trying to engineer a public relations campaign to the sunni arabs that showcase him as victim as much as possible... so the time of war wasnt important in his choosing if his dream of leading the arab world or at least leaving a legacy to the arabs is still alive in his mind... If he unleashes a devasting bio attack on Israel as the US is invading that may not be seen by the wahabi sunni arabs as a bad thing... Maybe hes been ready for years, just not politically ready.

I hate the way this sounds (virtually a movie script) but just saying Saddam wants to hang on to some old chem and low quality bio agents and\or has a bad habit of toying with diplomacy doesnt ring right to me.

To what size can typical us gas masks filter bio agents? I read about 0.3 microns being minimal size for the weaponized particles of the agents to remain in suspension in the air... What if they achieved good 0.1 micron process? What if masks cant handle under 0.2?...

That flu bug has just about the worse timing...
 
In responce to the origional question of why fixed nation-states are the problem in the WMD game and not virtual states like Al-Qaeda:

I don't think you need to really answer that at all, it's pretty obvious that nation-states present the biggest danger. They also have more to lose and thus less likely to calously use them (at least in this day and age). Also I believe virtual-states represent less of a threat with WMD rather than other unconventional methods (as 9/11 displayed).

This is blatently false:

"Aum's Sarin was also of poor quality, having been synthesized hastily the day before and diluted with solvent so that the perpetrators would have time to escape before being overcome by the fumes. Had Aum produced high-grade Sarin and dispersed it as an aerosol--a fine, inhalable mist--the Tokyo attack could easily have inflicted thousands of causalties."

This actually substantiates my claim regarding dispersion (Note the Matsumoto sarin from the previous year was of much higher purity having not been hastily prepared by hand).

"Despite the poor quality of the sarin and its inadequate delivery system, the scene under the streets of Tokyo that morning was terrifying"

No need to tell me about the panic... I'm rather selfishly gratefull that it occured on a Monday rather than Sunday as I would've likely been been a victim as well... Keep in mind that even with the rather poor purity (30%) and a piss poor dispersal method, the attack still managed to kill 12 people...

And thats exactly my point, that without the help of dedicated and concurrent programs using the resources (not only financial as so many like to say) available to a fixed state - the production of weaponized Biological or Chemical weapons is close to none. For example:

Here's where I think you're a bit off though...

There are two important points to be made. First, the Aum experience was a real, serious example, not the constant hypothetical evocations of unqualified, untrained “terroristsâ€￾ being able to produce biological agents in “kitchens,â€￾ “garages,â€￾ “bathtubs,â€￾ and “home beer brewery kits.â€￾ Despite the expenditure of substantial time, effort, money and some requisite talent, their efforts totally failed.

Aum isn't really a good example to use to begin with. Aum is a poor example, as while the stated goal of the organization is unified, their methods and practices are not. For one, only a small subset of the organization participated in CBW actions. Secondly, it's actions were largely hasty, reactionary, clumsy and of relatively small scale in terms of the target (the subway and a few drive bys withstanding).

If i'm not mistaken, Aum had produced GB on only three occasions before the plant was shut down due to an accident, producing 30kg during the last of 3 times, which 20kg was used.

IIRC the first batch was 20 grams, followed by 1kg, then 5kg... I don't know how much was actually produced overall though. I do know the Satyan facility was capable of producing 2 tons per day, but I don't believe it ever achieve even a fraction of that output. And I do know that 20kg was used in the Matsumoto attack... There were several accidents with the Satyan facility however, which of course is why hasty, hand produced GB was used in the Tokyo subway.

Also, they chose GB for a reason, it's perhaps the easiest Chemical Agent to make and the precursors are easy to find. This being said, they had the precursors to produce tons of GB, but not the ability.

Also, the stores of VX produced, for example, were tiny.

Well yeah GB is easy to produce (especially compared to VX). One problem with GB though is even though it's easy to produce (even by a person on the field), such hasty methods are quite dangerous (primarily to the person producing it) and unstable.

The underlying point here is that even with a Billion dollar empire, the will, and educated talent - a virtual state/entity like this can't weaponize Chemical/Biological weapons that are effective. It takes a state, like Iraq or North Korea. I often say history is the final judge and thus far...

Keep in mind that while Aum's assets were valued around 1.5 billion dollars, all of it certainly wasn't dedicated to CBW production (in fact, I'd say not even a fraction of it was dedicated to that). The Satyan facility itself was only a $10 million dollar facility.

.. Virtual states who've produced their own WMD have killed under 200 people in the last 25 years. On the Fixed state side, Iraq alone killed over 20,000 Iranians - only Iranians with Chemical or blister agents in 10 years. Thats not even counting the Kurdish villages totally destroyed.

Well using more proper mass dispersion methods over a traditional battlefield situation (along with factoring atmospheric conditions) of hundreds of not thousands of troops in human waves will tend to pad the stats a little don't ya think? So called virtual states don't engage in such conflicts...
 
Well, this has been an interesting discussion. From what I can gather we've got two points of view. One being very 'black and white', in that by hunting down terrorists and the states that may support them the threat will be eliminated. The other viewpoint being 'it aint black and white'. :)

How about we all agree to meet back here in five years time to discuss what impact the current War on Terror's strategy has had on US (and it's allies) security in the mid term?

IMO, if Bush is still in (and I believe he will be), the US will be setting it's targets on another state which they believe harbour terrorism, although I'm not sure if they'll be able to justify another military strike. On the home front, I believe that terrorist attacks against US and it's allies' interests will have at least stayed constant and at worst intensified.

That's the mid term. For the long term, I won't even bother speculating.

Anyone else care to share their thoughts? A few seem to have gone a bit OT.
 
Trawler said:
Well, this has been an interesting discussion. From what I can gather we've got two points of view. One being very 'black and white', in that by hunting down terrorists and the states that may support them the threat will be eliminated. The other viewpoint being 'it aint black and white'. :)

No, there are three views.

It's not black and white, though hunting down terrorists and the states that may support them is the best route to reducing the threat.
 
Actually Kyle, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. But if not, I disagree, and this deserves mention.

Peace is NOT the absense of violence. I would agree that locking everyone in their own little cage to prevent the people in one cage from "hurting" the other, would in effect, eliminate violence. And there would be less immediate "killing."

That is not peace.

Peace, IMO, is a state in which people live where they don't believe their freedoms are being wrongly restricted. You can have your freedoms restricted without there being violence.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
I disagree, and this deserves mention.

Peace is NOT the absense of violence.

So, if you were living with lots of violence around you, you would consider that peaceful? I think you have a different definiteion of peace than I do. Heh, I think you zigged somewhere when typing that, maybe you just need to clarify what you mean. :)

Peace to me is where you can live your life without somebody bothering you, either through threats, intimidation, or overt harm. Violence is explosions, people getting hurt, things that are sudden in nature with destruction and/or death as the result. I don't think you can have violence in your vacinity and still consider yourself living a peaceful life. :?
 
Aum's agents were interested in surviving the event. If they had been suicide attackers, they could have struck with far, far higher lethality.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Peace is NOT the absense of violence.
Himself said:
So, if you were living with lots of violence around you, you would consider that peaceful? I think you have a different definiteion of peace than I do. Heh, I think you zigged somewhere when typing that, maybe you just need to clarify what you mean. :)

Yes, I do need to clarify.

I did NOT say that peace is possible in the presence of violence. I said the absense of violence does not define peace. Do you see the differece?

Peace to me is where you can live your life without somebody bothering you, either through threats, intimidation, or overt harm.

I pretty much agree with that. That that threats / intimidation (or otherwise living in fear and not being "free") does not mean violence.

Violence is explosions, people getting hurt, things that are sudden in nature with destruction and/or death as the result. I don't think you can have violence in your vacinity and still consider yourself living a peaceful life. :?

Yes, I pretty much agree. Again, I was just saying that putting a "stop to violence" does not mean you have brought peace to the situation. It seems we do agree on this. :)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Ousting Sadam or leaving him in power won't change that one bit. We are hated because we are a free society, and that freedom has given us power. The hatred that terrorists have for us won't stop until we are no longer "powerful" at which point they can direct their "anger and resentment" at the next world power.

Please tell me you don't really believe all that propaganda you just coughed up? We're hated for a lot of reasons, but the fact that we're "free" isn't one of them. Actually the biggest one is our hypocrisy.

We proclaim belief in all these rights, but the truth is we apply them only to ourselves. Ask those Afghanistani fighters we're holding down in Cuba, indefinitely, with no trial or any knowledge if they're ever going to be released, how much they've benefited from our rights.

We proclaim belief in democracy, but we support dictators. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst dictatorship in the world, which is why the argument that we're attacking Saddam because he's a "bad man" doesn't hold any real moral high ground.

We proclaim belief in international law, but then we just disregard it when it's convenient.

Maybe we should just rename our country to the United States of Hypocrisy.

So, it's not because we're "free", sorry. :rolleyes:
 
Nagorak said:
Please tell me you don't really believe all that propaganda you just coughed up? We're hated for a lot of reasons, but the fact that we're "free" isn't one of them. Actually the biggest one is our hypocrisy.

Go back and read what I said.

Our FREEDOM is what has given us our power. We are "hated" because we are such a power. Simplistically, put our "power" is propagandized by many as the casue for "all the misery and oppression you personally experience."

Bullshit propaganda that is educated to the masses via dictators and leaders who have all the personal power they need but want more, and get that through oppressing their own people. "The man holding you down is America! Not me!" That's why people "hate us" enough to fly jubo jets.

Maybe we should just rename our country to the United States of Hypocrisy.

Only when there are conservatives in power, right?
 
RussSchultz said:
Giving the average person a say in their government will go a long way to marginalizing the militant population well into the fringes.

This is a simple fact, the question is whether or not our actions will bring this about. While I don't trust Bush, I think that he has no choice but to try his very best to make Iraq a democracy. Why? Because after all this crap about how bad saddam is (which he is) and how they are going to be liberated if he doesn't do it he will be out of office next election.

People who have no food, houses, or say in events turn into terrorists way more than those who have a modicum of control of their destiny, so if true representative governments were formed around the world terrorist threats would be greatly reduced.

They don't have to be capitalistic, you can have democratic communism, or whatever and as long as it is truly democratic the people will eventually better their lot.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Actually Kyle, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. But if not, I disagree, and this deserves mention.

Peace is NOT the absense of violence. I would agree that locking everyone in their own little cage to prevent the people in one cage from "hurting" the other, would in effect, eliminate violence. And there would be less immediate "killing."

That is not peace.

Peace, IMO, is a state in which people live where they don't believe their freedoms are being wrongly restricted. You can have your freedoms restricted without there being violence.

ok, maybe i should rephase that and say "if we could just lock everyone in our own little cages and like it like that." ;)

but yes, it was sarcasm that prompted me to make the suggestion.
 
Back
Top