US should expect NBC attack by 2013.

#2
Or change channels?
 
#3
Any reason why 2013 should be chosen?

There is as much chance of America getting it as anywhere else that just happens to p1ss some loon off.

Simple fact of the matter, nukes are hard to make, fissile matierial still quite hard to get hold of.

Chemical or bio weapons are probably easier, but in bio the most effective agents are TOO effective and burn out fast (hence why ebola hasn´twiped out the world), and to modify them is also difficult.

Chemical, again pretty difficult in a large area.

Most CBRN type attacks would require a country to aid the group, and the country knows exactly what it would expect in return for such a deal.

Far more effective to use a massive bomb, or up to four airliners......
 
#5
I think Mumbai shown the way forward a dozen willing martyrs with an AK each an a couple of hundred rounds can bring a metropolis to a standstill. Thats more worrying to me because i can't see plod's tazers out ranging a 7.62
 
#6
chocolate_frog said:
Any reason why 2013 should be chosen?

There is as much chance of America getting it as anywhere else that just happens to p1ss some loon off.

Simple fact of the matter, nukes are hard to make, fissile matierial still quite hard to get hold of.

Chemical or bio weapons are probably easier, but in bio the most effective agents are TOO effective and burn out fast (hence why ebola hasn´twiped out the world), and to modify them is also difficult.

Chemical, again pretty difficult in a large area.

Most CBRN type attacks would require a country to aid the group, and the country knows exactly what it would expect in return for such a deal.

Far more effective to use a massive bomb, or up to four airliners......
Thanks, Choc — no doubt this is just grist to the mill and the tabloids and the usual "sky-is-falling" loons will froth and wax most righteous about islamofascistlefty conspiracies which will exterminate us all unless we bomb everywhere, with everything, right now ...

... but of course, as you say, when you look a bit more coolly at the details, the apocalyptic scaremongering starts to look pretty silly. There was a thread here quite recently referencing a down to earth assessment of the real utility, and dangerousness, of chemical weapons, highlighting how unlikely they would be to cause a holocaust in terrorist hands.

IMHO, the real damage caused by terrorists is in the reaction of their target governments rather than the actual destructive power of their actions.

Thought experiment: Imagine a cheap and easy attack in London. It could be as little as a couple of pounds of ANFO and a few hundred minced up smoke detector cores, set off on the top of a building early one morning. You get a spectacular bang and calls to the Beeb about a "dirty bomb" — and guess what, the authorities do find some minutely radioactive dust floating around. It won't matter that, on proper analysis, the danger was non-existent: government and populace will react to "dirty bomb" and "radioactivity". A combination of panic, ignorance, hysteria, exaggeration, arrse-covering, fear mongering and the usual attempts by every service to use it to boost their budget will shut the city down.

No attack need ever be as genuinely destructive as 9/11 if you can count on governments and the media to be total idiots.

Unfortunately you can take that one to the bank. It's as certain as the fact that I'm a cynical old barsteward.
 
#7
The anthrax attacks? Is that CBRN enough for everyone? I can't recall many people actually falling ill, but the public was terrified, even though an awful lot of "anthrax" scares turned out to be ground-up aspirin.

Lots of small attacks playing on public fears would be as effective as a major CBRN attack. Scaring people, destabilising the government, the economy and the country are as effective as killing people.
 
#8
chocolate_frog said:
Chemical or bio weapons are probably easier, but in bio the most effective agents are TOO effective and burn out fast (hence why ebola hasn´twiped out the world), and to modify them is also difficult.

....
But why not bio?
Lassa for example has 20% mortality rate, and by the time authorities will figure out what is killing people... plus all the panic when faced with the unknown... You don't need large quantities of the virus, all you need is few cases and sensationalist media.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
TBH, I'm rather surprised it's not happened ye . . . . oh, hang on, that was Sarin in Japan . . . and Ricin-filled envelopes elsewhere . . . mmmm?
 
#10
well seeing its now 2304, and nothings on the news, do they mean 2013 US time????
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#11
BULLSHIT, any more attacks on the U.S, and i belive that they will waste the whole funking area of the perpetraters, as a deterant to others !
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#13
joey_deacons_lad said:
ALVIN said:
BULLSHIT, any more attacks on the U.S, and i belive that they will waste the whole funking area of the perpetraters, as a deterant to others !
What if it was a homegrown nutjob like Mcveigh?
WASN`T HE WASTED ? U.S secret intelligence will be the judge of that.
 
#14
Why are these reports always so depressin?

Do the writers read Tom Clancy and then let their imagination go wild, with tales of armagedde`?

If it must bes o depressing could we not have a .gif file on the end of a puppy or similar to cheer us up?
 
#15
Any one remember the attack on the Tokyo underground sometime in the 90s, using Sarin (I think)? There were fatalities but not as many as would have been expected, certainly the perpetrators had hoped for more. Use of chemical weapons would therefore apparently be less effective than "parking" an airliner in the town centre at 500kts.
 
#16
chocolate_frog said:
Why are these reports always so depressin?

Do the writers read Tom Clancy and then let their imagination go wild, with tales of armagedde`?

If it must bes o depressing could we not have a .gif file on the end of a puppy or similar to cheer us up?

there you go
:D
 
#17
chocolate_frog said:
Why are these reports always so depressin?

Do the writers read Tom Clancy and then let their imagination go wild, with tales of armagedde`?

If it must bes o depressing could we not have a .gif file on the end of a puppy or similar to cheer us up?
If it bleeds, it leads! :twisted:
 
#18
Full report here.

It's actually pretty sober stuff. Hastily summarized recommendations:
- US should get it's shit in order internal secure bio-weapon labs etc
- Get to work on stopping bio-weapons proliferation
- Work toward a nuke free world
- Cooperate with the Russians rather than patronize them
- Stop North Korea's and Iran's nuke programs
- Squeeze Lahore
- Treaty up on anti-proliferation the NPT etc etc
- POTUS to create a cabinet level post for this area
- Congress to get its finger out
- Train up in this area, civil defense, yada yada
- Create 21st century "security workforce" to address the issue
- Attack ideologies that may support mass casualty terrorism
- Fess up with the voter about threat levels. Street light of death
decommissioned

It's been criticized for fear mongering.
...
“Since the demise of the Soviet Union, threat estimates have concluded that the likelihood of a WMD attack was more than 50-50, and that estimate is now almost 20 years old,” Krepon told Global Security Newswire after his presentation yesterday. “The United States and other countries have done a great deal in those 20 years to improve our security and to lock down dangerous weapons and materials around the world.”

Under the so-called Nunn-Lugar program, the United States has helped deactivate 7,298 strategic nuclear warheads, destroy 728 ICBMs, and eliminate 631 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 155 bomber aircraft, among other achievements, according to a recent statement by its chief legislative sponsor, Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.).

Krepon said President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration should recalibrate threat estimates, even as it expands cooperative efforts to reduce risk.

“If the threat was over 50 percent in 1990 or 1991, then I would argue it’s below 50 percent now, given all of the work that’s been done in the former Soviet Union and in other countries,” he said.

Krepon took pains, though, to note that the risk of a catastrophic event remains. “Can something awful happen tomorrow? Absolutely,” he said.

However, a “healthy appreciation of the threat” should be paired with “a publicly expressed conviction that we have made important successes through these mechanisms that the taxpayers are paying for,” he said.

“If the threat estimate is below 50 percent -- even if it’s significantly below 50 percent -- does that mean we can relax our guard, [or] that we don’t need to spend more money in Cooperative Threat Reduction and tying down dangerous weapons and materials? Obviously not,” Krepon said. “We need to broaden the scope of these Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, accelerate the pace. That’s not at issue. But I do take issue with these unchanged threat estimates year after year, when so many wise steps have been taken.”

"We are actually hopeful," Farkas responded. "We believe that our country has done a lot to work to prevent these things from happening. We’re only highlighting the fact that there are trends that are working against us. And so we need to ramp up our effort to do more
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top