US Nuclear Terror Attack Possible In Next 10 Years?

[Dixon Cox]

It takes a lot to freak me out. This article, along with the fact that we're pissing off the rest of the world (ESPECIALLY the Muslilm world) and wasting all of our resources trying to stabilize a country that didn't need stabilization in the first place, freaks me out. Maybe also because I'm from San Francisco, where the article's mini nuke scenario takes place, made it hit home.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/21/BURRESS.TMP

http://www.nuclearterror.org/

[Wonk]

1. From your headline I thought you might be talking about

America nuking somewhere else first in a "pre-emptive strike", kinda how the Iraq war is all about "preventing terrorism" (or something like that :/ ).

It's late. I'll read the article tomorrow.

[UL_Approved]

2. The REAL smoking gun

Oooh, the great secret of Bushco™. They have ended the Clinton-era diplomacy and roundup of loose or poorly-secured arms stocks. The threat of nuclear attack is being toyed with as a political talking point. The real danger is being completely ignored. I just hope that if it does happen, that it is not in the New England states, the Midwest, or the Southwest. I think the time for more proactive protest and dissent will come soon enough, but it is sure that frigid dawn in the depths that ushers in the bomb again. Back to the Cold War.

[Garbo 2004]

3. I recall reading "One Point Safe" about efforts to secure

nuclear arms and materials in the former Soviet Union and how insecure that stuff really is. Chilling.

[cassiepriam]

4. This is exactly what * wants.......

the repug party can be the war party......

[LosinIt]

5. Dear Terrorists, please attack Red State this time, they love *, we don't

just wanted to inform them. (Dear Progressive Red Staters, lots of room in rural Northern NY, leave now while there is still time.)