The threat of a nuclear attack on some part of the U.S. seems very real and of urgent concern to the Bush administration. There is reason to believe that terrorist groups are now in possesion of either nuclear weapons or nuclear materials:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/718527.asp?pne=msntv

An indication that the administration is preparing for the possibility of a massive attack on Washington--one that might wipe out substantial numbers of government officials, including members of congress and the Supreme Court--has been the deployment of a "shadow government" to work outside Washington in a secure location and thereby assure the continuation of our government:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20584-2002Feb28.html

In addition, some Washington insiders are now saying that it is time to review the line of succession to the presidency, since it might not be effective in case of a major attack on the Capitol. They have suggested, for instance, that governors should now be added on to an extended succession list in order to insure that there will always be a designated Chief Excutive.

This is the chilling talk of nightmare scenarios.

Who knows what else is going on that we know nothing about? For reasons of national security the public will probably be the last to know. Even Congress is not being keep informed of all the details. Is that prudent security or administration arrogance?

The government's ability to panic us seems to exceed their ability to protect us from such an attack, and the choices to be made, in the event of such an attack, are difficult indeed.

This is a different kind of war for the U.S. and, in so many ways, it differs from the Cold War we finally ended. But it seems clear that the nuclear threat remains with us--and will for some time to come.

The cover story in this week's Time magazine reveals some horrifying details of a security alert last October. Here is a brief excerpt from that story:

"For a few harrowing weeks last fall, a group of U.S. officials believed that the worst nightmare of their lives—something even more horrific than 9/11—was about to come true. In October an intelligence alert went out to a small number of government agencies, including the Energy Department's top-secret Nuclear Emergency Search Team, based in Nevada. The report said that terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City. The source of the report was a mercurial agent code-named dragonfire, who intelligence officials believed was of "undetermined" reliability. But dragonfire's claim tracked with a report from a Russian general who believed his forces were missing a 10-kiloton device. Since the mid-'90s, proliferation experts have suspected that several portable nuclear devices might be missing from the Russian stockpile. That made the dragonfire report alarming. So did this: detonated in lower Manhattan, a 10-kiloton bomb would kill some 100,000 civilians and irradiate 700,000 more, flattening everything in a half-mile diameter. And so counterterrorist investigators went on their highest state of alert."

"It was brutal," a U.S. official told Time. It was also highly classified and closely guarded. Under the aegis of the White House's Counterterrorism Security Group, part of the National Security Council, the suspected nuke was kept secret so as not to panic the people of New York. Senior FBI officials were not in the loop. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani says he was never told about the threat. In the end, the investigators found nothing and concluded that dragonfire's information was false. But few of them slept better. They had made a chilling realization: if terrorists did manage to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the city, there was almost nothing anyone could do about it. "

Read the entire Time cover story at:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020311/story.html

Counterterrorism experts seem rather sure that a second attack will strike the U.S., much worse than the first and killing far more people--and that there is little we can do to stop or prevent it. We are just too vulnerable and poorly prepared.

The Time article covers our security problems and the types of massive attacks to which we are vunerable. It is worth reading because it offers considerable insight into the types of problems and threats the government is dealing with, our intelligence deficiencies, and the issue of how much information should be passed along and shared with government officials at various levels as well as with the public.

The past Mayor of NYC, Rudy Guiliani, was upset to learn that the rumored nuclear threat back in October wasn't even brought to his attention at the time.

Should the government even pass along such alerts to local officials--when there is no possibility of evacuating the population, and there will be mass panic if the information leaks out? Should senior FBI officials be kept in the dark as well (as was the case with the nuclear alert in October)?

Would you want to know about an impending massive attack--of any sort?

Do you think the nuclear threat is real?

This was in the Los Angeles Times yesterday

Secret Plan Outlines The Unthinkable
By William M. Arkin
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria.

In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military developments" of an unspecified nature.

You can read the rest of the above article at
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000017612mar10.story

Well, it looks like the Bush administration not only fears a nuclear attack aginst the U.S., but it is preparing for possible nuclear attacks of it's own as well.

Is this complete madness?

Chelseabelle...I've been reading reports regarding the so-called nuclear threat and I can't help but believe that some of it is journalistic sensationalism. For example, I read an article recently that suggested that 60 kilograms of nuclear material was missing from one of the former Soviet republics (can't remember which one)...but later on in the article it describes how the material has subsequently appeared, some of it in the custody of the Italian Mafia. I think there's a fine line between informative reporting and journalistic irresponsibility...and some journalists seem to be falling within the realm of the latter with what I consider to be irresponsible usage of information.

I'm not fond of the idea that the Bush administration has secret plans drawn up for nuclear responses, particularly within the China-Taiwan scenario. However, I'm not surprised by it, and I imagine that these sorts of contingency plans have been drawn up for years, no doubt during the Clinton years too. I'm surprised that the administration allowed the info to be leaked to Congress, from whence they must have known the media would get a hold of it! Perhaps the Bush administration desires to put fear into some of these so-called 'evil' countries out there? I certainly don't think it helps relations with China and Russia that our nuclear contingency plans have been disseminated to the media...I'm sure there was some major damage control being performed by the lower echelons of the diplomatic community following that L.A. Times report.

Could a 10-kiloton bomb be smuggled into NYC or Washington? I doubt it...think about the logistics. The so-called suitcase bombs are a myth, I think. This device would have to be rather large. How could non-experts smuggle it into the United States and then be able to operate the thing? Where would they get the device from? I think all Russian nuclear weapons are kept under strict lock and key...where else could the terrorists acquire a device? The media has been discussing the more likely scenario that terrorists could somehow activate a 'dirty' bomb, the effect of which would be much less severe than an actual nuclear weapon. None-the-less, psychologically people would still be gravely affected. I suppose we can only wait and see what the future has to hold! I sure hope the government doesn't continually try to put the fear into its citizens by continuing to issue these vague warnings. Continued vigilance by the populace should simply be called for...I think invoking September 11th (in a non-exploitative way, preferably) should be enough to garner the continued attentiveness of a majority of Americans.

Jazz--I'd much rather believe that this is all journalistic sensationalism. But I don't think that's what it is. I think that there is sheer panic going on in the upper echelons of our government and these nuclear "contingency" plans reflect thinking that is heavily distorted by all that anxiety, and unrestrained by a proper consideration of the consequences of such plans.

Nuclear weapons have always been considered a last resort--to be used only in dire situations when our national security was clearly at stake. The idea was simply to have such weapons for their deterrent value.

But these latest contingency plans of the Bush administration allow for our use of nuclear weapons in a whole host of situations--in response to a biochemical attack, in the event of an Arab nation attacking Israel, etc.--which do not pose a dire threat to our national security. It abandons the idea of simply having nuclear weapons as deterrents and proposes their use as a strategy of aggressive warfare. What has happened to our sense of morality? Are we now so panic stricken by terrorists that we will shoot from the hip and ask questions later?

I don't find any of this over-sensationalized by the press. On the contrary, I am glad that the press is revealing what is actually going on the government. Thank heavens we have a free press.

A 10-kiloton bomb could be smuggled into NYC--that threat last October was considered a real possiblity by the administration. And Russia has no precise inventory of it's nuclear weapons and materials. In addition, they are not sure exactly what information or materials might have left Pakistan along with some of their nuclear scientists (one of whom has repeatedly failed a polygraph test).

I think the links I posted to the Time magazine cover story and the L.A. Times story are instances of very responsible journalism. And they raise some very disturbing questions about the behavior of the Bush administration in a post 9/11 world.

I don't think that the vague security alerts issued to the public are the problem. I think what's going on behind the scenes at Cabinet meetings might be the real problem. The administration seems to be running scared--very scared--since 9/11. And that raises the real possibility that our government will miscalculate, overreact, or misjudge situations.

I find that very frightening.

There is too much going on in secret with the current administration. If it doesn't breach national security I want the press to reveal as much as it can find out.

If anything it is the government who might want to sensationalize the situation. Bush seems to want as much leeway to use military might (including nuclear weapons) as he can get. The higher the fear factor in the public mind, the more likely he is to get it.

We are going down a very slippery slope.

[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: chelseabelle ]

My son has read in the British papers about the terrorists having Atomic bombs and he is really worried he keeps asking if there is going to be a war especially now his 2 cousins who are in the forces have been sent to the war zone in the middle east.