[ RadSafe ] Dirty Bomb Material Crosses Border

[Muckerheide, James]

Not for the IRA.  Does this make them civilized terrorists?

Regards, Jim 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of
> Flood, John
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 2:00 PM
> To: Gerry Blackwood; Bradt, Clayton (LABOR); BLHamrick at aol.com;
> ray2hoover at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Dirty Bomb Material Crosses Border
> 
> I don't really want to get a debate under way on this as it's rather off
> topic for Radsafe, but I'll make one response.  It's true that the
> subway and resort targets were economic in nature.  The intended
> aftermath of such an attack is a significant (huge, total) decrease in
> the usefulness of the economic resource.  But if the goal is just
> economic disruption, the terrorists can plant a bomb, call in a warning
> so there's just enough time to evacuate, and then detonate the bomb,
> harming no one.  I know of no example of such tactics by AQ or any other
> active terrorist organization. The body count that comes from the
> surprise attack on an occupied facility is a fundamental part of the
> action and has been all of my life.  To shift to a practice that allows
> those in harm's way to escape first would be an enormous change of
> personality and totally contrary to the nature of those who blow things
> up to impose their cause on others.
> 
> Bob Flood
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Gerry Blackwood [mailto:gpblackwood at yahoo.com]
> 	Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:31 AM
> 	To: Flood, John; Bradt, Clayton (LABOR); BLHamrick at aol.com;
> ray2hoover at yahoo.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> 	Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Dirty Bomb Material Crosses Border
> 
> 
> 	John,
> 
> 	" I have proposed this idea on Radsafe in the past - the use of
> a "dirty
> 	bomb" would be require a significant change of personality for
> 	terrorists here in the early 21st century. "
> 
> 	History defines your logic.... It would not be a turn around in
> tactics for terrorists to go after economic targets only. UBL, AQ and
> its member groups have proved this time and time again... I will note
> the subway bombing at the G8 Summit, July 7th, 2005 and the Egyptian
> resort attacks on July 23, 2005,  just to name a couple. These attacks
> were economic terrorism and nothing other than that. Of one the key
> goals of the 9/11 attacks was economics. Yes body count does matter to
> terrorists so does chaos and a RDD would cause that.  I suggest you read
> the State Departments Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001. You will see
> that the bulk of attacks were against businesses. Economic terrorism in
> many cases does more damage than any body count. Worldwide its all about
> economics.... Also for your reading pleasure I suggest "Charlemagne and
> Muhammad' (1943).... I think it say's it all.....
> 
> 	As far as the assessment and cleanup goes? That remains to be
> seen. Yes our folk can do the job with their eyes closed. But its not
> about the science its about the publics perception on radiation.... Its
> all about perception...... And perception can be a real
> killer...............
> 
> 	"Flood, John" <FloodJR at nv.doe.gov> wrote:
> 
> 		I have proposed this idea on Radsafe in the past - the
> use of a "dirty
> 		bomb" would be require a significant change of
> personality for
> 		terrorists here in the early 21st century. A terrorist
> attack is
> 		primarily a publicity stunt to focus attention on the
> cause to which the
> 		terrorist is devoted. The standard means of getting that
> publicity has
> 		been the body count - the attack needs to succeed at
> killing people
> 		and, if the group responsible isn't obvious at that
> time, they "claim
> 		responsibility" to ensure the desired kind of attention.
> 
> 		To switch to causing economic harm or the threat of a
> slow death instead
> 		of immediate would be a complete turnabout. And use of
> radioactive
> 		material to contaminate an area could backfire. The
> aftermath -
> 		assessment of the immediate impact and the cleanup - may
> be a very good
> 		demonstration to the public that their fears of
> radiation never were
> 		necessary. I suggest that no terrorist group cares to
> risk such a
> 		colossal flop.
> 
> 		Given the kinds of attacks in recent years - 911, the
> train systems in
> 		Europe - terrorist organizations have adequate technical
> expertise and
> 		organizational skills to understand the danger to
> themselves if they try
> 		to assemble and deliver a large enough dirty bomb to be
> spectacular, and
> 		that the likelihood of delivering it undetected is too
> low to make such
> 		an attack an attractive prospect. They should also have
> enough
> 		expertise to understand attach with a small dirty bomb
> could ultimately
> 		be viewed as laughable by the population they attacked.
> 
> 		One man's opinion.
> 
> 		Bob Flood
> 		Nevada Test Site
> 
> 
> 		_______________________________________________
> 		You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> 		Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read
> and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> 		For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and
> other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	"Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved
> for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality."
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/