[ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

SDI effectiveness is partial and improving, but delayed by bureaucrat self-interest.
Neither "FoxNews Colonels or the RadSafe Colonels" have it all right.

I think we should do SDI and import sensing - but not trust them alone. 
Attackers were successful on 9/11/01, as we should remember on 9/11/08

Howard Long

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Brent Rogers" <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au> 

> Bob 
> 
> You've put me in a quandary about SDI's viability. Should I believe the 
> FoxNews Colonels or the RadSafe Colonels? 
> 
> Brent Rogers 
> Sydney Australia 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Cherry 
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 3:21 AM 
> To: 'Clayton J Bradt'; HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net 
> Cc: BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment 
> 
> Clayton is right about the limitations for SDI and for the sensors, but here 
> is an even bigger reason they are doomed to fail: The bad guys will take 
> steps to counteract them. 
> 
> SDI: Dummy targets, flack, stealth design. 
> 
> Sensors: avoid them. 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf 
> Of Clayton J Bradt 
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 10:55 AM 
> To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net 
> Cc: BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment 
> 
> SDI is actually a pretty good analogy. It works, but only if there is only 
> one missile at a time and we know its coming and what its trajectory will 
> be. Detecting nukes at the border would be effective under similar 
> circumstances: If we know the terrorist is coming, when he's coming and 
> where, it will be no problem to identify the nuke he's carrying. 
> 
> 
> Clayton J. Bradt 
> dutchbradt at hughes.net 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOWARD.LONG at comca 
> st.net 
> To 
> 09/08/2008 11:23 Doug Aitken 
> AM > om>, "'Clayton J Bradt'" 
> , 
> BLHamrick at aol.com 
> cc 
> radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject 
> RE: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could 
> Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment 
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, y'all, 
> "There is no technological solution to nuclear terrorism." 
> 
> However, SDI did not work at first, but, gradually, missile defense does 
> work. It is now much less likely that Iran's Ayatollahs could bring their 
> 12th Imam (and destruction of us hedonists) by A bomb via missile. 
> Continued effort might also enable detection in cargo containers, cars, 
> etc, although 
> the usual bureacratic self-service will impede it, I agree. 
> 
> I am pleasantly surprised that we have not had attacks of sarin, anthrax, 
> a-bomb, etc since 9/11, 
> as predicted then. Could the Bush policy, attacking those supporting 
> alQaeda, and luring 
> alQaeda to Iraq (where it is largely beat down, alQaeda says) have 
> prevented attacks on us? 
> 
> This metastasizing media makes people sick by selection. 
> We are safe, but feel the dangers of the world impending, when exposed to 
> headlines. 
> Adrenalin release causes clots, exhaustion, heart attacks, etc. 
> 
> Ergo Avoid alarmists, but go on offense against declared attackers. 
> 
> Howard Long 
>