Re: Nova - Dirty Bombs - London Scenario question

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

EXCEPT for the fact that the press, antis and government have whipped

this dirty bomb scenario up to such a frenzy that it could easily

paralyze the target area and generate enormous recovery costs.  It would

also have the benefit to the terrorists of making people feel more

vulnerable.  I think with all the help they have already gotten from our

own press and government that a dirty bomb would fit their agenda quite

nicely.



> "Flood, John" wrote:

> 

> I think there is a more fundamental issue that is being overlooked in

> the press and in our discussion.  A terrorist attack is, at its most

> basic level, a publicity stunt - an attention-getting event designed

> to focus public attention on the terrorist's cause.

> 

> 

> 

> To the best of my recollection, every terrorist attack in my lifetime

> has used death as the attention getter - the event is intended to

> generate a body count, which in turn gets the attention of the public,

> the press, and government institutions.  Without the body count, how

> much publicity can the terrorist expect?  This is an important

> concept, because a terrorist organization would have to abandon this

> approach to begin thinking of a dirty bomb as a useful technique.  An

> attack that simply renders the attacked location a place to avoid and

> may increase the risk of illness years in the future would be a

> dramatic shift in goals for a terrorist.  And it carries the

> opportunity to fail - if the quantity of radioactive material can be

> cleaned up and there are no news items about people being harmed, the

> resulting publicity would associate the terrorists' cause with

> failure, ineptitude, ineffectiveness, etc.  Something terrorist are

> not after.

> 

> 

> 

> I don't recall any terrorist attacks that weren't designed to kill

> people immediately.  If such attacks have happened and I simply don't

> remember them, it illustrates my point.

> 

> 

> 

> I can't see spending significant amounts of time, money, and energy to

> protect against an attack designed to merely irritate the target

> population - body counts are more effective at getting the desired

> attention and are, therefore, more likely to be the method of choice.

> 

> 

> 

> Bob Flood

> 

> Nevada Test Site

> 

>

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/