My point (which may not have been too clear) is a radiological bomb would do more that irritate the target population. It would cause panic and the "attention-getting" event that Bob Flood says the terrorist want. More than that, such an event has long term implications. No one has died since these two events, but we are still irradiating mail in the DC area, airport security, etc. I certainly would not be dismissive of a radiological bomb even if no one was killed. Look at all the public fear that surround the Three Mile Island accident. No one died there.
Radiological fear, whether we like it or not, is strong in the public's mind.
"Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> wrote:
You really believe that all that money would have been spent on security if there had been ZERO body count on 9-11 ?If you do, "I have land to sell you"Jaro-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday February 27, 2003 1:18 PM
To: Flood, John; 'Franta, Jaroslav'; 'Stewart Farber'; Radsafe (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Nova - Dirty Bombs - London Scenario questionConsider how much has been spent by our government is the last year-and-a-half on security. Has anyone died in the U.S. due to terrorist since Sept 11, with about 3,000 dead? None. How many people have died from anthrax since Oct 2001, with 5 dead? None. They both had an impact when you consider how much we have spent in securing airports, harbors, etc. By the way, we are still at code "Orange," so I guess these events did more than irritate the public. I suggest you contact your congressman and senator about the waste of money with no body count.
If you don't think that a terrorist attack using radiological material would lead to panic, I have land to sell you.
There is no question that the terrorist have won.
(End of rant)
"Flood, John" <FloodJR@NV.DOE.GOV> 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, in! eptitude, 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