RE: Nova - Dirty Bombs - London Scenario question

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

I'll say it again.  The press and the antis would never have been able to

create this nearly universal radiophobia without the actions of the "nuclear

advocates," who almost never flatly refute a false statement and often do

more harm than good when they do say something.



Having people against you is not unique to nuclear activities.  It's having

no one willing to speak FOR that is unique.



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of Ted de Castro

Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:12 PM

To: Flood, John

Cc: 'Franta, Jaroslav'; 'Stewart Farber'; Radsafe (E-mail)

Subject: Re: Nova - Dirty Bombs - London Scenario question





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/





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

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/