[ RadSafe ] Nuclear Terrorism: Weapons for Sale or Theft?

[Peter.Vernig at med.va.gov]

Floyd,

While I tend to agree with your sentiment, I don't think you can say what a
terrorist might do only probabilities.  In the event of 9/11 they certainly
were not capturing an unguarded weapon [the planes] although the targets
could be considered unguarded and they certainly did apply some resources,
the time of the couple dozen terrorists that went to flight schools for some
time.  BTW my understanding was they were all pilots but needed to
familiarize with the way our system works.  Anyway while the planes had a
certain amount of security on them, they detected a gap and exploited it,
but as I said they still did devote resources to the effort.

For the general reasons you state, I have always been pretty skeptical of
the whole "dirty bomb" scenario.  If we grant potential access.  To put
together a dirty bomb with say one or several irradiators worth of RAM,
presents rather significant handling problem for the RAM and while I am
abundantly aware that the terrorists may be willing to die for their cause,
are they willing to die, not going up in blaze of glory taking a bunch of
people they consider infidels with them, but puking their guts out after the
fact?  What is the pay off?  It is unlikely that any such home made dirty
bomb could disperse meaningful RAM out side the area devastated by the blast
of the high explosive.  Bluntly I don't think the payoff is there for the
cost and effort.  I think they are interested in devastation and body count
and I don't think increasing the cost of clean up or the possible,
potential, panic is not a primary goal.

And I am also skeptical of the panic scenario also.  Certainly some people
think they'll die a horrible death if an extra couple of photons hit them.
As long as the people handling the response don't say "Run for your lives"
or something equally foolish but their messages are clear, and indicate a
reasonable hazard that reasonable precautions can mitigate I think panic
would be avoided.  Example: "Avoid the area and shower if you were in the
area during ...."

There are certainly many other vulnerable areas.  In looking at nuclear
scenarios, I guess I would, if it was my job, try to see any gaps or weak
points that could be exploited.  Like you I don't think trying to raise the
overall level of protection is needed or cost effective.  I remember my days
as an alternate Alpha [decon] Team Leader for nuclear accidents in the Army
and Radiological response training after and potential terrorist actions
were always part of the mix of scenarios and I thought it was kind of stupid
before 9/11.  Now I do not discount the possibility but as I said, I would
be looking for gaps and such rather than mounting anti aircraft guns on
power reactors

Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not
represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans
Affairs, or the US Government.

Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado
Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220,
peter.vernig at med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026,
alternate fax, 303.393.5248

"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is lovely, whatever is
admirable, if anything is found to be excellent or praiseworthy, let your
mind dwell on these things."

Paul of Tarsus


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Flanigan, Floyd
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:55 AM
To: Gerry Blackwood; Rad Safe
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Terrorism: Weapons for Sale or Theft? 


I guess I have a different take on this issue than most. I don't think the
terrorists are interested in the nuclear end of things. Why go to the
effort? Why chance that kind of exposure to being discovered before the plan
can go into effect? There are so many targets of opportunity which have zero
security and minimal cost in moneys or manpower. I know most of us in the
business, live our lives steeped in nuclear this and that ... but they
don't. From what I understand, the ideology is to affect the most damage and
mayhem with the minimum of applied resources on the part of the terrorist.
Now ... taking this into account, shouldn't the protectors of the free world
be looking at initiating security measures on UNGUARDED targets rather than
beefing up security on places which are already heavily guarded? The next
time you stop at the gas station to fill up, take a look at the cover plate
on the underground holding tanks. Do you see a lock on it? If so, is it
anything which couldn't be snipped of with a pair of bolt cutters which any
yahoo can pick up at a hardware store for $29.95? Now ... picture 300,000
gallons of high test fuel in an underground compression chamber ... that's
right ... right under your feet. Now ... while driving the rest of the way
to wherever you happen to be going that day ... count the gas stations you
pass. Imagine what would happen if someone put a suicidal nut job at each
station at three in the morning and each of these knuckleheads had a twenty
dollar pipe bomb and a six dollar wrist watch and a pair of $29.95 bolt
cutters and a really bad attitude .... Get it? Nuclear material, let alone
weapons grade material, is really, really hard to get ahold of. All of the
rest of the materials mentioned here could be procured without any attention
being paid, no red flags, no sirens going off. So, enough already. We are
dealing mostly with terrorists who come from a place where indoor plumbing
is a recent development. We are thinking too hard. So far, their biggest
success at damage has been steering planes into buildings. Their tactics are
basic and the resources they utilize are rudimentary. All of the attention
being paid to nuclear materials may be just us, setting ourselves up for the
draw play. We dedicate all of our security resources in one area and they
simply go the other way, for the unguarded stuff. Hmmmm ... sounds like a
play we used to run back when I played football .....

Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Gerry Blackwood
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:13 AM
To: Rad Safe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear Terrorism: Weapons for Sale or Theft? 


http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2005/pdf/ijpe0305.pdf
 
Nuclear Terrorism: Weapons for Sale or Theft? 
Gavin Cameron 



The theft of a tactical nuclear weapon or the purchase of weapons-grade
nuclear material by terrorists is a 21st-century nightmare that may well
come true, says Gavin Cameron. An assistant professor of political science
at the University of Calgary, Canada, Cameron is the author of Nuclear
Terrorism: A Threat Assessment for the 21st Century (2001) and has written
numerous articles on the threats posed by the terrorist use of weapons of
mass destruction. In this article he takes readers through four distinct
nuclear terrorist scenarios: stealing an intact nuclear weapon; stealing or
buying weapons-grade fissile material; attacking a nuclear site in order to
cause a contamination incident; and using radioactive material to make a
"dirty bomb." 



"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
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe