PDA

View Full Version : WMD strike 'likely' in five years


Mad Tony
03-12-08, 14:14
The chance of a nuclear or biological attack on a major world city in the next five years is now much greater, a report has warned.

A commission set up by the US Congress is due to reveal that America's "margin of safety" is shrinking, not growing.
One of the report's authors says enemies of the US are moving quickly to gain weapons of mass destruction.
The report, entitled World at Risk, singles out Pakistan as the weakest link in world security.
"Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan," the report says.
The bi-partisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism was set up after the attacks of 11 September 2001.

Attack 'likely'

Its report is due to be presented to Vice-President-elect Joe Biden on Wednesday, but its contents have already been widely reported in the US media.
It says terrorists are "likely" to stage a nuclear or biological weapons attack somewhere in the world in the next five years.
Without urgent action, "it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013," the commission says. The threat to the US and the rest of the world, the report says, is from the rapid spread of nuclear technology in countries such as Pakistan and Iran and poor security in biotech industries worldwide.
It says that the threat from biological weapons is greatest, adding that the US should be less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists.
One of the report's authors - former Democratic Senator Bob Graham - said that the threat was growing because America's adversaries were moving at a faster pace to get access to weapons of mass destruction.
Time, he says, is not America's ally and the US needed to move with a sense of urgency.
The commission wants President-elect Barack Obama to appoint a senior official to co-ordinate intelligence to combat the spread of nuclear and biological weapons.
Pakistan is highlighted as a country of particular concern. The report says there is a grave danger is could become "an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States, possibly with weapons of mass destruction."
The commission will also brief President George W Bush on its report.
However, it accuses his administration of failing to treat possible biological attacks with the same priority as the spread of nuclear weapons.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7762318.stm

What do you guys think of this?

john_york
03-12-08, 14:25
I think there's not been enough 'terror terror terror!' in the news recently to keep the general population terrified of a problem that's being greatly magnified by both the media and government, hence this 'report'. Oh well, I guess reading this makes a change from the economic doom and gloom stories.

ajrich17901
03-12-08, 14:26
Honestly wouldnt surprise me i also wouldnt be surprised if world war 3 comes soon. Nothing surprises me anymore.:rolleyes:

Geck-o-Lizard
03-12-08, 14:28
Fearmongering.

OH DEAR GOVERNMENT PROTECT US, PLEASE! TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY AND PROTECT ME!

Neteru
03-12-08, 14:35
Fearmongering.

OH DEAR GOVERNMENT PROTECT US, PLEASE! TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY AND PROTECT ME!Hear, hear!

john_york
03-12-08, 14:38
Fearmongering.

OH DEAR GOVERNMENT PROTECT US, PLEASE! TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY AND PROTECT ME!

:tmb:

Mad Tony
03-12-08, 14:46
Fearmongering.

OH DEAR GOVERNMENT PROTECT US, PLEASE! TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY AND PROTECT ME!I had a feeling you'd say something along those lines.

Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

Draco
03-12-08, 15:01
I had a feeling you'd say something along those lines.

Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and loses both.

Nausinous
03-12-08, 15:10
I had a feeling you'd say something along those lines.

Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

Western Governments are using terrorism as a trojan horse to limit our civil liberties and those countries that don't have that the power of the freedom of western Governments, feel threatened and bargain for tools to make themselves look tougher than they actually are. Someones going to accidentally push the trigger on a weapon of some kind and it'll be the end of man kind as we know it. To be honest most Goverments and other establishments of political form should understand that we all have settled on one place on this earth, there is nor the resources or the time for us to argue over who's land is rightfully there's. We should be fortifying our countries and building our systems of welfare for every human being. Instead we are living in fear of being exterminated by one another even though there is no reason to be. The entire of civilisation needs to realises that united we could be strong and focused enough to build in harmony towards a better future. Space travel would no longer be a dream and diseases would be hard pushed to find their way into our world.

john_york
03-12-08, 15:10
Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

The thing is, that's exactly what it does mean, and the only reason for these farcical reports is that the populace is being primed for the day when it will happen.

Shrantellatessa
03-12-08, 15:15
And the "War on Terror" will surely continue for at least another five years.

Cochrane
03-12-08, 15:17
Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

You're right, it does not have to mean that. Great to see you agree here! Now we only need to convince the governments, which are actively taking rights away, of the same thing.

As for the topic itself: Chilling, but not exactly unexpected. I have no idea how likely such a scenario actually is (so far, terrorists seem to have done perfectly fine at spreading terror without WMDs). My guess is that when such an attack happens, it'll probably go off not in the "Western World™", i.e. NATO+EU area, but rather in one of the economically stronger countries in Africa or Asia.

Mad Tony
03-12-08, 15:29
Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and loses both.If you look carefully, I said taking a tougher stance on terrorism doesn't have to mean taking away civil liberties.

Personally I don't feel "oppressed" or anything like that. Still, to each to their own.

jarhead
03-12-08, 15:42
Fearmongering.

OH DEAR GOVERNMENT PROTECT US, PLEASE! TAKE MY RIGHTS AWAY AND PROTECT ME!

lmao :D


Anyway, I bet they said this 5 years ago.....

interstellardave
03-12-08, 15:42
I am more cynical than most... I firmly believe that just such an attack will be *cough* allowed *cough* to happen just as that article predicts. Any "important" people will be conveniently out of the area on that day, of course. Then comes mourning... and anger... followed by martial law.

Lavinder
03-12-08, 15:47
Personally I don't feel "oppressed" or anything like that. Still, to each to their own.

You're too young to feel oppressed, you do not have many responsibilities. ;)

Changeling
03-12-08, 15:51
Whoa... intense stuff. :yik:

Why is it that man is always looking for a way to destroy its own race and kind? :rolleyes:

NatlaCrazyness
03-12-08, 15:54
We won't be alive within 5 years due a bigger weapon. I'm sure that everyone now what weapon I'm refering to.

ajrich17901
03-12-08, 15:56
Well its that time again lets make a TRF bomb shelter lmao

Mad Tony
03-12-08, 15:57
You're too young to feel oppressed, you do not have many responsibilities. ;)Who are you to tell me what responsibilities I've got?

I am more cynical than most... I firmly believe that just such an attack will be *cough* allowed *cough* to happen just as that article predicts. Any "important" people will be conveniently out of the area on that day, of course. Then comes mourning... and anger... followed by martial law.I don't recall there ever being martial law after 9/11, nor after 7/7.

interstellardave
03-12-08, 16:07
Who are you to tell me what responsibilities I've got?

I don't recall there ever being martial law after 9/11, nor after 7/7.

Those attacks were nothing like what is talked about here. Even a small nuke could take out several city blocks at least--not to mention the radiation release. A biological attack could affect even more people. Either way it would be FAR more psychologically shocking to the populace than even 9/11. A biological attack, most specifically, would give the government a very good excuse for martial law.

Geck-o-Lizard
03-12-08, 16:10
Taking a tougher stance on terror doesn't have to mean taking rights away, which is what a lot of people seem to automatically assume when they hear things like this.

Are you aware that privacy is a right?

Here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm#privacy

These terrorism laws are creating a loophole via part 2 of our right to privacy by creating a threat that justifies spying on us.

Who are you to tell me what responsibilities I've got?

Legally, you are a child. You do not have the same rights and responsibilities as an adult, no matter how much you hate to hear that. You are not paying off loans, or a house mortgage, or car insurance; you are not caring for a child; you are not living by yourself.

Lavinder
03-12-08, 16:15
Who are you to tell me what responsibilities I've got?

Fair enough, but I don't image you are seeking employment, buying a house, etc.

Lara's home
03-12-08, 16:16
Doubt anything will happen really.
Of course, it could be the goverment who is behind this! D:

Shrantellatessa
03-12-08, 16:20
Well its that time again lets make a TRF bomb shelter lmao

Very wise :tmb:

Forwen
03-12-08, 16:53
The real question is, what future military action is this deliciously vague report supposed to justify? The simplest answer would be something in the Pakistani tribal belt. Didn't the American army recently receive a go ahead to carry out operations across the border in Pashtun areas without having to ask the Pakistani for permission? Or was it that Obama's supporting it.

Another matter is who in their right mind after going through all the pain of building a single nuke would actually up and detonate it. We all know nuclear regime doesn't work this way.

Mad Tony
03-12-08, 16:59
Another matter is who in their right mind after going through all the pain of building a single nuke would actually up and detonate it. We all know nuclear regime doesn't work this way.I don't think any of the countries which currently posses nuclear weapons would be stupid enough use them, not even N Korea. However, I wouldn't put it past an organization like Al-Qaeda to use them if they managed to get hold of one.

interstellardave
03-12-08, 17:06
The real question is, what future military action is this deliciously vague report supposed to justify? The simplest answer would be something in the Pakistani tribal belt. Didn't the American army recently receive a go ahead to carry out operations across the border in Pashtun areas without having to ask the Pakistani for permission? Or was it that Obama's supporting it.

This aspect sprung to mind as well when I read that article. An excuse for further military adventures... but Obama will soon be in charge. It'll be interesting to see what he does or doesn't do with the military. Will it be another "meet the new boss... same as the old boss" situation?

Forwen
03-12-08, 17:11
However, I wouldn't put it past an organization like Al-Qaeda to use them if they managed to get hold of one.

It's the lowly terrorists who are bonkers, but as their leaders are at least of acceptably sound mind they must realise that nuking a Western country, especially America would have Westerners swoop into ME all over again and plunge a good part of the world into WWIII. It sounds delightful to their kind, but it turns absolutely everyone into their enemies, even the likes of Iran as they would be primary suspects and targets. And terrorist movements are already losing too much appeal to ME Muslims as it is.

interstellardave -> well, Obama does apparently support interventions in Pakistani tribal areas and since the report (or what of it was fed to the masses) singles out Pakistan and the commission that coined it is apparently bipartisan it would add up quite nicely as Democracts wouldn't oppose their president elect's notions. Which probably means nothing but who doesn't just love speculation.

Goose
03-12-08, 17:27
This aspect sprung to mind as well when I read that article. An excuse for further military adventures... but Obama will soon be in charge. It'll be interesting to see what he does or doesn't do with the military. Will it be another "meet the new boss... same as the old boss" situation?

The entire conflict in Afghanistan is fueled by the Pakistan border region, its no secret that obama is withdrawing troops from Iraq to send them to Afghan to resolve the situation. Military intervention in the tribal regions of Pakistan is the only way to do that. It wouldnt be surprising if we start hearing about the massive threat pakistan is during the build up for operations.

interstellardave
03-12-08, 17:39
Yeah, Obama has talked the talk, but will he walk the walk when the time comes (whether that's a good or bad idea)... that's what I'm curious about. I wonder if the world opinion of him will be different if/when Obama starts getting into various conflicts?

tlr online
03-12-08, 17:43
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7762318.stm

What do you guys think of this?

Yea yea yea. Heard it all before and my bull**** meter just blew up.

NatlaCrazyness
03-12-08, 17:44
Yea yea yea. Heard it all before and my bull**** meter just blew up.

LOL. You made angry the penguin cuz the link is broken :D
Calm down Mister Penguin. ;)

Mad Tony
03-12-08, 17:45
Yea yea yea. Heard it all before and my bull**** meter just blew up.Why?

NatlaCrazyness
03-12-08, 17:46
Did you even read my post?
LOL. You made angry the penguin cuz the link is broken :D
Calm down Mister Penguin. ;)

Why?

tlr online
03-12-08, 17:50
Why?

Tony. In the words of George W. Bush.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

All this kind of irresponsible rhetoric does is attempt to hold folk to ransom by installing fear within society. It doesn't wash with me.

NatlaCrazyness
03-12-08, 17:54
Quoting from tlronline:
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Oh it's not the link!

Quoting from this thread title:
WMD strike 'likely' in five years

Geck-o-Lizard
03-12-08, 18:01
What are you talking about? Link in the first post works fine. :confused:

an organization like Al-Qaeda

Al Qaeda didn't exist until Bush gave them a name and identity after 9/11. Before that, the terrorists who now receive the title were disjointed bands of thugs that have been making a fairly minor nuisance of themselves in the ME since the first Gulf War. The idea of Al Qaeda as a hyper-organised global terrorist network is a Western work of fiction.

Read more:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm

This is one of those cases when a conspiracy just like the ones you scorn is the officially-accepted point of view.

interstellardave
03-12-08, 18:01
All this kind of irresponsible rhetoric does is attempt to hold folk to ransom by installing fear within society. It doesn't wash with me.

Very true... however, if no-one takes it seriously then they will make sure that it does happen... and, until it does, it'll be just "conspiracy wacko nonsense", LOL...

tlr online
03-12-08, 18:07
Very true... however, if no-one takes it seriously then they will make sure that it does happen... and, until it does, it'll be just "conspiracy wacko nonsense", LOL...

1. The only way this is likely to happen is if the U.S. arms the 'terrorists', whoever they are at the time. I mean, like that's never happened before! :rolleyes:

We have always been at war with Eurasia, and Eastasia is our ally...

2. To expand on Gecko's point above, the U.S. put a name and a face to Al Qaeda so 'all us folks have a common enemy to focus on howdy-do!'

3. If the U.S.-led coalition kept to it's OWN SOIL, would 'terrorism' exist?

4. And more likely, this is just bull**** to keep you folks in fear and your bloated military budget in place.

Blah. I've engaged this argument time and time again. I'm not going there again. :wve:

How about some comedy (http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/12/01/george-w-bushs-first-exit-interview-with-charlie-gibson/) to lighten the mood?

interstellardave
03-12-08, 18:18
1. The only way this is likely to happen is if the U.S. arms the 'terrorists', whoever they are at the time. I mean, like that's never happened before! :rolleyes:

LOL, that's who I'm talking about when I say "they"! There will be an inside-job component to such an attack, just as there has been for many of the terrorist attacks in the past. The payoff is swift passage of more and more oppressive legislation that further consolidates power and wealth... and foreign wars which are also profitable to some.