>>The Japanese and the Germans did not have this capability. That any terrotist group now has it is a fantasy. Would it be a terrible thing if it happened? It would be too terrible to contemplate. Yet once again we haves a 'what if?' scenario in which we're tacitly meant to choose between the nuking of ten of our major cities simultaneously and...?
Remember, we're evaluating the threat of al-Qaeda.In my last post, I demonstrated that the possibility of a nuclear-armed terrorist group is NOT a fantasy, but is rather something that serious people like the Director of Central Intelligence actually worry about.
That leaves the more interesting part of the discussion, what to choose between ... "the nuking of ten of our major cities simultaneously and...?"
I don't know how Robert wants me to address this. Perhaps he wants me to set a level of permissible terrorist attacks that would change the evaluation of al-Qaeda as the most serious national threat the US has faced. Maybe they could only blow up a chlorine plant in New Jersey and kill 20,000 people in Manhattan. Maybe they could hijack some jets that crash into Lincoln Center when it's closed.
The point is that nonstate belligerents can cause havoc all over the country with a liberty denied past state enemies like Nazi Germany and the USSR. Since we're vulnerable all over the place -- in a way that can't be addressed in less than a lifetime even if we were seriously implementing safeguards -- and deterrence is not established, al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadis are much more of a threat than anyone we've faced.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
