Nuclear Terrorism and the 2008 Democratic Candidates
Page January 13th, 2008
“Terrorism” is:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
“Terrorism” is most easily committed using weaponry, such as:
- Conventional explosives, e.g. the July 2005 London bombings and the September 11 attacks (airliners as conventional explosives).
- Biological weapons, e.g. the 2001 anthrax attacks
- Chemical weapons, e.g. the use of Sarin (a nerve agent) by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Tokyo
- Nuclear and radiological devices. Experts point out that [pdf]:
There have been zero cases of nuclear terrorism—neither nuclear nor radiological. There are no known cases of theft or purchase of an intact nuclear weapon, so a terrorist attack with one is more than unlikely. There has not been any documented theft of enough fissile material for a crude nuke—although there have been attempts. There has never been a dirty bomb attack. There has never been a case of nuclear plant sabotage.
[Link inserted.]
“Terrorism” is a staple of empty political rhetoric. “Terrorism” is a GOP candidate’s ultimate buzzword; it been redefined as a vague, derogatory term to describe “something that perceived bad guys do”.
“Terrorism” is a real threat that requires actual solutions. Fortunately, the top three Democratic candidates are offering those solutions as part of their rhetoric.