Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

bin Laden and Nukes...again

  • 05-12-2001 10:40am
    #1
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭


    A few weeks ago, there was some speculation about bin Laden trying to obtain a nuclear weapon over the past few years. All reports seemed to include the intelligence experts assuring the public that while they knew he had been looking for one, they believed he did not have nuclear capability.

    So, the following CNN story grabbed my attention :

    CNN story here

    The upshot is that they now believe he may have nuclear material, and was at the very least attempting to build a "dirty bomb", which was what we concluded at the time of the last discussion would have been his most likley option, I think.

    What i find interesting is that the intelligence community, as reported in the linked story, are no longer saying "we know he doesnt have one", to now downplaying the efficacity of such a bomb, if he has one.

    The comment which most interested me in the article was as follows :
    Even the long-term threat to those nearby would not be dramatic, according to David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. He said that "even if it's a fairly significant radiological attack, it's not like 20 years from now we're going to see this huge spike in deaths from cancer."

    What? We are no longer hearing "nothing to worry about, he doesnt have a bomb", we're now hearing "even if he has a bomb, it wont be very dangerous".

    The simple fact is that a dirty nuclear device does not have huge explosive capability - but it does shunt out large amounts of radiation. This news piece is trying to tell us that this radiation would not be a problem?

    What amazes me is that the papers dont even question this turn of events. Maybe one of the American posters can enlighten me....is it typical for American media to ignore such glaring turnarounds of stance and just report them all as though they were new news, or is it only when the nation doesnt need to see its leadership undermined for releasing successively contradictory propaganda?

    /me is off to brush up on dirty bombs and their effects.

    jc


Advertisement