Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Potential of a Nuclear Terrorist Attack – Real Even Before 9/11

In 1994, after the failed bombing the New York World Trade Center –which killed about six people – I produced a TV program about the potential for a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States (link to Part 1 can be found at:

Copies of this video were made available to VP-Elect Dick Cheney (and the next majority leader, Tom DeLay) in January 2001 – nine months before 9/11. Yet despite an August memo to the President warning of a possible terrorist attack, no action was taken. No one called and asked: "What the hell is THAT about?" No one asked anything. Yet everyone was "shocked, shocked" that 9/11 happened. For anyone with any global experience, it was obvious.

My theory of a nuclear terrorist attack was wrong only in that I assumed it would be Saddam Hussain who carried it out. It’ s now obvious that Al Qaida – which was forming the same year the video was made – is the most likely to seek, buy and trigger a nuclear terrorist bomb.

With President Obama’s Nuclear Terrorism Summit today, for the first time we have had a President call for global action on the worst possible scenario that has been largely ignored in the past decade – the threat of nuclear terrorism on U.S. soil.

My scenario involved a missile fired from a ship, but even more likely is a criminal gang stealing one and selling it to someone like AL Qaida, which uses it on a major U.S. city like Washington DC or New York as the President said today.

My book on the potential attack on the U.S. using a nuclear device was based on facts: thousands of nukes loose after the fall of the Soviet Union, unlocked uranium storage, etc. – but reality would be much worse.

We should feel better that a President is taking pre-emptive action to avoid the worst possible attacks than one who is surprised it could even happen. Pakistan’s real nukes are a more inviting target for Osama bin Laden living less than sixty miles away than the current zero nukes in Iran. Why would a terrorist care about Iran when Pakistan may have up to 200 or more existing nuclear weapons in its inventory – and an unstable government?

The less scattered nuclear material around the world equals more security for the United States and the rest of the world. The President should get a “thumbs up” even among the loyal opposition for addressing an issue that is No. 1 for our existence as a nation.

Even the horror of 9/11, a conventional attack, would be nothing compared to the devastation of a small band of lunatics using a suitcase nuke or similar device on an American, European, or any, city. You are talking about radiation zones that would last centuries and the potential loss of entire governments (on both sides of the aisle)…

If you don't think so, check out some of the facts bought out in my old 1994 TV video that didn't get a response even after I ran for Congress against Mr. DeLay in 2000 - I figured he'd at least look at the video of a competitor to see if it made me look like a fool or something...LOL.

The attached link shows the countries that have enriched uranium that could be a source for a nuke.

No comments: