Mushroom Clouds and WMD: Hype or History Unfolding?

Has it really been six years since President Bush echoed those historic words?

Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, “Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.”

Of course, he preceded that line in his Oct 7, 2002 speech with an important caveat,

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.

Recently we’ve seen claims of a new Pakistani nuclear component black market, a North Korean nuclear test, North Korean ballistic missiles fired towards Hawaii, a nuclear bomb developing facility bombed by Israel in Syria, and of course the continuing saga of Iran and its nuclear bomb factories-factories that very well may have already produced enough matl for at least one bomb (does anyone really need more than one?).

So it is that when ABC News’ Charles Gibson asked Democratic Party Presidential candidates how they would react to the infamous ‘Bush-mushroom-cloud’ scenario…they balked. In typical politician fashion, when asked a question they either don’t know the answer to, or don’t want to give an unpopular answer…they shifted the topic and distracted from the question.

GIBSON: So let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today, and, somewhat to my surprise, has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is nuclear terrorism.

And for some background, here’s ABC’s Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN ROSS, ABC CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country, much as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught.

And after six years of trying, the United States has yet to capture the man who says it is his religious duty to get nuclear weapons: Osama bin Laden. And in the last 18 months, U.S. officials say his Al Qaida has regrouped using safe havens along the Pakistani border to train and dispatch hundreds of new recruits.

ROSS: And just as troubling, amidst all the turmoil in Pakistan, the influence of bin Laden continues to grow there, a country with many nuclear weapons.

Charlie?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GIBSON: Brian Ross there.

Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaida has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan.

And so my general question is, how aggressively would you go after Al Qaida leadership there?

And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001.

And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory. What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it’s indisputable that that should be our course. Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

OBAMA: And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

GIBSON: I’m going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that.

“Actionable Intelligence” I love those words. Why didn’t the US grab Osama Bin Laden during the Clinton years? Powell, Tenet, Clarke, Freeh, Cohen, Albright, and every other Clinton Admin official including President Clinton and Vice President Gore all said they never had enough “Actionable Intelligence.” That’s politician and bureaucrat-speak for, “We didn’t have enough information to risk our careers.” There is no doubt in my mind that the men and women sent to carry out action against Bin Laden would risk their lives, but politicians didn’t dare risk their careers-even as they were ending.

Too often the same has been true of the Bush Administration and its officials. That’s why

• there was no response at all to the U.S.S. Cole attack.
• Bin Laden wasn’t pursued into the lawless areas of Pakistan.
• innumerable convoys and airlifts of “stuff” were allowed to fly from Saddam’s Iraq to safe areas in Syria and elsewhere for 15 months before invading Iraq looking for “stuff”
• Iran has been allowed to build nuclear bomb factories and protect them from air attack
• Israel has been armed to attack those sites rather than Americans taking action (diplomatic or otherwise)
• Israel had to destroy the nuclear site in Syria-not the USAF

…and the list goes on and on and on. “Actionable Intelligence” translates in DC-speak as “no excuse not to take action”

So here we are getting ready to elect another President, and the question of how to prevent a state from attacking the U.S. by giving a nuclear bomb to a terrorist remains unanswered. Here it is again courtesy of ABC News:

GIBSON: I want to go to another question. And it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. I’ve read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there’s a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years. Some estimates are higher. Graham Allison (ph), at Harvard, says it’s over 50 percent. Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind. And I want to put them to you here. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after? Senator?

~~~

OBAMA: Well, as I said, I’ve already been working on this. And I think this is the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront. We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons. That’s why it’s so important for us to rebuild the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology. We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on. And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long- term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.

That’s great Senator Obama….if you have “actionable intelligence” you’d take action (if you have so much information that there’s ‘no excuse not to take action’ then you’d take action. WOW. The question isn’t about “this administration” or the war in Iraq.

It’s about what to do when an American city burns in nuclear fire? Who do you blame? How do you prove that blame-the American people and to the world (especially after saying there wasn’t enough actionable intelligence to invade Iraq for the past 6yrs)?

In the case of a state-sponsor of terror delivering a nuclear bomb, how do you prove what state is responsible? In the Tom Clancy book and movie, tests are taken of the ash, and a unique signature of the radioactive material used is looked up in a book that lists every nuclear bomb material ever made by any nation. Gosh that’d be nice to have such a book. I see two problems with this:

First, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and any black market nuclear producer all have secret enrichment facilities that the IAEA has “demanded” to see (albeit in Monty Python, STOP! or we shall say STOP! again fashion). That means that any terrorist attack using a bomb from a state-sponsor of terror like Iran or Syria is going to use a bomb with material that isn’t listed in Tom Clancy’s magic book.

Second, a city has a LOT of chemicals in it, and a lot of nuclear material. Almost every metro hospital has nuclear material in it. Certainly nuclear power plants have material. Manufacturers of nuclear monitoring equipment (geiger counters etc) have lots of “test” material. Add to this toxic cloud mix all the chemicals from every hardware store, every chemical plant, every kitchen sink storage place, every grocery store, every business, and so forth. The end result is a test that cannot possibly isolate a single chemical. No gas chromatograph or other chemical testing equipment ever made can take the ash from an atomized and burnt city and isolate a single chemical. It just happens in the movies.

So one may wonder-as ABC’s Charles Gibson did-what do you do? An American city is atomized, burning, and hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead. What do you do? Who do you blame? How do you prove that it was their fault?

Will you “talk” with the leader of the state-sponsor of terror?

Will you order bombing?

Will you order a retaliatory nuclear strike and kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people who had nothing to do with the sponsorship of the terror attack

Will you have the United Nations respond instead of the United States?

Will the world march in support of your claims that a state-sponsored the attack, or will they march in protest of retaliation, and what will you do if the world marches against you?

“Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world,” he said, “where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril.” -President Kennedy said in October of 1962

These may not be everyone’s concerns. In fact, one could make a very good case that America and the world have gone to sleep again, but they are concerns of mine, my family, and my friends. One would think that the people who live in nuclear target areas would be concerned as well, but the people of New York city don’t care, right?

The people of Los Angeles don’t care. The people in San Fran don’t care.

Do the people in Washington DC?