funny ringtones

Tim, I apologize for not replying sooner. I do try to monitor threads where people are actually discussing things. And the question of whether we can adequately monitor nuclear materials is a worthy one.

My problem is that the present duty stack is enormous. As much as I would like to promise to read Paul Williams book, it would be dishonest to make such a promise. Maybe yes, more likely not.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. And I am glad that people are interested in issues of technical monitoring. They should be an integral part of our public health system, since radioactive hazards can arrive accidentally as well as by design. One of the biggest risks may actually be from commercial units designed for, for example, food irradiation or hospital work.

See http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm

Charles,

Actually the book addresses exactly those issues. I don't have it in front of me but I specifically recall seeing a table detailing the quantities of fissile material in each Soviet weapon & also a discussion of steps bin Laden was believed to be taking to maintain the weapons he'd obtained, including hiring teams of former Spetznats to do repair maintenance on them. The level of detail the author's managed to assemble is impressive: he even has the serial number of one of the suitcase nukes (999).

This is obviously a subject of interest to you & you're clearly someone who could make an informed judgement. Don't dismiss something you haven't seen. Go to a local bookstore, take an hour & see what you can make of it. Come back & tell me if you think it's crap & why, based on what you read & not what you imagine it contains.

Tim

Tim, I also should spell out what an effective counterterror policy would look like:

1. The effort to round up and secure loose fissile material has been repeatedly hamstrung by inadequate funding. We need to get serious and invest real money in that effort.

2. One of the most important strategies in counterterrorism is for a nation avoiding being regarded as a bunch of a--holes. In the patois, this is "soft power." Iraq was, as General Odom, "the most serious strategic mistake in US history." Time to limit the damage.

3. Our intelligence agencies produce so little worthwhile human intelligence because they are run and staffed, for the most part, by white, conservative men. Skin color is less important than attitude, though. As has been pointed out, John Walker Lindh had no problem joining the Taliban. But many non-Islamic, non-terroristic people, journalists mainly, also got in very close to bin Laden. Notice that none of them were Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly.

There's a trade-off in recruiting people out of the mold for intelligence. You accept some risk of a counterspy (given the Hanssen and Ames cases, though, right-wingers would seem to be a more serious security risk). *And,* you accept the fact that someone who sees things differently than prevailing groupthink will get to see what the intelligence agencies are doing. Such people, like Sibel Edmonds, can become whistleblowers. I think that is not a risk, but a benefit.

4. We need to stop imagining that we are the center of the universe. Americans are grossly ignorant about foreign languages, cultures, history, and geography. We need to teach kids to learn a variety of languages and learn about the rest of the world. Our diversity has been our strength in the past, as other nations saw us as a place where their nationals found a home.

5. We need to halt mass immigration over the Mexican border through economic means, not by building a wall or rousing militias.

6. We need to stop supporting warfare and instability in places like Columbia and Haiti. War zones are perfect bases for terrorists.

7. Then there are the technical means. We do need to implement 100% inspection of shipments into this country. This is feasible, but requires serious attention and close oversight to prevent the sort of organized looting and mass incompetence that many "defense" and "security" companies engage in.

Charles, from MercuryRising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Tim, I don't disagree with you that there's a risk that terrorists could bring a nuke into the US.

What I am saying is that the present danger (largely from older weapons containing poorly refined uranium) is neither due to deficient technology nor is future danger (from weapons containing highly refined uranium) insuperable.

The danger is on the people side of the equation: sensible deployment of available technology now and planning for sustained improvement with time. This Administration is that it is doing a *terrible* job of addressing real threats.

The latest avian flu flutter is real, but not for the reasons that people think: it's a danger because (a) the GOP has destroyed the public health system built up in the late 19th/early 20th century as a response to disease transmitted by the waves of immigration, and (b) the Bush Administration has failed to stockpile necessary vaccines and supplies. Why does Osama need Al Qaida when he can count on Bushco turning any ordinary event into a megadisaster?

The book you recommended may be very well-written and impeccably sourced. But I'll give you odds it doesn't mention the issue of the level of uranium refinement and what generation of Soviet weapons is likely to contain highly refined uranium. I will give odds that it doesn't mention that there are technical means of identifying fissile materials. Disaster books sell better if they don't delve too deeply into nuance.

Ya know?

Charles of Mercury Rising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Charles:

I've just read the NTI tutorial & I don't agree with you on the likelihood of detection. First off, the vast majority (90%+) of the containers entering our ports aren't being scanned. Second, we're dealing with an adversary that's extremely capable & is certainly going to protect its cargo with as much shielding as possible & probably test it as well before sending it off. I like the idea of event correlation along a corridor, that'd probably increase the effectiveness significantly. But still, I don't see it being a "hard problem" for a group like al Qaeda.

As for the claims in the book I mentioned, I'm just passing on what it says. Until I can do some fact-checking I'm not gonna argue with you.

Tim

Hey , Lugo, remember the following post I put up on Sept 21 re use of the military and avian flu? Post appeared under Arkin article "Today in DC: Commandos in the Streets?"

"Prescient Don"
---------------------

Re Lugo's comment "B, if there were a WMD emergency, you'd be wanting to evacuate pronto anyway, whether or not there were Federal troops on the scene. What those troops would do is ensure that the evacuation is somewhat orderly "
******
Unless, of course, the WMD emergency is a biological agent attack or a natural pandemic (avian flu, etc) . In which case, the mission of those soldiers would be to shoot anyone trying to escape from the area/city under quarantine. Which is understandable -- sacrificing 1 million to save the other 389 million.
What would not be understandable would be creating the WMD incident as an excuse to mount a coup under marital law. Look at what the Nazis did with the Reichstag Fire.
By the way, did they ever catch the person who scared the shit out of Congress a few years ago -- in the days leading up to the vote on the Patriot Act? You remember -- the person who mailed packets of bio grade anthrax to Democratic leader Tom Daschle and others ??
Posted by: Don Williams | Sep 21, 2005 12:23:20 PM

Ha ha ha
Nice try, Lugo. But still wrong.

I see NOWHERE in which Arkin has stated that "natural disasters like Katrina ...should be the ONLY thing that NORTHCOM thinks about"
What Arkin was saying is that NORTHCOM and the White House should concentrate on all major and plausible dangers facing the country --natural or manmade -- and not just be preoccupied with fighting the last war.

Losing a major city --our primary port, the outlet for the Midwest economy and the source for our oil refining/transport system -- because of a failure to build up a levee was a goatsc$%#w no matter how you spin it.

President Bush seems to have heard Arkin -- he's now focused on using to military to handle another NATURAL disaster looming on the horizon. Avian flu. An excerpt from today's news:
----------------------------
"WASHINGTON -
President Bush , increasingly concerned about a possible avian flu pandemic, revealed Tuesday that any part of the country where the virus breaks out could likely be quarantined and that he is considering using the military to enforce it.

"The best way to deal with a pandemic is to isolate it and keep it isolated in the region in which it begins," he said during a wide-ranging Rose Garden news conference.
The president was asked if his recent talk of giving the military the lead in responding to large natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and other catastrophes was in part the result of his concerns that state and local personnel aren't up to the task of a flu outbreak.
"Yes," he replied.
After the bungled initial federal response to Katrina, Bush suggested putting the
Pentagon in charge of search-and-rescue efforts in times of a major terrorist attack or similarly catastrophic natural disaster. He has argued that the armed forces have the ability to quickly mobilize the equipment, manpower and communications capabilities needed in times of crisis.
But such a shift could require a change in law, and some in Congress and the states worry it would increase the power of the federal government at the expense of local control."
--------------
Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051004/ap_on_he_me/bush_avian_flu

A more readable explanation than the NAS paper I cited is nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical5.asp

This lays out the basic issues in layman's terms.

Bottom line: whatever the Chechen rebels can lay hands on is probably not too difficult to detect. Of course, if they were in cahoots with our beloved allies, the Pakistanis, things could change.

We need someone minding the store. That should not be someone who plays guitar while we lose a major American city.

A more readable explanation than the NAS paper I cited on monitoring nuclear weapons is nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical5.asp

This lays out the basic issues in layman's terms.

Bottom line: whatever the Chechen rebels can lay hands on is probably not too difficult to detect. Of course, if they were in cahoots with our beloved allies, the Pakistanis, things could change. And there are a lot too many uninspected tomato trucks crossing.

We need someone minding the store. That someone should not be a guy who plays guitar while we lose a major American city.

Charles of Mercury Rising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Perhaps Katrina was not a natural disaster after all.

"Another Katrina? Sources at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), responsible for U.S. homeland defense, tell me that the intelligence directorate is increasingly concerned about Russian strategic and "asymmetric threats" to North America, and is increasingly looking at spillover from the Chechen conflict; crime, corruption and terrorism within Russia; and maritime threats to North America originating in Russia."

Mara Salvatruchas as a nuclear smuggling gang?

Holy Lumbago! Call out the black helicopters, Batman!

Moving nuclear weapons around undetected is not that easy. As some may recall, the United States has had a far more dangerous monitoring mission, namely making sure that we "trust but verify" the USSR's war making capability.

If you want technical details, one good source is "Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive Materials: An Assessment of Methods and Capabilities (2005)" (www.nap.edu/books/0309095972/html/103.html). Pages 102ff discuss using stimulated emission to detect highly-refined uranium. Uranium that has not been highly refined emits gamma rays that are readily detectable.

Now, this is not to dismiss the threat. When the CIA has been so politicized that experienced officers are quitting left and right, when Los Alamos is paralyzed by a witch hunt started by the Get Clinton crazies, when the military is distracted with "the greatest strategic mistake in US history" in Iraq, and especially when the president is so consumed with politics that he's willing to stab intelligence agents in the back or screw veterans out of their healthcare, yes, there is a risk.

There is a danger. But the danger does not arise because we can't monitor nukes. It arises because the Administration is a bunch of corrupt hacks who are destroying the intelligence agencies and the military.

Charles, of Mercury Rising
www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Don, I'm sorry that your ability to retain information over time is so puny. I myself have the ability to remember things that Arkin has posted on previous occasions.

It is also unfortunate that you made a faulty inference that my first comment referred to the "Myers, Uzbekistan" post and not to somewhere else in Arkin's blog, but of course I can accept no responsibility for your flawed assumptions.

I refer you to Arkin's 9/14 post, "Michael Brown Was Set Up: It's All in the Numbers". There Arkin specifically accused the administration and its homeland security apparatus of "focusing on terrorism and WMD to the exclusion of more plausible, frequent, and frankly, more realistic scenarios." Seems pretty clear to me that when he prefaced that paragraph in today's post "another Katrina?", Arkin thinks that Northcom is focusing, mistakenly, on Russian terrorist / strategic / asymmetric threats when it should be focusing on "more plausible, frequent, and realistic" scenarios like Katrina.

Hey, Lugo, nice seque but no cigar.

1) I asked you to point out WHERE in Arkin's above article "Myers, Uzbekistan, Nukes Bye By" there was justification for You to say :

"WS, obviously Arkin wants us to conclude that ....natural disasters like Katrina ...should be the ONLY thing that NORTHCOM thinks about, to the exclusion of all other unlikely things like Russian "strategic and asymmetric threats". "

2) You now say that that justification lies somewhere in Arkin's earlier articles.

Fine, show me.

Where does Arkin say that NORTHCOM should ONLY focus on natural disasters?

Please give name of article, date of article, and applicable quote from the article.

I'd like to see a few more threads pulled on the LtCol Shaffer story -- who does he work for in real life? There was a reference to him in the Moonpaper (WashTimes) about a month or so ago, where he said that he had cleared his disclosures with "Denny" Hastert -- it got picked up in the Early Bird. There are very few Army Reserve O-5's on a first name basis with the Speaker of the House, so, what's up with that?

Don, do you even read this blog? The very first thing Arkin started yammering about on this blog is that NORTHCOM is excessively focused on "unlikely" terrorism contingencies when it should focus mainly on the more probable natural disasters.

I am highly skeptical that Al Qaeda has nukes, since if they did they'd certainly have used them by now.

WS: Just a guess but I'm pretty sure he's talking about "loose nukes", nuclear weapons that got lost or stolen when the Soviet Union collapsed.

There's a very scary book out called "The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime, And the Coming Apocalypse", that's chock full of details about how bin Laden allegedly got ahold (through Chechen rebels) of a whole array of Russian nukes including up to 30 backpack weapons with a yield of a kiloton each & is moving them into position in the US with the assistance of a South American street gang called Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13. Oh & it also talks about how the SU "forward deployed" nukes in the US so it could set them off without the bother of having to shoot them at us, which are apparently still here just sitting around near many of our major cities.

It's really frightening stuff & seemingly well-sourced with lots of quotes from generally reliable people who would have access to the information. I only just ran across it & haven't had the time to do any verification on it yet but if it's accurate I'll have to completely rethink my position on the likelihood of a successful nuclear attack by al Qaeda. I really really hope this guy's a complete lying kook, because if he's not we're seriously screwed.

Here's a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591023491/ref=pd_sr_ec_ir_b/104-2300355-1727932?v=glance&s=books&st=*

Tim

I'm sure few in the States will think twice about Gen. Yellen's move to Global Military Aircraft Systems, but this game of musical chairs between the Pentagon and the 'defence' industry is a major structural problem in American public life.

The number of senior military people who waltz into the arms business upon hanging up their uniform is a frightening and obvious conflict of interest.

First, officers can improve their financial prospects by inflated procurement demands that win the gratitude of their future employers.

Secondly, everyone in the 'military-industrial complex' has a vested interest in playing up every possible threat. This is especially clear in the case of China, with whom they are desperately trying to drum up a new Cold War.

Leading the way with his endless inflammatory comments about China's (actually rather feeble) military buildup is none other than Donald Rumsfeld - former director of a General Dynamics company.

Americans should ask themselves: What would the Pentagon threat assessors do if one day their review told them that the US faced no significant enemies that justified current military spending?

Would they announce their voluntary retirement and go home? Or would they play up the threat posed by relatively trivial powers...like Iraq?

America's economy is hardwired for military paranoia and endless war.

Tom Paine said: "That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of Nations is as shocking as it is true."

It's also true that today America has more such people than any other country.

Similarities between Katrina and Russian 'threat' (Cold War and current day):

Highly recognized, well-documented possibility of catastrophic consequences if threat is repeatedly ignored by individuals responsible for addressing same

And, events in Chechnya are a critical consideration with regard to the ever-changing threat scenario.

The 'Admirals' must be very busy these days.

The US exit from Uzbekistan is a BIG deal. As I noted a few weeks ago, the Caspian Sea area is estimated to have the second largest oil reserves in the world.

This has been a MAJOR prize since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA has been jockeying to take the oil from Russia and China --or at least share in the spoils. Bush's proclaimed support for "Democracy" is pants-wetting hilarious given how Dick Cheney has been sucking up to the dictators of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan since 1992. See, e.g, the 1998 Time Magazine article "The Rush for Caspian Oil" at http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/1990s/time050498.html .

The Bush Administration has been using the "War on Terror" as cover for deploying US military forces into Central Asia -- at taxpayer expense == to protect Houston's investments and to twist a few arms. See this 2004 article in The Nation :
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040216&s=kleveman . A short excerpt:
---------------------------------
Since September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has undertaken a massive military buildup in Central Asia, deploying thousands of US troops not only in Afghanistan but also in the newly independent republics of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia. These first US combat troops on former Soviet territory have dramatically altered the geostrategic power equations in the region, with Washington trying to seal the cold war victory against Russia, contain Chinese influence and tighten the noose around Iran. Most important, however, the Bush Administration is using the "war on terror" to further American energy interests in Central Asia. The bad news is that this dramatic geopolitical gamble involving thuggish dictators and corrupt Saudi oil sheiks is likely to produce only more terrorists, jeopardizing America's prospects of defeating the forces responsible for the September 11 attacks.
The main spoils in today's Great Game are the Caspian energy reserves, principally oil and gas. On its shores, and at the bottom of the Caspian Sea, lie the world's biggest untapped fossil fuel resources. Estimates range from 85 to 219 billion barrels of crude, worth up to $4 trillion. According to the US Energy Department, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan alone could sit on more than 110 billion barrels, more than three times the US reserves. Oil giants such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and British Petroleum have already invested more than $30 billion in new production facilities.
The aggressive US pursuit of oil interests in the Caspian did not start with the Bush Administration but during the Clinton years, with the Democratic President personally conducting oil and pipeline diplomacy with Caspian leaders. Despite Clinton's failure to reduce the Russian influence in the region decisively, American industry leaders were impressed. "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," declared Dick Cheney in 1998 in a speech to oil industrialists in Washington
------------------------------------------------

It may be that Putin, after recently losing Georgia and the breadbasket of Ukraine to US clandestine funding, has decided to stop being Bush's bitch.

In his comment below, Lugo said:
==========
"WS, obviously Arkin wants us to conclude that since natural disasters like Katrina are the most likely sort of "homeland security problem" that the military will encounter, they should be the ONLY thing that NORTHCOM thinks about, to the exclusion of all other unlikely things like Russian "strategic and asymmetric threats". "
----------------
I see nothing whatsoever in Arkin's article that justifies Lugo's comment. Maybe Lugo could point out the basis for his claim? Or is this the Fox News "fair and balanced" approach?

Lugo - thank you. I see the point now, however, I disagree with Mr. Arkin's logic.
Appreciate your time for explaining.

This blog is one of the best things on the web today. It's the first thing I read when I look at the news online in the mornings. Drawing upon decades of research experience, Arkin has been blowing me away since he began the blog several weeks ago with the accuracy, precision, and scope of his reporting. Kudos to the Washington Post for having the courage to run his stories.

WS, obviously Arkin wants us to conclude that since natural disasters like Katrina are the most likely sort of "homeland security problem" that the military will encounter, they should be the ONLY thing that NORTHCOM thinks about, to the exclusion of all other unlikely things like Russian "strategic and asymmetric threats".

If Arkin were advising Admiral Kimmel in 1941, he'd say, "Admiral, why are you worried about imaginary threats like a Japanese air attack on your fleet? That has never happened, and therefore it probably will never happen. You should focus on the most likely disaster that might befall you, which is a big typhoon hitting Oahu."

This is disturbing and cryptic - please expand . . .

"Another Katrina? Sources at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), responsible for U.S. homeland defense, tell me that the intelligence directorate is increasingly concerned about Russian strategic and "asymmetric threats" to North America, and is increasingly looking at spillover from the Chechen conflict; crime, corruption and terrorism within Russia; and maritime threats to North America originating in Russia."