New Clear Terrorism

by tristero

If Jeffrey Goldberg was right, but he isn't, that the chance of a radical Islamist nuke detonating in a major American city in the next 10 years is between 10% and 50%, then:

The only acceptable platforms for either party to run on are proposals to mass convert the United States to Taliban-style Islam and swear loyalty to Osama bin Laden.

That's because even a 10% chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years is unacceptably, frighteningly, paralyzingly high and the only effective way to stave off such an attack would be to capitulate completely and bet that radical Christianist terrorists will take far longer to develop nukes to threaten the Islamist States of America.*

I carefully looked into this issue a while ago - after all, as a New Yorker and a parent, I have a vested interest in the subject. I concluded, for a variety of reasons, that the actual likelihood of an attack was probably far lower, but definitely not zero.** Of course, since risk equals probability times consequences, the risk is so exceedingly high, even if the probability is very low, that nuclear terrrorism should be a legitimate worry near the front of everyone's mind, particularly whomever leads the country.

But Goldberg's analysis is simplistic. A truly effective response to nuclear terrorism would include not only effective intelligence and pre-emption.*** It would also include a sane foreign policy including a thorough re-evaluation, and major re-adjustment, of the US policies towards corrupt, oppressive Arabic regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Only one candidate has the intelligence, expertise, attitude, and strength of character to attempt fundamental and sensible change in American foreign policy, and therefore, lower the chances for a terrorist nuclear attack. That candidate is, of course, Barack Obama.

The McCain/Bush ticket has demonstrated that they are unfit for command, having given the US and the world 8 unbearably dangerous year when international and US security has alarmingly deteriorated. Bottom line: To vote for McCain/Bush is to vote actually to raise the prospect of nuclear terrorism to 10% or much higher.

At which time, we better start breaking out the burqas because nothing McCain/Bush is capable of doing will prevent or pre-empt a nuclear holocaust on American soil.

**Among those reasons, and there were others, was the sheer complexity of the task of designing, acquiring materials, building, storing, transporting, and actually detonating a nuclear bomb which was, back in 2003 when I looked into it, far beyond the capabilities of al Qaeda (although the desire was there to do so). Now, after Bush/McCain has guaranteed that nearly every Muslim in the world hates our guts, and they've radicalized countless Iraqis by killing their friends and relatives, the probability of nuclear terrorist attack is higher, but still doesn't reach the mindboggling likelihood of 10%. Of course, if McCain/Bush extends the madness of the past eight years, all bets are off.

*Cue some reactionary illiterate suffering from severe cognitive distortions not unlike a permanent salvia trip to argue that I'm saying it's a good idea for the country to convert rather than fight. I'll say it real slow: What I'm saying, using common figurative linguistic devices well known to most English speakers who aren't ideologically deranged, is that the likelihood of a nuclear terrorist threat is probably quite overstated. But keep reading: I also state that the risk is extremely high even if the probability is very low.

**As Goldberg well knows, no one in their right mind would argue against the pre-emption of an imminent nuclear attack. This is one of many distracting strawmen Goldberg erects to pretend that Obama/Biden and McCain/Bush have equivalent strengths and weaknesses. He drags in Bush/Iraq, a conflict which he supported, and which throws his posture of objectivity between Obama and Bush/McCain into serious jeopardy. (An objective examination of the facts makes it quite clear, of course, that a McCain/Bush presidency would catastrophically extend the disasters of the Bush/McCain presidency. (Cue the conservativs amongst us to snort that I don't perceive the irony in this. Well, guess what? I don't. I am being objective))