and for those of you who didn't know before, julius
has just blown his cover for his real job, CIA special
tactics nuclear expert.
nice job, fucko.
you're fired.
love,
alison e. in slc
(and no, i don't work for the government, as far as
YOU know...)
--- Julius Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact is that the U.S. has poured trillions into
> developing the nuclear
> missile program. It seems to me that the only sane
> way to garner any kind
> of return on investment is to rattle the nuclear
> saber every now and then as
> a deterrent to those rogue governments would who
> threaten to use weapons of
> mass destruction, be they chemical, biological,
> radiological or nuclear
> against us.
>
> It's as if the Bush administration is saying, if you
> anthrax/small pox us,
> nerve gas us, or explode a dirty bomb in, say, L.A.
> and force us to evacuate
> a vital urban area for possibly hundreds of years,
> it may well be that the
> next sound you hear will be the shrill whistle of
> incoming nuclear warheads
> over Baghdad. Don't fuck with us. You've been
> warned.
>
> God forbid we should ever actually launch though.
>
> By the way, a distinction should be made between
> those "suitcase nuclear
> bombs" and so called "dirty bombs." The suitcase
> bombs do exist, but it
> takes a helluva lot of special nuclear material
> (plutonium) to make one, and
> that shit is not easy to come by. Plus, the mere
> handling of that type of
> material would kill any would-be user from exposure
> pretty quickly if
> they're not really, really careful. The mechanisms
> in these devices are
> intricate and volatile. You'd have to know exactly
> what you're doing to use
> one "successfully." But they would cause a
> devastating nuclear fission
> explosion if detonated. Some that were made in the
> former Soviet Union are
> known to be missing. Scary.
>
> On the other hand, a dirty bomb is more likely to be
> used by a terrorist
> organization. These types of devices can be any
> manner of explosive, like a
> few sticks of dynamite, bundled with cheap,
> relatively stable and more
> easily obtainable radioactive isotopes, like cesium,
> americium or cobalt.
> The idea is to widely disperse the radioactive
> material with the explosive
> and spread terror and fear. No one dies immediately
> unless you're at ground
> zero and are done in by the explosion, but you'd
> have to evacuate the entire
> area for many, many years due to the elevated risk
> of thyroid cancer to the
> populace over time. Obviously, such a scenario
> would be devastating to the
> economy, not to mention the fear factor and panic
> that would ensue.
> Attempting something like this is more in keeping
> with the modus operandi of
> terrorist organizations like al Qaeda.
>
> -Julius
>
>
> > gene mock wrote:
> >
> > > to all concern, i don't care if your a
> communist, capitalist, socialist,
> > > imperialist, democrat, or republican-----to
> advocate use of nuclear
> weapons of
> > > any yield is fucking INSANE!
> >
> > I think the capitalized words much describe the
> Pentagon planning under
> > Rumsfeld, and as well captures the essense of this
> entire administration.
> >
> > Not since the days of Barry Goldwater advocating
> the use of nuclear bombs
> in
> > Vietnam has there been such an asinine comment ,
> other than Reagan's
> advocating
> > the possibility of the same ("low yield" nuclear
> weapons) in Europe back
> in what,
> > 1982? Every 20 years the horrid spectre of
> nuclear weapons use is raised
> in this
> > country and we wonder why the rest of the world
> looks at us as crazed.
> >
> > (the Rev) Vince
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/
