Custom Search

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

'Better Than Even' Odds Of Nuclear Or Biological Attack

The Washington Post reports that the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has issued a draft of their upcoming conclusions, which the paper has obtained a copy of.

In that report which was ordered by Congress last year, it states the odds are "better than even" that a major Nuclear or biological attack will occur somewhere by 2013.

The odds that terrorists will soon strike a major city with weapons of mass destruction are now better than even, a bipartisan congressionally mandated task force concludes in a draft study that warns of growing threats from rogue states, nuclear smuggling networks and the spread of atomic know-how in the developing world.

The sobering assessment of such threats, due for release as early as today, singled out Pakistan as a grave concern because of its terrorist networks, history of instability and arsenal of several dozen nuclear warheads. The report urged the incoming Obama administration to take "decisive action" to reduce the likelihood of a devastating attack.

Read the whole thing.

Now for a little amusement, NewsBusters catches a MSNBC anchor, Alex Witt, fretting because the electing of Obama didn't "damper" down terrorist attacks across the world.

ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it’s interesting because there are many who had such an optimstic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can’t expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought — at least hoped — would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He’s — it’s a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he’s going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we’re seeing right now.

Rich Noyes, who wrote the NewsBusters' report, gave me my first laugh this morning with his reaction to Witt's asinine remarks:

It almost seems like a parody of liberals’ blind worship of Obama to actually expect that The One’s election would mean terrorists hanging up their bomb belts, peace around the world, lions lying down with lambs, and so forth. For his part, Yang delicately pointed out the more valid concern that “the enemies of the United States, those who don’t care for the United States no matter who’s leading it, would try and test the United States” during the transition from Bush to Obama.

The more materials out there, the more the chance that, unlike in the India attack, one of the next attacks will not just be grenades, bombs and guns, but will instead be utilizing biological type weapons or heaven forbid nuclear.

It is not a matter of "if" it is going to happen, but of "when."