Tom Tancredo knows what is talking about.

Guys we are dealing with blood thirsty terroists who do want to nuke us, and if they do get a nuke they will use it.

Tancredo is smart, the only way to stop
these terroists from bombing the us is to use agressive deterrent talk by saying if you bomb us well bomb your holy sites, so in the end the probably wont bomb us if they think our president is being serious.

ZOMFG!!!

OH NOES!!!!!! I’m scared!!!!!

Nothing like taking the power of these weapons out of context in these hypothetical situations in order to strengthen a point and create fear.

Earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and various other natural disasters are all hundreds of times more powerful than a “suitcase nuke” or a “dirty bomb”. A nuke going off in New Orleans during Katrina wouldn’t have even been a blip on the radar.

And we send our National Guard to Iraq. Go figure…

Agreed.

Preventing such a (unlikely) scenario relies more on cooperation from nuclear states than deterring the terrorists (who the neo-cons claim are all crazy, evil, and suicidal.)

For a dirty bomb to create a level of damage that you’re worried about, it would still require a level of expertise in constructing and handling a nuclear device that anyone outside of a nuclear-powered country is likely to possess, not to mention access to nuclear materials (which are generally well-controlled). The more likely culprit in a dirty bomb would be discarded radioactive material from medical or industrial waste. And most experts I’ve seen talking about this have conceded that the only significant threat from such a bomb would be the conventional explosion because the radiation generated would be so low.

For radioactive material that could cause really damage when mixed with an IED, it’s unlikely that al-Qaeda could smuggle those materials out of a nuclear facility while still maintaining safety protocols for handling that material without someone noticing. And if they chose to ignore safety protocols, the radioactive material would very likely kill whoever handled it well before they could construct a device and ship it to the States.

There was an article recently, I will try to find it(it was on USA Today, but the link I had was dead), that basically said even the dirty bomb scenario is pretty overblown. That it would actually be fairly limited in destruction and range.

The dirty bomb scenario is far more likely. Such a bomb would still be extremely expensive, but it could poison entire cities and render them uninhabitable and inflict significant economic loss.

The national security policy should try to prevent such a scenario. If such a scenario plays out, the national security strategy will already have failed, and then the priority is going to be disaster management.

Prevention can be achieved through the combination of two means, through cooperation from nuclear states and the state where terrorists reside or through deterrence. Threatening to bomb Mecca and Medina might be deterrence, but it destroys the the opportunity to gain cooperation of Muslim leaders, and we come off as unhinged to all the other nuclear states.

I agree, it would be nice if we had more people like Ron Paul in office. Fiscal conservatives seem to be a rare breed these days…Coburn, Flake and a couple of others I suppose. And I think the country would be a lot better off if Ron Paul did get elected. A small-government conservative with libertarian leanings in the White House would be a big step in the right direction. It just irritates me, though, that so many of Ron Paul’s followers trot out lines like he’s some kind of messiah who will magically fix all our problems if we vote him in. Our government doesn’t work that way, by original design, and I think Paul would be one of the first to admit it.

If they’re trying to mount a realistic campaign, they’ll focus on what Ron Paul can actually do as opposed to what they wish he could do in a perfect world. That’s how you win swing voters and undecideds, by selling them on how Ron Paul can realistically change things for the better. When the people who support him trot out exaggerated slogans, or blast everyone who asks questions about Paul, or spam polls it makes it look like Paul’s constituency is a bunch of crazy people and it makes Paul look like a fringe candidate, and most mainstream voters get turned off by things like that. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that they’re dedicated and believe in their candidate and I respect their enthusiasm, but I think they seriously need to cut back on a lot of the cultist aspects of what they’re doing in regards to Ron Paul.

Gosh, really? Is Ron Paul going to seize absolute power and dictate terms to Congress? Is he going to come in and kick all the justices off the Supreme Court who voted against property rights in Kelo? Is Ron Paul going to cure cancer and stop all wars, and make everyone smart enough to always make rational decisions, and eliminate poverty too? Because our government, Constitutionally, isn’t actually structured that way you know and Ron Paul isn’t actually saying that either.

I don’t think Ron Paul is even that ambitious. A good showing by Paul would indicate that Americans’ view on politics is shifting. Maybe more people like Ron Paul and Paul Broun of Georgia will get elected into office. I’m not hopeful, but it’s nice to think about.

You mean the suitcase nukes that weighed between 300-700 pounds and have a battery life of six months after which they become inactive and unusable? You mean the suitcase nukes that only one country has produced and then only in limited quantities because they were so ungodly expensive and problematic to create and maintain, making it unlikely a non-governmental group could ever create them? You mean the suitcase nukes that would require high-technology training and access to laboratory materials and safety equipment that you can’t realistically build in a cave without attracting someone’s attention? You mean those suitcase nukes?

Or do you mean the make-believe hypothetical suitcase nukes that the Bush administration likes to trot out for panicky idiots as a justification to revoke their rights? Because neither of them is actually a realistic threat, and neither of them is worth basing much policy around.

To that end, the threat against Mecca and Medina has more downside than upside. Unless one believes all Muslims to be incorrigible, threatening all Muslims does not help.

But you’re right on the smaller point, Ron Paul has been consistently on an anti-war message all along, he understands that free trade is the way to go, and he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and he deserves a lot of credit for that…credit he often hasn’t gotten.

Gosh, really? Is Ron Paul going to seize absolute power and dictate terms to Congress? Is he going to come in and kick all the justices off the Supreme Court who voted against property rights in Kelo? Is Ron Paul going to cure cancer and stop all wars, and make everyone smart enough to always make rational decisions, and eliminate poverty too? Because our government, Constitutionally, isn’t actually structured that way you know and Ron Paul isn’t actually saying that either.

While Ron Paul is, to my mind, the best candidate in the race and I’m going to vote for him, you’re delusional if you thnk he’s going to solve all of our problems overnight or that he’d even be able to solve all of them. A Ron Paul presidency would be a big help, but the executive branch (despite what Bush says) doesn’t have supreme power or the ability to work completely unilaterally. If you want to alienate people who might be on the fence about Ron Paul, then by all means keep making ridiculous statements about how Paul will magically fix the world alone…you’ll make the swing voters think that people who like Ron Paul are a bunch of ignorant loons. If you want to actually sell Ron Paul’s candidacy to people you should try to focus on things he realistically can and can’t do.