When there is a will, there is a way.

So let me guess this straight; because the United States failed to predict September 11, this same country will fail to grasp an attack with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons?

This whole article- while well written, researched, and certainly credible- argues that the U.S. Government is essentially blinded by its own perception of nuclear terrorism...namely that it will never happen on American soil. If this is the case, then why is Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former CIA Director George Tenet lobbying so hard to change the national security landscape? Secretary Gates is not staying up at night for no good reason...he is staying up because he is genuinely concerned that nuclear terrorism may occur in the near future. Citing Gates' personal view on the nuclear issue, is it not fair to say that the government is actually concentrating on terrorism with a weapon of such deadly magnitude?

Obviously people are right to be worried. No one wants a nuclear explosion in an American city...well besides Al'Qaeda and its proxies. Better to uncover what is not being done than to change after a disaster leaves hundreds of thousands of people dead. But with Obama bin-Laden's repeated desire for a nuclear capability- and with the CIA and DoD's constant attention on nuclear terrorism- it appears like we are beating a dead horse here.

Al'Qaeda's adventures with nuclear technology are chronicled and updated to the letter. And with U.S. troops in Afghanistan and CIA reconnaissance in Pakistan, this intelligence will only get better.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

"The thought that terrorists could successfully explode a nuclear bomb in an American city killing hundreds of thousands of people seems incomprehensible."

I have to disagree. Such an attack doesn't seem incomprehensible; it is comprehensible simply because it has never been experienced by a vast majority of Americans. Just as Americans proclaim they cannot imagine the devastation in Port-au-Prince because they haven't survived such an event, so it goes for a nuclear attack. You can’t imagine what you haven’t seen. Documentaries of a mushroom cloud at 15,000 feet or a mock city being leveled by a blast wave do not count.

Is a nuclear attack inevitable? The chances probably grow greater everyday. Which means the political wrangling taking place in Washington over the most inane issues is only doing the American people and ultimately the world a great disservice. The turf wars taking place in the intelligence community need to stop before someone really gets hurt.

So to answer the question posed, “Are we at risk of an equivalent failure to imagine a nuclear 9/11?”

No. We are at risk of a nuclear attack because those who are elected to be our representatives are playing games and the intelligence community has lost sight of the fact they are on the same team.

http://subversivechurch.wordpress.com

I agree with Graham in his assertion that possession of a nuclear weapon must top a terrorist's wish list. Such a weapon is capable of incalculable damage and loss of life, as well as the irreparable damage to the American psyche and collective sense of security. However I cannot stress enough how much more dangerous and how much more of a real threat biological weapons pose.
Briefly, a biological threat is more likely for the following reasons:

nuclear materials are easier to track
nuclear materials are harder to come by
nuclear materials are guarded by states
the technologies needed to engineer and operate a nuclear weapon are closely guarded secrets
nuclear materials or an assembled weapon would be extremely expensive
individuals trafficking in nuclear materials would be identifiable by the components of a nuclear weapon (especially fissile materials)
compared to a biological weapon, a nuclear weapon would be much more difficult to traffic if only due to its size and weight

The opposite of each of these is the case for a biological threat in the form of an engineered virus or other self-replicating microbiological pathogen. Furthermore, a nuclear weapon- no matte the size- has a limited lethal potential. A pathogen does not. Pathogenic weapons have other clear advantages for terrorists acting from third-world countries in that the transportation infrastructure of those countries may inhibit or dampen the spread of such agents, limiting casualties in under-developed nations and enhancing them in Western countries.

Osama bin Laden may want a nuke more than anything else- but the realities of the situation heavily favor a cheap, easy to use and transport biological weapon that has the lethal capacity of an entire nuclear arsenal. As much if not more of the national security resources devoted to nuclear threats should be directed toward mitigating biological threats.

With the issue regarding economy are the controversial discussions that politicians making. Perhaps Andre Bauer should start updating his resume. The idea that "poor children are like stray animals" is more than slightly offensive and completely hypocritical – consider this: problem animals are often relocated to give themselves a fresh start. Obviously, the good state of South Carolina deserves some better caliber of leadership, and the Republicans in that state, especially after that whole Mark Sanford and Maria Belen Chapur thing, are obviously WAY behind the 8 ball.