• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 'dangerously vulnerable' to attack: report


Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
An 'independent' study conducted by a former Democratic congressman... things that make you go 'hmmmm'.

U.S. 'dangerously vulnerable' to attack: report

Updated Tue. Sep. 9 2008 12:24 PM ET
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- An independent study reportedly concludes that the United States remains "dangerously vulnerable" to chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism seven years after the September 11 attacks.
Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who now chairs the independent group, also says the recent political rupture between Moscow and Washington only makes matters worse.
The report produced by Hamilton's bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America, says efforts to reduce access to nuclear technology and bomb-making materials have slowed.
It also says thousands of U.S. chemical plants remain unprotected, and criticizes the U.S. government for continuing to oppose strengthening an international treaty to prevent bioterrorism.
The group includes leaders of the disbanded 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan panel that investigated U.S. government missteps before the 2001 terror attacks on the United States.
Meanwhile, a report by congressional Democrats accuses the Bush administration of missing one opportunity after another to improve U.S. security.
Their report, written by the staffs of the House homeland security and foreign affairs committees, found little or no progress across the board on national security initiatives.
"The Bush administration has not delivered on a myriad of critical homeland and national security mandates," the Democrats' report states. That report was being released Tuesday.

The independent report focuses narrowly on weapons of mass destruction.

"The threat of a new, major terrorist attack on the United States is still very real," concludes the report to be released Wednesday, the same day a congressional commission will hold a hearing in New York on nuclear and biological terrorism threats.
"A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon in the hands of terrorists remains the single greatest threat to our nation. While progress has been made in securing these weapons and materials, we are still dangerously vulnerable," the report said.

So what else is new ? A country the size of the US will always be vulnerable to an attack. The type of attack that scares me though is an EMP burst.
As if anyone was to go 'postal' at any shopping centre in the USA or elsewhere, we are all at the mercy of that ratbag, same goes for any would-be terr, we too are at their mercy, aand they will choose the time and place.

Will another event happen? Yes, just a matter of time.

My thoughts,

+1 Wes.

It is a matter of time, the best thing we can do is stay vigilant as possible and keep our guard up. As for the article, seems like someone's independant "state the obvious" study.
It is scare-mongering just in time for the presidential debate. I don't think I need to connect the dots here.
AJFitzpatrick said:
It is scare-mongering just in time for the presidential debate. I don't think I need to connect the dots here.


Kind Sir,

Are you telling us that you do not think the USA, or the west for that matter is at risk of another event?

The threat has been real and present much longer than the 2008 election in the USA. There are people who are 'chomping at the bit' to have another go with the USA, and many are planning to cause such mayhem in our own countries.

Personally I think you are out of touch with the reality of such things.

Please respond, and enlighten us with your theory.



answer to your first query No,

I do believe that the US and the West are at risk of attacks, however I question the timing and the source of the report.

if it is stating the obvious that attacks are imminent

then why tell us this now, on the eve of a US election where a stated accomplishment of the incumbent party is a reduction of the threat.

I can see how you may have misinterpreted my meaning though. To be more explicit here I think it is the Democrats who are scaremongering to suggest a lack of accomplishment on the part of the present incumbent.
I think the maxim "Defense everywhere is defense nowhere" applies here. With the size of the US a better course of action would be improving response to incidents so the damage is mitigated and going on the offensive. Combine it with massive intelligence gathering to uncover attacks in the planning stages before they are carried out and provide information on the people, places and things arrayed against us.