Indeed. When the Clinton team left, they told the incoming Bush team, “You will spend more time on proliferation and terrorism than you will on anything else,” and the Bush team effectively responded, “No, no, no, we’re gonna do Star Wars and China and deal with other states.” Richard Clarke, who stayed on to work for Bush (as he had stayed on from the previous Bush to work for Clinton) gives chapter and verse in his book. We know how well that turned out.

You call it “assum[ing] incapacity”, I call it attempting to make a realistic threat assessment. I’ve at least attempted to bring some facts into this discussion, while you seem to be, as jpool noted earlier, appealing solely to deductive reasoning.

1) USPS/UPS – purchased from domestic US sources and weaponized locally, ultimately driven to the target in a Uhaul truck. – Weapons-grade radioactive materials are supposed to be inventoried at the gram level by ‘owners’ and monitored by the AEC. If this is not fail-safe, then let us redesign the system and fund it according to its rather huge priority. As far as ‘weaponizing’, there aren’t that many people capable of performing this act. Having said that, I will agree with you that this is a potential route, and our federal government should work with diligence and vigilance to prevent such an approach.

2) If they choose to weaponize overseas, I’d think they’d attack an overseas target, embassy, school, church, etc. first. – Perhaps, but I was writing about a potential domestic attack.

3) If it could fit on a plane, they could charter a jet, if it fits on a boat, they could rent the boat. These last two involve risks of discovery before loading the weapon, – There is much more likelihood of discovery via the airplane scenario, since airport security is much more highly developed worldwide than seaport. Even the CIA ‘black ops’ airplanes were monitored, although left alone just because they were CIA. I do not disagree – as in the case of your first option – that these are impossible methods. Bribery, revenge, and other motives can be exploited at the points of departure or entry; but there are a lot of obstacles, too. The Coast Guard, for instance, is more aware of all forms of ocean traffic than you allow. Yes, one can evade them some of the time.

You do, however, give much too much credit to the ship container inspection process. It is thin in general and uneven by region. Your remark about importation of illegal drugs probably speaks to this point – not to mention the problem of bribery and such in this case.

withywindle – OK. U.S. foreign policy has at times worked to further development of some liberal democracies. Good for us. Now let’s focus on that type of behavior, instead of neo-imperialism.

Which is why I didn’t accuse you of the same mendacity the administration showed in conflating nuclear and biological/chemical threats. Nonetheless, given that less-than-stellar example, you can understand why collapsing them into one category might be a bit of a sore spot.

The number of people in lower Manhattan at workday noon is quite high; I have no reason to believe that the first terrorist nuke is guaranteed to be at Hiroshima levels or below.

From casual Googling, it appears that the weapons that both Pakistan and India tested in 1998 were of roughly the same yield as the Hiroshima bomb. I’m not sure why you would believe that terrorists would be able to do better with fewer resources. Moreover, any terrorist nuke is almost certain to be a ground blast (rather than air), which will limit the area immediately affected (although fallout will be worse) and thus immediate casualties.

2) My confidence in my views has nothing to do with my credentials, and I have always disavowed my credentials as giving me any particular perception into politics or history.

3) I would be glad to spend more money on homeland security. It is not to the credit of the administration that they have done so little.

4) The quiet and continuous pressure of America after 1945 on its allies to approach the norms of liberal democracy with all deliberate speed is a notable aspect of the history of our foreign policy. It is not the only aspect of our foreign policy; there have been cross-currents, some of them shameful; but it should not be ignored. The transitions from dictatorship to democracy in the various countries I have mentioned all have something to do with American foreign policy.

1) USPS/UPS – purchased from domestic US sources and weaponized locally, ultimately driven to the target in a Uhaul truck.
2) If they choose to weaponize overseas, I’d think they’d attack an overseas target, embassy, school, church, etc. first.
3) If it could fit on a plane, they could charter a jet, if it fits on a boat, they could rent the boat. These last two involve risks of discovery before loading the weapon, but once the ship is loaded, it is unlikely to be detected or stopped before reaching the US. Unloading the ship before reaching port is very easy with a smaller boat.

As an aside, far more cargo containers are “inspected” than most port officials would like to admit. Shrinkage starts on the boat and ends at the truck … . I assume a port worker would get a huge reward for discovering an al qaeda bomb in a container.

Given the thousands of tons of drugs that are successfully imported into this country, despite billions of dollars spent by the US military, coast guard, and police forces, I always assumed many of the people who harp about port security are looking for backdoor ways to restrict foreign imports. Similarly, they is a segment of the population that believes nuclear power plants will _never_ be safe enough from terrorism, and therefore use that risk to prevent new plants, shut down existing plants, etc.

Let’s just look at one aspect of the matter – the ‘treasure’ that you dismiss is used to fund waste spending – i.e., bullets and bombs and scrap Humvees – instead of performing due diligence in inspection of incoming cargo containers. How do you think that the potential nuclear or chemical weapons are most likely to be delivered – at least in the near future?

As far as liberal democracies implanted by the U.S. – my oh my. South Korea was the same kind of dictatorship that our government tried to set up in South Viet Nam. Spain – Franco was the President of a liberal democracy? Greece – it was a nasty counterrevolution to prevent the largest organization – the native Communists – from taking power in a democracy.

Our country does best when it models our better character. Levis blue jeans and rock-and-or-roll brought down the Soviet Union – not to mention their own militaristic excesses. Italy, Germany, and Japan saw a valiant and successful foe as a good model. France only needed to have their worse side excised.

As do we all… but pulling off an attack on the scale of 9/11 is tremendously difficult, even under the best of circumstances, and much more unlikely than attacks on the scale of the Madrid bombings. (And bear in mind that 9//11 was far more effective than even Al-Qaeda had dreamt.)

And always, the possibility of bio-chem-nuclear weapons, where the fatalites rise to six and seven figures.

No. Biological and chemical weapons do not belong in the same category as nuclear weapons, and even the nukes that a terrorist organization would be likely to set off won’t kill a million people. (Wikipedia gives estimates of 140k dead at Hiroshima, and 74k dead at Nagasaki, just as a starting point.) Read Armchair Generalist a bit, and you’ll get a more realistic understanding of how dangerous biological and chemical weapons are.