People getting on planes with 5 lighters is the least of our worries. If that is the extent of a security lapse, I feel pretty good. The real concern is something FAR bigger than that and it's not just fear mongering Republicans making this claim. Even Harvard researchers and former Clinton administration members concur that the risk is great:
Quote:
In "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe," published in 2004, I present the evidence for the proposition that on the current trajectory, a successful terrorist nuclear attack devastating one of the great cities of the world is inevitable. I offer my own considered judgment that if all the governments stay on autopilot, doing no more and no less than they are doing today, a nuclear 9/11 is more likely than not within a decade — that is, by 2014.
Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen bomb, was called by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi "the only true genius I had ever met." Testifying to Congress in March 2007, Mr. Garwin estimated a "20 percent per year probability of a nuclear explosion with American cities and European cities included."
My Harvard colleague, Matthew Bunn, created a model that estimates the probability of a terrorist nuclear attack over a 10-year period to be 29 percent — identical to the average estimate from a poll of security experts commissioned by Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican, in 2005.
Former Defense Secretary William J. Perry has expressed that my work underestimates the risk.
|
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/...e_reality.html