The ISIS JV now has enough uranium for a dirty nuke

I don’t think Obama underestimates ISIS so much as he underemphasizes them so that he does not have to address the problem. He wants to deal with global warming (increasing government control) and health care (increasing government control) and keep tabs on every over-blown “racial” incident (increasing government control). And golf.

So, he really doesn’t have the time to deal with a growing terror organization that is gaining more influence, assets and weaponry than al Qaeda ever imagined. Therefore, ignore it and hope it goes away. If it doesn’t, blame Bush.

This, from a non-hysterical, non-fear mongering source:

“The materials they have are not radioactive enough to cause a great deal of damage or function as a working device,” says Esfandiary. “Where the weapon is effective is to cause fear.”

No doubt ISIS greatly appreciates all assistance received in propagating such irrational fears. Where would they be without such help?

Dr Mohammad Zeki Khedher, who was a professor at Mosul university in the 1990s, agrees. “During the 90s most of the scientific materials were taken away by the UN,” he says. “After the occupation of Iraq most of the [equipment from the] laboratories had been smuggled [out of the country].”

However, Esfandiary also warns that “nothing is impossible. If they’re determined enough then they’ll find a way to develop a radiological weapon and use it.”

In their paper, Esfandiary and Cottee say: “The most likely threat is a radiological device of some kind. It is relatively simple to develop a so-called ‘dirty bomb’, in which explosives are combined with a radioactive source like those commonly used in hospitals or extractive industries.”

However, a weapon of this type is likely to cause “more disruption than destruction”, even if set off in central London for example. Esfandiary says that even if such a device were set off in the middle of Trafalgar Square in London, most of the danger would come from the conventional explosive, with little long-term danger to health from the radiological element.

As for the chemical weapons stockpiles, their contents is likely old and partially destroyed or degraded, according to Esfandiary and Cottee. “As chemical weapons go, sarin is particularly susceptible to degradation if it is impure,” they write. “Its shelf life is estimated to be one to two years. While sarin’s degraded remnants are still toxic, they cannot be used as chemical weapons.”

The other chemical weapons in the facility are secured behind thick concrete wall. With no guarantee that the contents are salvageable, retrieving them would be a huge risk in cost and safety.

Ultimately, Esfandiary says: “With the cost and danger to themselves that creating a bomb would cause, the fear that ISIS might be able to build a bomb is more powerful than the bomb itself.”

Shirking concern is what gave us 9/11.

Has any notable republican yet laid out a specific alternate plan of action against ISIS?

They do their best to erode confidence in the administration that’s actually trying to deal with the problem, while offering absolutely nothing themselves in order to avoid political risk. They’re worse than useless.

Republican presidential candidates are speaking nonsense about ISIS

Just how radioactive do you imagine refined uranium to be? It isn’t sufficiently radioactive to pose much of a hazard. ISIS certainly doesn’t have the technology to turn it into a fission bomb. Public perception of the threat posed by dirty bombs is greatly overblown.

Perhaps the GOP should state specifically what such a vote would be for before asking for it.

A vote for the GOP is a vote for a third invasion of Iraq, with no more idea how to keep the entire situation from falling to pieces afterward than we had before?
Republicans might need to fine tune the plan a bit. Would we become a permanent occupying presence, continuously at war with new radical Islamic resistance movements popping up on every side for the next hundred years? If so, maybe a vote for the GOP would be a vote for Chinese and/or Russian expansion.

It’s a safe bet that Obama and his advisers have thought this through. Has anyone on the GOP side? They certainly don’t act as if they have.

Don’t care much for addressing why we have such a mess to clean up, do you, Greg?

Why we have such a mess to clean up has been addressed plenty of times. You just don’t want to accept the obvious: We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. It was totally unnecessary. It cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, and everything that has happened since follows from that original error.

Now you’re wanting to put people back in charge who still haven’t grasped that one simple fact, and who won’t say anything specific about what they intend to do if given another shot at the problem. I’m not going to give these fools another blank check. Claims that ISIS is going to attack us with some sort of dirty bomb are the same sort of fear mongering used to lead us into this mess to begin with. Such claims don’t stand up to a close examination of the facts.

@Greg:
So you prepared to vote for Hilliary Clinton who when the votes were counted voted for the Iraq war?

Awaiting babbling excuses.

Uranium ???? well that seems to rule out the possibility of Dr J being a radiologist or at all involved with nuclear medicine. He would have known that uranium isn’t the element to be most feared in hospital equipment
Obama hates do get gleeful when they start imagining worst case scenarios ( that never seem to happen)
It took YEARS for them to stop dancing on the graves of the people who were killed at BENGHAZI!!!

@Greg:

HRC was not fooled or lied too, she claimed to have done her own research on the Iraq issue and by that cast her vote accordingly. If not then you are willing to vote for someone who was fooled by GWB who the left believes has little if any intelligence. Which at that point says she has intelligence which is far less than GWB.
You might want to rush out someplace and buy a clue.

Obama and Hillary have disrespected the people they got killed at Benghazi by lying about how and why they were killed.

In my considered opinion, that’s partisan bullshit.

That was an entirely reasonable initial assessment, based on concurrent events and on what was known at the time. Understanding of a situation often changes as more information becomes available, but the right doesn’t want to give up a talking point revolving around its fixation on that initial assessment.

@Smorgasbord: I’m not so sure Obama wants ISIS to “win”, but he wants other powers around the world to grow stronger (as the US grows weaker) so that the US is no longer the most powerful and, thus, most influential, nation on earth.

I believe Obama thinks that the US has been oppressive and harmful and once there is an equalization of powers around the world, the US will then take its proper place as just another nation that provides much of the benefits for the weaker around the world.

I also believe Obama does not realize how absolutely stupid this is.

First, the US has done more with its power and wealth to benefit the world than any other nation before and, from what we can see now, ever. One of the ways this is done is to influence events and governments to the ends of making conditions best for their people and future. As we have seen with the liberal model of growing economic health, just throwing money at issues fails. For this to succeed domestically, people need the opportunity to benefit themselves. For it to work internationally, nations need governments that will provide these benefits and opportunities; socialism, communism, fascism, or radical Islam will never provide such opportunity. Show me where any other nation has ever done anything with its power around the world other than build empires?

Obviously Obama does not understand how aggressors react when the US displays weakness. He believes if the US is not as “threatening”, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc will simply stand down and be nice. He is too naive and ignorant to realize they will pounce on the opportunity. Even the example of ISIS in Iraq after his ill-advised removal of all US security from that country has not opened his eyes. A person so ignorant of history has no business guiding a country. Obama is no leader. He is, has been and always will be nothing but a community organizer.