That's merely one possibility.
"The next nuclear attack isn't going to come on a missle, it's going to come in a backpack"
Maybe.
And we've got ways of intercepting backpacks. Or trucks. Sure, it might slip through undetected, but there is *an* ability in place to potentially stop it.
(Additionally, the intelligence agencies would likely have some prior warning as they have for the other terrorist acts, as the World Trade Center, and Oklahoma City - obviously that doesn't always work, but the "advantage" to nuclear weapons is they are rather hard to hide (from detection equipment. The lead time has to be increased, and its not easy to quickly change the target - unlike a missile - which could be launched, without prior warning, and be over any city in the US in about 30-45 minutes, today)
So 'splain to me how spending untold billions on buttressing Lockheed-Martin's bottom line is going to address the most imminent threat of nuclear attack?
Its very simple: you're quite possibly wrong.
In case I need to explain further: There is more likelihood (in my opinion) of a nuclear missile being fired than a small warhead smuggled in.
(And the ones that are "man portable" aren't anywhere NEAR as big as what you can stick on a missile, for obvious reasons).
So we're back to your versus my opinion on the likihood of something. Leaving yourself exposed to the current big missiles, because you might not stop a small hand-carried one is still illogical.
Unless you can be CERTAIN that that is the *only* attack you will be experiencing.
How do you propose to prove that?
Addison
