Dirty bombs don't kill people, dirty people do...maybe 

By Marcus J. Goldman
web posted June 14, 2004
 
Who is afraid of uranium? We should not be, or so important
physicists are telling us. It looks as if alleged dirty bomber Jose
Padilla's defense team is up and running-opponents of the war on
terror will no doubt relish the news. In noting uranium's benign,
almost fun nature, a London based American scientist, Peter D.
Zimmerman, recently told the AP that he had used a 20-pound
brick of uranium as a doorstop in his office. Zimmerman noted
that the government's announcement of Padilla's plans to
detonate a uranium-laden explosive was "extremely disturbing"
because the risk of spreading radioactivity was insignificant.
Whew! What a relief-instead of murder by radiation, Mr.
Padilla's explosion probably would have only killed, mutilated
and maimed a few dozen. Still, should we be afraid?

Should we fear the alleged bomber's intent? Who cares about
intent! Obviously, Mr. Padilla was either too stupid to realize that
a uranium bomb would not be as devastating as he had hoped or
was unable to obtain cesium or cobalt-the real stuff of dirty
bombs. Even a physicist agrees! ''If that's what he planned,'' Ivan
Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists said of Padilla,
''it shows he doesn't know what he's talking about...'' Abu
Zubaydah, an al-Qaida operative who reportedly encouraged
Padilla to use a uranium device to attack the United States,
claimed that the dirty bomb was ''not as easy to do as they
thought.'' So, the explosion never happened-so much for intent.

Should we fear the alleged bomber's bomb? It would not really
have been much of a bomb-a real dud. Just the usual shrapnel,
fire and body parts. I suppose that by extension, none of us
should fear an unarmed or under-armed terrorist. It seems only
fair that terror suspects use the "dirty bomb" defense-"the gun
contained only 2 or 3 rounds, the AK-47 jammed after the
fourth kill, the shoe bomb never went off, the box cutter was
dull," and so forth. What a great precedent!

Should we fear the alleged bomber's legal team? Who would!
Padilla, who is being held as an enemy combatant, nonetheless
has legal representation. Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, noted
that U.S. authorities "should have known that dirty bomb
allegations were "nonsense.'' Newman went on to state that
"When they frightened everybody, what were they trying to do, if
they knew better? To show the administration is on top of
things?'' She is pro-government indictment of her client-''Maybe
the problem is the evidence is so weak, it's laughable,'' she said.
No fear here. She seems friendly enough.

Should we fear the psychology of alleged bombers in our midst?
Well, psychology can be a pretty powerful weapon in itself.
Indeed, ''Just saying the word 'uranium,' the public automatically
assumes, 'Oh, it sounds bad,''' said physicist Charles Ferguson of
the Washington office of California's Monterey Institute of
International Studies. ''Granted, it (uranium) could have a
psychological effect'' because of "unfounded fears," said physicist
Ferguson. So the psychological weapon would not really be a
big deal. Besides, according to statements attributed to Padilla,
he was never really planning to go through with any attacks
anyway. It is better if we simply accept the premise that
principled terrorists are here to stay. We can always seek out
counseling if the psychological weapon is more devastating than
an actual explosion.

Should we fear the man and what he represents? If the bomb
was incapable of spreading devastating radiation, would have
essentially acted as a conventional explosive and if the alleged
bomber has legal representation, the facts imply an absence of
serious threat. All that is left over is the gleeful ideology of one
lone ex-gang member, a naive innocent, unjustly held. Who cares
what Padilla, a Muslim who trained in terror camps in
Afghanistan, represents.

What are the real fears? Uranium is "laughable", it is nothing
more than a "doorstop." One real issue is the dismissive attitude-
a sigh of relief that the alleged bomb would have been only a
"regular" bomb. The notion that a uranium-laden bomb, or a
chocolate-laden bomb, or a rubber duck-laden bomb or a
psychology-laden bomb would have consequences any less
intense is not to be believed. Normalizing evil intent by
downplaying its seriousness is akin to condoning terror-it is
incomprehensible...unless the true goal is to undermine and
devalue the government's efforts to crush terror in our midst.
Attorney General John Ashcroft maintains that Padilla planned a
dirty bomb that could result in "mass death and injury.'' Ashcroft
was absolutely correct-what bomb does not? Those that despise
the war on terror should re-think their strategy. What of Padilla‘s
alleged uranium bomb plans? According to physicist Oelrich, "If
that's what he planned, it shows....he...hasn't done even
rudimentary homework.'' The homework was done, the message
is clear-dirty bombs don't kill people, dirty people do.

Marcus J.Goldman, M.D. is a Harvard trained psychiatrist and
author of three books including "The Joy of Fatherhood"
(Crown) and Kleptomania (New Horizon). He has appeared on
Larry King Live, Bill O'Reilly and in dozens of popular
magazines including Time and People. His political works have
appeared in The Washington Times, Tech Central Station and
The Boston Herald. Dr. Goldman is a Guest Writer for
OpinionEditorials.com and NewsWithViews.com. He is married
and has 5 children.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com