What if New York or Washington were hit by a nuclear bomb. Indeed, "what if". But why is this doomsday scenario becoming ever more popular? Why is the press filling its pages with what is largely theoretical speculation, without any foundation in reality? Is it a follow-up from the 24 series craze, or is a new event being "seeded" in our psyche?

On June 12, 2007, the New York Times ran a story by William J. Perry, Ashton B. Carter and Michael M. May, speculating on the possibility of nuclear war in America. Perry, now a professor at Stanford, was the Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration; Ashton B. Carter, also a professor at Harvard, was an assistant secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. Michael M. May, also a professor at Stanford, is a former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The story is as follows.

The probability of a nuclear weapon one day going off in an American city cannot be calculated, but it is larger than it was five years ago. Potential sources of bombs or the fissile materials to make them have proliferated in North Korea and Iran. Russia's arsenal remains incompletely secured 15 years after the end of the Soviet Union. And Pakistan's nuclear technology, already put on the market once by Abdul Qadeer Khan, could go to terrorists if the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, cannot control radicals in that country.

Already, there is serious fear-mongering. Iran's entry in this list of possible aggressors is based on White House political spin. The authors themselves argue that Russia's situation remains a status quo and Pakistan is hardly any different from five years ago either. If anything, one could argue that as we are five years on and Pakistan has not shown its aggression, it is now more likely it will not do so in the future either.

In the same period, terrorism has surged into a mass global movement and seems to gather strength daily as extremism spills out of Iraq into the rest of the Middle East, Asia, Europe and even the Americas. More nuclear materials that can be lost or stolen plus more terrorists aspiring to mass destruction equals a greater chance of nuclear terrorism.

Where is this mass global terrorism occurring? Where are the bombs exploding that are being planted by Iraqi extremists? They have not reach "the rest of the Middle East", let alone Asia, Europe nor the Americas.

Former Senator Sam Nunn in 2005 framed the need for Washington to do better at changing this math with a provocative question: On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, "what would we wish we had done to prevent it?" But in view of the increased risk we now face, it is time to add a second question to Mr. Nunn's: What will we actually do on the day after? That is, what actions should our government take?

In 2007, America is no more or less at risk from nuclear terrorism than it was in 2005. As we outlined in the case of the suitcase bomb, recently once again popularised in the series 24, after the successful move "The Peacemaker" in 1997, in a previous edition of the REAL NEWSpaper, the hype and facts are light years apart; that hype was created to sell books and create interest in the just mentioned movie. If ever there were nuclear bombs on the market, it was during the 1990s, just after the fall of communism and if ever terrorists were intent on using nuclear devices, they would have done so on September 11, 2001 - if, of course, that was a terrorist act, rather than a false flag, operation.

Forceful efforts to prevent a nuclear attack - more forceful than we have seen in recent years - may keep the day from coming. But as long as there is no way to be sure it will not, it is important to formulate contingency plans that can save thousands of lives and billions of dollars, prevent panic and promote recovery. They can also help us preserve our constitutional government, something that terrorists, even if armed with nuclear weapons, should never be allowed to take away.

I specifically like the phrase "may keep the day from coming". For these authors, a nuclear explosion on American soil seems an inevitability. It is up to this government to try and stop it, so that it may not. The authors also address a need for contingency plans - which is about all, it seems, we can do, seeing the explosion is inevitable - so that constitutional government will survive. Is it a coincidence that a month earlier, on May 9, 2007, the President signed precisely such a presidential directive, as we reported in New Directive allows the President to play dictator?

The article continues with a scenario of what the immediate effect of a nuclear explosion would be, before it identifies the likely culprits. This is specifically worrying: there is no real danger, apart from fear-mongering; as in the aftermath of 9/11, no single nation was to blame, yet Afghanistan was invaded. So who will take the blame for a possible nuclear explosion in America?

The United States government, probably convened somewhere outside Washington by the day after, would be urgently trying to trace the source of the bombs. No doubt, the trail would lead back to some government - Russia, Pakistan, North Korea or other countries with nuclear arsenals or advanced nuclear power programs - because even the most sophisticated terrorist groups cannot make plutonium or enrich their own uranium; they would need to get their weapons or fissile materials from a government.

"No doubt"? However, the authors now argue that we should not fear such an attack from a terrorist group (the Iraqi extremists planting bombs in Europe and the Americans), but only from a foreign government - thus somewhat countering their own initial argument that we now live in a state where there is more danger of international terrorism. They seem to have noticed this apparent contradiction, for they will soon explain this apparent contradiction.

The temptation would be to retaliate against that government. But that state might not even be aware that its bombs were stolen or sold, let alone have deliberately provided them to terrorists. Retaliating against Russia or Pakistan would therefore be counterproductive. Their cooperation would be needed to find out who got the bombs and how many there were, and to put an end to the campaign of nuclear terrorism. It is important to continue to develop the ability to trace any bomb by analyzing its residues. Any government that did not cooperate in the search should, of course, face possible retaliation.

From the long list of potential candidates, the list is now reduced to just two: Russia and Pakistan. They will be required to co-operate, as otherwise, they will face possible retaliation. What the authors should perhaps have underlined is that terrorists might use a false flag operation, laying the blame with the Russians, in which case Russia would deny their involvement, and the US might consider this to be a sign of non-cooperation and order a retaliatory strike. See the series 24. But it begs the question why a former Secretary of Defense is writing this article in The New York Times.

Finally, as buildings and lives were destroyed, so would the sense of safety and well-being of survivors, and this in turn could lead to panic. Contingency plans for the day after a nuclear blast should demonstrate to Americans that all three branches of government can work in unison and under the Constitution to respond to the crisis and prevent further destruction.

This is - coincidentally - precisely what Bush placed on the books on May 9, 2007. Indeed, the authors seem unaware that the President has already done what the authors propose should be done. And this is where the problem of this article truly lies. Are the authors and the New York Times unaware of the presidential directive of May 9, 2007? In which case the question should be why uninformed authors and editors are running this newspaper. In the hopeful scenario that at least the editor of the New York Times knew of this presidential directive, the conclusion therefore has to be that this article is fear-mongering, or preparation for "the inevitable".