Pelofsky 6-21 (Jeremy, correspondent for Reuters, “New round of cyber attacks heightens focus on FBI”, http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE75K6EN20110621?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0) A senior official in the FBI's cyber division said his team has recently received more backing from Congress. Now, about 60 percent of cases focus on national security and criminal intrusions, up from 50 percent about two years ago. Most of the remainder deal with child pornography. "As we've received enhancements to personnel and non-personnel resources, we've specifically trained them in the areas of intrusion," Steven Chabinsky, deputy assistant director of the FBI's cyber division, told Reuters. A Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Tuesday weighed beefing up cyber laws. But the critical issue of finding more money could be difficult as Obama and Congress are under intense pressure to cut the budget deficit. National security matters tend to get spared the budget ax, but the chances of a large boost in resources are slim. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2012, which starts October 1, includes a request for almost $19 million more for 42 new positions at the FBI focusing on investigating and protecting against cyber attacks, including 14 special agents. Uniqueness link - new NASA funding trades off with the FBI
Vieru 11 (Tudor, science editor for Softpedia, “Other Departments Could Cover $1 Billion NASA Funding Hole”, March 30, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Other-Departments-Could-Cover-1-Billion-NASA-Funding-Hole-192062.shtml) Last year, the US Congress approved a $18.7 billion spending plan for the American space agency. At this time, that budget is about $1 billion short, and authorities are looking for ways to come up with the cash. Appropriators are currently directing their attention to other US Departments. The Department of Commerce and Department of Justice may have their accounts siphoned in such a way so that NASA could receive the billion dollars it needs to carry out its current plans with the already-approved level of funding. At this time, the space agency cannot allocate as much money as before for developing a manned crew capsule for space exploration. It all cannot afford to construct a new heavy-lift delivery system in the time frame Congress set for it. Both these aspects would be resolved if NASA got the money it was promised. The agency planned its expenses and investments with $18.7 billion in mind, and cannot hope to accomplish all it has proposed – or was asked of it – with such a large deficit. “There’s over a billion-dollar difference between the budget request and the authorized levels in 12 for the launch system and the crew vehicle, and now that falls squarely back on the shoulders of [the appropriations committees] to try and figure out where to come up with that money,” said a panelist. The official, whose name was not disclosed, was speaking at a breakfast organized by the Women in Aerospace (WIA) on Capitol Hill on March 23. The meeting was held under the guises of the Chatham House Rule, which means that participants discussed frankly, but covered by anonymity. According to the panelist, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that President Barack Obama signed into law last October calls for a lot more spending on the capsule/rocket combo than the current budgets allow for. Under the NAA 2010, the space agency was supposed to spend $4 billion in 2012 on the development of the two spacecraft, but it can now afford to pay only $2.8 billion total. The official added that congressional appropriators now need find the extra money needed to respect the Authorization Act.
FBI funding key to combat nuclear terror attack
Mueller 5/6 (Robert S., Director of the federal bureau of investigation, “Statement Before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies”, Committee Testimony on the FY2012 Budget, http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/fbi-budget-for-fiscal-year-2012)
The FBI is fully engaged in the worldwide effort to counter terrorism. We have taken that fight to our adversaries' own sanctuaries in the far corners of the world—Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Europe, Asia, and Africa. We have also worked to uncover terror cells and supporters within the United States, as well as to disrupt terrorists' financial, communications, and operational lifelines at home and abroad. Al Qaeda remains our primary concern. Al Qaeda's intent to conduct high-profile attacks inside the United States is unwavering. While the overall structure of the group has diminished, its power to influence individuals and affiliates around the world has not. Today, we still confront the prospect of a large-scale attack by al Qaeda, but the growing threat from al Qaeda affiliates, as demonstrated in the attempted Christmas Day bombing and the failed Times Square bombing, is unprecedented. Al Qaeda and its affiliates may also attempt smaller attacks that require less planning and fewer operational steps—attacks that may be more difficult to detect and prevent. Threats from homegrown terrorists are also of growing concern. These individuals are harder to detect, easily able to connect with other extremists, and—in some instances—highly capable operationally. There is no typical profile of a homegrown terrorist; their experiences and motivating factors vary widely. The added problem of radicalization makes these threats more dangerous. No single factor explains why radicalization here at home may be more pronounced than in the past. American extremists appear to be attracted to wars in foreign countries, as we have seen a number of Americans travel overseas to train and fight with extremist groups. These individuals may be increasingly disenchanted with living in the United States, or angry about U.S. and Western foreign policy. The increase and availability of extremist propaganda in English can exacerbate the problem. The Internet has also become a key platform for spreading extremist propaganda. It has been used as a tool for terrorist recruiting, training, and planning and as a means of social networking for like-minded extremists. Ten years ago, in the absence of the Internet, extremists would have operated in relative isolation, unlike today. In short, we have seen an increase in the sources of terrorism, an evolution in terrorist tactics and means of communication, and a wider array of terrorist targets here at home. All of this makes our mission that much more difficult and requires continued support. The FY 2012 budget request includes 63 positions (34 special agents) and $40.9 million to address these national security threats, including funding for surveillance resources to combat international terrorism and foreign intelligence threats, as well as funding for the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), Terrorist Screening Center operations, and increased information analysis and sharing capabilities.
Nuclear terrorist attack would trigger an immediate reactionary response escalating into global nuclear war and the destruction of human civilization.
Morgan 9 (Dennis Ray, Hankuk U of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus South Korea, Futures, December, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Volume 41, Issue 10, pp 683-693)
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question “Is Nuclear War Inevitable??” In Section , Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian “dead hand” system, “where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,” it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States” Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal “Samson option” against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even “anti-Semitic” European cities In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Anyaccident, mistaken communication, false signal or “lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the “use them or lose them” strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to “win” the war. In other words, once Pandora's Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, “everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self-determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors” In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter. In “Scenarios,” Moore summarizes the various ways a nuclear war could begin: Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missiles or long-range bombers. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroy nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons.