SodaPop
member
If they don't have them already Abdul Qadeer Khan, sure helped them figure out how to make them.
Al Qaeda May Have Nukes
- Thread starter 7.62FullMetalJacket
- Start date
- Status
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
The evidence that Al-Qaeda has a nuke is weak, at best. However, the fact that they haven't used it isn't evidence that they don't have one, or can't get/make one at some time in the near future.
We have to bear in mind that Al-Qaeda's operations are extensively planned and very well organized. All of that takes time, especially considering that they are under constant pressure now and have to cover their tracks every step of the way. Al-Qaeda would be doubly careful if they only had 1 nuke to use... they'd be very patient to make sure that the attack would be a success.
Personally, I think that Al-Qaeda would be smarter to focus more on biological/chemical/radiological weapons rather than nukes, at least in the short term. A better version of the nerve gas bomb used in Tokyo by that wierd cult (which was a partial dud) could provide a nice boost to the kill count, be relatively easy to make, and would have a greatly enhanced terror effect over a conventional bomb.
We have to bear in mind that Al-Qaeda's operations are extensively planned and very well organized. All of that takes time, especially considering that they are under constant pressure now and have to cover their tracks every step of the way. Al-Qaeda would be doubly careful if they only had 1 nuke to use... they'd be very patient to make sure that the attack would be a success.
Personally, I think that Al-Qaeda would be smarter to focus more on biological/chemical/radiological weapons rather than nukes, at least in the short term. A better version of the nerve gas bomb used in Tokyo by that wierd cult (which was a partial dud) could provide a nice boost to the kill count, be relatively easy to make, and would have a greatly enhanced terror effect over a conventional bomb.
It matters not if AQ has nukes. I firmly believe that they'd never use them on the US. They may be evil but they're not stupid.
They saw the reaction of the US to the killing of 3000 Americans - we took out a country and eliminated it's government and then just for the hell of it took out another country and it's government. AND we barely broke a sweat doing it.
I can't imagine what the military response to the killing of three or four hundred thousand Americans would be but you can bet your a-s-s that the people of the USA would want it now and would want it to be severe and the whole UN be damned.
Like I said AQ may be evil but they're not stupid. No one wants to really piss us off. Annoy us - yes. Piss us off for real - not!
They saw the reaction of the US to the killing of 3000 Americans - we took out a country and eliminated it's government and then just for the hell of it took out another country and it's government. AND we barely broke a sweat doing it.
I can't imagine what the military response to the killing of three or four hundred thousand Americans would be but you can bet your a-s-s that the people of the USA would want it now and would want it to be severe and the whole UN be damned.
Like I said AQ may be evil but they're not stupid. No one wants to really piss us off. Annoy us - yes. Piss us off for real - not!
bountyhunter
member
And there is the flaw in that reasoning. You are viewing Al Qaeda as a governmental entity or as a group which is affiliated with a government and it is none of those things. There are AQ supporters in most Arab countries, and the militant AQ soldiers move around to where ever it is convenient to hide.
We did indeed take the armed forces after AQ and OBL when he struck at 9/11, and exactly what happened? AQ is intact, OBL is at large, and it's infrastructure has spread out even farther. I believe the moment we would be most likely to see a catastrophic weqpon used will be when OBL believes that his capture is imminent... and that could be coming soon. Bush desparately needs to captire him as a trophy for his re-election bid and they will stop at nothing to get him. When that is near, we will see if AQ has nukes.
Bountyhunter correctly pointed out that:
My guess is not long.
I'm only half sure that the USA would respond with a nuke or two of it's own. I'm 100% sure that if we did the Arabs and the islamists would get real calm real quick and the only sounds that would escape their mouth's for many years to come would be the same sound a bleating sheep makes. And if I'm wrong - well - drilling for oil thru glass probably isn't that much harder than drilling for it thru hard baked desert.
Key to your reasoning is that AQ has supporters in various Arab countries. I would ask how long do you think that support would last if the USA decided to respond in kind and nuke a city or 3 in Arab countries that harbor AQ?
My guess is not long.
I'm only half sure that the USA would respond with a nuke or two of it's own. I'm 100% sure that if we did the Arabs and the islamists would get real calm real quick and the only sounds that would escape their mouth's for many years to come would be the same sound a bleating sheep makes. And if I'm wrong - well - drilling for oil thru glass probably isn't that much harder than drilling for it thru hard baked desert.
bountyhunter
member
You missed the point entirely. Even if AQ planted a Nuke in Washington, exactly what city would you nuke in retaliation? Can you point to one where it is ONLY or even PREDOMINANTLY composed of AQ or AQ sympathizers? I can't, and neither can our intel services. We would be dropping nukes at random accepting the fact that only myabe 80% of the people killed were innocent bystanders?
"Nuke 'em all" sounds good, in reality it is an impossible strategy.
I like the way you think and write, my friend! Thanks for a good chuckle!
I agree completely with what you said.
I think that if there was a LARGE-scale attack on the US, a lot of middle-east cities would find themselves suddenly turned to glass in kind.
Al Q and other terrorist networks seem to need govt. funding in order to operate, thus it follows that if we destroy any and every entity that provides any sort of support to them, we severely cripple them, if not pretty much put them to rest. Permanently.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I agree with bountyhunter, you can't just nuke a random arab city in retalliation. This should be obvious.
I dont think Al Qaeda would even care if you did, they would just consider those who did martyred for the greater glory of Islam.
I am all for killing the people responsible for terrorism, but I don't really want to slaughter a bunch of women and children that didnt have anything to do with it.
I dont think Al Qaeda would even care if you did, they would just consider those who did martyred for the greater glory of Islam.
I am all for killing the people responsible for terrorism, but I don't really want to slaughter a bunch of women and children that didnt have anything to do with it.
LoneStranger
Member
As I had posted in another place and time, TFL, I have met a fellow that actually bought a nuke weapon many years ago. Don't ask cause I won't tell.
At the same time my good Father, many years ago, told me that if you have the time and the money, and maybe not that much of money, you can acquire anything in this world. Of course he was only talking about Kansas City as his world.
The silly concept that these terrorists could not or have not acquired these weapons makes me cry while laughing.
The major problem with using a nuke has always come from the number of ancillary issues that you must deal with. Where to get it, where to use it, how to get from Point A to Point B, how to avoid being caught with it before use, how to get away after use, how to find people capable of operating it or training others to operate, and towards the end of the list how to keep it from killing you while doing the above.
Depending on how such an incident goes down will determine how the reaction of the country will go. Just think carefully about going to places and events which might entice others of a bad reputation and consider how to line yourself to having options, just in case.
At the same time my good Father, many years ago, told me that if you have the time and the money, and maybe not that much of money, you can acquire anything in this world. Of course he was only talking about Kansas City as his world.
The silly concept that these terrorists could not or have not acquired these weapons makes me cry while laughing.
The major problem with using a nuke has always come from the number of ancillary issues that you must deal with. Where to get it, where to use it, how to get from Point A to Point B, how to avoid being caught with it before use, how to get away after use, how to find people capable of operating it or training others to operate, and towards the end of the list how to keep it from killing you while doing the above.
Depending on how such an incident goes down will determine how the reaction of the country will go. Just think carefully about going to places and events which might entice others of a bad reputation and consider how to line yourself to having options, just in case.
SodaPop
member
They would use them for blackmail.
Detonate one and then threaten to detonate another until the Democrats called for a surrender or pull out of the MiddleEast. Especially with a John Kerry in the White house.
If they were really smart they would just set one off and we would spend the next 5yrs trying to find out which country did it.
Who sent the Anthrax letters around the United States 3 YEARS ago?
Detonate one and then threaten to detonate another until the Democrats called for a surrender or pull out of the MiddleEast. Especially with a John Kerry in the White house.
If they were really smart they would just set one off and we would spend the next 5yrs trying to find out which country did it.
Who sent the Anthrax letters around the United States 3 YEARS ago?
bountyhunter
member
If you are going to slaughter civilains, you should at least start off with Rijad (Saudi Arabia) so we can cut of AQ's money supply. BTW, killing civilains would be exactly what AQ wants. They see them as expendable, but by killing them, we drive thousands of young Arabs straight into AQ.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Riley,
How would we know the people they produced are responsible ?
Would we give them a trial or just take Iran's word for it and shoot them right away?
If we gave them a trial and they were found innocent, would you then go back months or years later and nuke those cities?
What if they were found innocent, but the evidence clearly pointed to their guilt? Would you still nuke those cities then?
Are you sure you can positively answer any of these and take responsibility for killing literally millions of people who had nothing to do with it?
How would we know the people they produced are responsible ?
Would we give them a trial or just take Iran's word for it and shoot them right away?
If we gave them a trial and they were found innocent, would you then go back months or years later and nuke those cities?
What if they were found innocent, but the evidence clearly pointed to their guilt? Would you still nuke those cities then?
Are you sure you can positively answer any of these and take responsibility for killing literally millions of people who had nothing to do with it?
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Thanks guys.
I'll have to sleep with the light on tonight!
I'll have to sleep with the light on tonight!
AZ Jeff
Member
Lone_Gunman wrote:
"What if they were found innocent, but the evidence clearly pointed to their guilt? Would you still nuke those cities then?
Are you sure you can positively answer any of these and take responsibility for killing literally millions of people who had nothing to do with it?"
My point earlier was that, as bad as killing millions who had nothing to do with it might be, the US populus is likely to ask for just that. If 300,000, or a million, US citizens get killing by an AQ terrorist action, the call for blood will far LOUDER than it was when 9/11 occured. It will be reminiscent of post-Pearl Harbor, maybe worse. I really wonder if the Congress will be able to turn a deaf ear to their constituents calling for revenge.
"What if they were found innocent, but the evidence clearly pointed to their guilt? Would you still nuke those cities then?
Are you sure you can positively answer any of these and take responsibility for killing literally millions of people who had nothing to do with it?"
My point earlier was that, as bad as killing millions who had nothing to do with it might be, the US populus is likely to ask for just that. If 300,000, or a million, US citizens get killing by an AQ terrorist action, the call for blood will far LOUDER than it was when 9/11 occured. It will be reminiscent of post-Pearl Harbor, maybe worse. I really wonder if the Congress will be able to turn a deaf ear to their constituents calling for revenge.
Good point. Maybe a simple invasion and occupation of Saudi Arabia would be less costly-then what?
I think any plan that includes appeasement ('cause we don't want to piss them off) is weak and doomed to failure. Young Arabs are being taught to hate the West regardless. We can't ignore them, we can't negotiate with them, we can't appease them, they will continue to try and kill us.
It makes GW's invasion and occupation of Iraq look more and more sensible. He has taken the fight to them and engaged those who wish to destroy us. He has placed us in a strategic location close to the source of the global terrorism. Incrementalism rather than appeasement.
BTW, Truman did not seem to have such misgivings when it came to annihilating Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
bad_dad_brad
Member
A. Forget the Russian nukes in a suitcase myth. If the Russians had those, don't you think they might have used them for blackmail purposes? After all we did win the Cold War.
B. As pointed out - they don't have the arming codes anyway. Even the Ruskies are not stupid enough to give the responsibility of setting off a nuke to some Siberian.
C. Best bet for terrorists is an Islamic manufactured bomb by Pakistan or Libya. That Libya has supposedly given up nukes makes me nervous, because they probably already have built a few. And Pakistan? That is your next Iran waiting to happen.
D. I don't believe blackmail is in Al-Queda's agenda, I mean, did they call up just before 9/11 and say, if you don't pay us a zillion dollars we are going to crash some airliners into your buildings?
E. If they have one, they will use it with maximum affect, at just the right time.
F. Did you think 9/11 was a coincidence - 911. These people have an agenda, and that agenda is a zealous Islamic world and they see oil as the key to that agenda.
G. Building and controlling atomic weapons is no trivial task despite "build a bomb in your garage" web sites. This is serious technology.
B. As pointed out - they don't have the arming codes anyway. Even the Ruskies are not stupid enough to give the responsibility of setting off a nuke to some Siberian.
C. Best bet for terrorists is an Islamic manufactured bomb by Pakistan or Libya. That Libya has supposedly given up nukes makes me nervous, because they probably already have built a few. And Pakistan? That is your next Iran waiting to happen.
D. I don't believe blackmail is in Al-Queda's agenda, I mean, did they call up just before 9/11 and say, if you don't pay us a zillion dollars we are going to crash some airliners into your buildings?
E. If they have one, they will use it with maximum affect, at just the right time.
F. Did you think 9/11 was a coincidence - 911. These people have an agenda, and that agenda is a zealous Islamic world and they see oil as the key to that agenda.
G. Building and controlling atomic weapons is no trivial task despite "build a bomb in your garage" web sites. This is serious technology.
bountyhunter asked?
Pick one or two or three. Probably ought to take places like Mecca, Medina or Qom off the list or you'd end up just having to wipe the whole middle east and the rest of islam out but anything else would be fair game.
The point is to let them know that nuking the USA will result in way more cost to them than damage to us. The Arabs not involved with AQ would quickly round 'em up and lop off their heads and send us the video as proof.
Heck we might not even have to nuke any of 'em. Just tell 'em they've got 30 days to solve the problem themselves or we'll solve it for them.
Pick one or two or three. Probably ought to take places like Mecca, Medina or Qom off the list or you'd end up just having to wipe the whole middle east and the rest of islam out but anything else would be fair game.
The point is to let them know that nuking the USA will result in way more cost to them than damage to us. The Arabs not involved with AQ would quickly round 'em up and lop off their heads and send us the video as proof.
Heck we might not even have to nuke any of 'em. Just tell 'em they've got 30 days to solve the problem themselves or we'll solve it for them.
Waitone
Member
A few random thoughts in no particular order:
--All terror movements have state sponsors, period. All terror movements have intricate financial webs. All terror movements have secret, legitimate supporters not associated with terror supporting states.
--Dubya did the unexpected and attacked when conventional wisdom in the terror movement was the US would cut and run.
--Dubya now has a history of acting violently to back up any threats he may make.
--Perhaps the best approach would be to publish for the entire world to see the target list should any American city suffer an nuclear explosion. We know the state sponsors, we have a real good idea of the financial channels, we have a good idea of who are key non-terror supporters.
--Nuclear explosion is key because the most likely scenario is a conventional bomb in Manhattan wrapped in radioactive hospital waste. Most hospital radioactive waste is low emitters but it does make a geiger counter sing
--The strongest ally terrorists have WRT nuclear technology is an overly aggressive, ill-informed, technically stupid media with far too much programming time to fill during a 24 hour cycle.
--The chaos caused by wall to wall news coverage will be devestating while the actual damage is illusory to nil.
--Our surveillance methods for radioactive emissions is top notch and second to no one. What we don't have an absolute handle on is radioactive hospital and industrial lab waste. Again amounts are small but noisy particularly when an overly aggressive, ill informed, and technically stupid media is listening in.
--All terror movements have state sponsors, period. All terror movements have intricate financial webs. All terror movements have secret, legitimate supporters not associated with terror supporting states.
--Dubya did the unexpected and attacked when conventional wisdom in the terror movement was the US would cut and run.
--Dubya now has a history of acting violently to back up any threats he may make.
--Perhaps the best approach would be to publish for the entire world to see the target list should any American city suffer an nuclear explosion. We know the state sponsors, we have a real good idea of the financial channels, we have a good idea of who are key non-terror supporters.
--Nuclear explosion is key because the most likely scenario is a conventional bomb in Manhattan wrapped in radioactive hospital waste. Most hospital radioactive waste is low emitters but it does make a geiger counter sing
--The strongest ally terrorists have WRT nuclear technology is an overly aggressive, ill-informed, technically stupid media with far too much programming time to fill during a 24 hour cycle.
--The chaos caused by wall to wall news coverage will be devestating while the actual damage is illusory to nil.
--Our surveillance methods for radioactive emissions is top notch and second to no one. What we don't have an absolute handle on is radioactive hospital and industrial lab waste. Again amounts are small but noisy particularly when an overly aggressive, ill informed, and technically stupid media is listening in.
"would be most likely to see a catastrophic weapon used will be when OBL believes that his capture is imminent... "
Wasn't the liberal wing of the tinfoil hat club saying the same thing about us taking Bagdad???
The Iraqi's were gonna use the WMD as a last ditch defense
You know...before they (nutjobs) realized we were all victims of GOP mind control (for the last 20 years)
I apologize if "nutjob" is an actual clinical term and offends anyone...
If so, please replace Nutjob with Nutbar
Wasn't the liberal wing of the tinfoil hat club saying the same thing about us taking Bagdad???
The Iraqi's were gonna use the WMD as a last ditch defense
You know...before they (nutjobs) realized we were all victims of GOP mind control (for the last 20 years)
I apologize if "nutjob" is an actual clinical term and offends anyone...
If so, please replace Nutjob with Nutbar
Selfdfenz
Member
As an aside:
No matter what happens, the Media, Kerry, Jimmy Carter et al will say Bush knew it was coming and did nothing about it.
No matter what happens, even if Bush gets it right this time and finds the Gov that supported the attackers and nukes or bombs them to the stone age the media, Kerry, Jimmy Carter et al will say we shot the wrong dog and should have let the UN take care of the problem and it was all because someone in that departed country once said something bad about his Dad long ago not the half million dead Americans.
The same gang will spin it as still not being a real War.
No matter what happens this country will have responded in the wrong way according to Alan Combs if run by the Republicans at the time, and the right thing if run by the dems.
Rush and Hannity will both write books about it and go on tour.
I don't know if the BGs have a nuke, just what the 'fall out" will be from these points on the compass if the BGs do and use it.
S-
No matter what happens, the Media, Kerry, Jimmy Carter et al will say Bush knew it was coming and did nothing about it.
No matter what happens, even if Bush gets it right this time and finds the Gov that supported the attackers and nukes or bombs them to the stone age the media, Kerry, Jimmy Carter et al will say we shot the wrong dog and should have let the UN take care of the problem and it was all because someone in that departed country once said something bad about his Dad long ago not the half million dead Americans.
The same gang will spin it as still not being a real War.
No matter what happens this country will have responded in the wrong way according to Alan Combs if run by the Republicans at the time, and the right thing if run by the dems.
Rush and Hannity will both write books about it and go on tour.
I don't know if the BGs have a nuke, just what the 'fall out" will be from these points on the compass if the BGs do and use it.
S-
Two or three summers ago, I was metal detecting at a park with my son (yes, I have dork tendencies, that's not the point), and a half-dozen Hmong kids, ages 4 to 13, approximately, came up to see what we were doing with the "mine detector." We talked to the kids, who were new immigrants, for almost an hour, and I was astonished how sophisticated they were. At some point during the conversation, they brought up the subject of Russian suitcase nukes, which rang some dim bell in the back of my head. Went home, did a fair amount of internet research on the subject, and came to the conclusion that the suitcase nukes are real and that there are at least 20 or so that have never been accounted for. Everything I've read since then is consistent with this belief.
It's not really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a well-funded terrorist organization might be able to acquire one or more of them. But even if Midtown Manhattan or everything in the Mall in D.C. gets turned into a glass parking lot, I can't even begin to pretend to know how we would respond. I think everything would be on the table, but I have a very hard time believing we would nuke a few Arab cities just to make us feel better. The ambiguous ultimatum (i.e., you have 30 days to turn them over to us, all of them, or face the consequences) seems more likely.
It's not really a stretch of the imagination to believe that a well-funded terrorist organization might be able to acquire one or more of them. But even if Midtown Manhattan or everything in the Mall in D.C. gets turned into a glass parking lot, I can't even begin to pretend to know how we would respond. I think everything would be on the table, but I have a very hard time believing we would nuke a few Arab cities just to make us feel better. The ambiguous ultimatum (i.e., you have 30 days to turn them over to us, all of them, or face the consequences) seems more likely.
ravinraven
Member
Thanx to Jimmy Carter and Sen. Frank Church
WAITONE's idea of publishing a target list to be checked off in the event of a nuke attack on the USA, UK and/or other places of interest is, I think, a good idea. The USSR had a "target list" that they were damn well aware would cook if they dropped nukes on us. I can't say that that is what kept "the big one" from happening [[yet]] but it didn't happen. I spent some hours in the air with blivets in the back seat years ago helping stare the bear down and am very glad that it didn't happen on any of my watches.
But the long-term answer is going to have to be intelligence "on the ground." We're gonna HAVE TO KNOW what the A.Q. and its clones are up to every minute of the day in every place on the globe. Aren't you glad that Carter and Church gutted the CIA and put us in a hole that is analagous to the araments "hole" we were in at the time of Pearl Harbor? We are just getting started digging out of that hole. Eventually, we'll get to the proper posture in the intelligence area unless creeps like sKerry or Frau Klinton get into power and spike our guns for the enemy.
Isn't it all a grand revelation of what the Nobel Peace Prize crowd really is made up of? They were awarding Peanut the Peace Prize just as Dubya was starting to clean up the mess he, Carter, bent over backwards to help create. Thanx, Jimmy. Go back to Georgia and continue hammering nails for "Habitat For Free-Loaders."
The down side of the needed new intelligence push is that what the gov't learns about that art/science can be used against pro-liberty organizations such as THR, us, the NRA and GOA and on and on.
Ain't that old Chinese curse a grand one though: "May you live in interesting times."
The modern curse is: "May you live in Hillarious times."
rr
WAITONE's idea of publishing a target list to be checked off in the event of a nuke attack on the USA, UK and/or other places of interest is, I think, a good idea. The USSR had a "target list" that they were damn well aware would cook if they dropped nukes on us. I can't say that that is what kept "the big one" from happening [[yet]] but it didn't happen. I spent some hours in the air with blivets in the back seat years ago helping stare the bear down and am very glad that it didn't happen on any of my watches.
But the long-term answer is going to have to be intelligence "on the ground." We're gonna HAVE TO KNOW what the A.Q. and its clones are up to every minute of the day in every place on the globe. Aren't you glad that Carter and Church gutted the CIA and put us in a hole that is analagous to the araments "hole" we were in at the time of Pearl Harbor? We are just getting started digging out of that hole. Eventually, we'll get to the proper posture in the intelligence area unless creeps like sKerry or Frau Klinton get into power and spike our guns for the enemy.
Isn't it all a grand revelation of what the Nobel Peace Prize crowd really is made up of? They were awarding Peanut the Peace Prize just as Dubya was starting to clean up the mess he, Carter, bent over backwards to help create. Thanx, Jimmy. Go back to Georgia and continue hammering nails for "Habitat For Free-Loaders."
The down side of the needed new intelligence push is that what the gov't learns about that art/science can be used against pro-liberty organizations such as THR, us, the NRA and GOA and on and on.
Ain't that old Chinese curse a grand one though: "May you live in interesting times."
The modern curse is: "May you live in Hillarious times."
rr
- Status