• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

The Next Terrorist Attack

Status
Not open for further replies.

Daemon688

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
825
Location
MN
You know, we can think up all the scenarios of terrorists invading a city or detonating up a small nuclear weapon in a major city. But in reality these would be unlikely to happen (ships invading) and largely limited in effectiveness (suitcase nuke).

After 9/11, America continued with their daily lives and didn't live in a complete state of fear. Even with the daily IED's our troops face, they are unlikely to leave anytime soon and if anything they are deploying more national guard units. With all this in mind, what is America's weakness? The economy. If I were in the shoes of a terrorist, I would realize an attack on civilians would only have a limited effect. Instead of hitting office towers with explosives or train stations, I would be blowing up oil refineries.

Imagine a large coordinated attack on every single oil refinery in the nation. With a large scale disruption in oil supply what would happen to the American economy? The average American life?

I guess the next question becomes, how well defended are these places?
 
With so many low budget/high effectiveness strategies we fools can think of (using firearms or attacking self-destroying refineries (once you get the fire started), I am happily amused that nothing is really going on in this country en mas. I mean, seriously... if for some reason you were tasked to destroy this country from the inside out, how many years of planning would you need? A team of 20 reasonable men could do some serious damage in a few months of planning, let alone the 'thousands of sleepers' in this country already.

Just sayin'.

I am happily disappointed with the effectiveness of terrorists in our country.
 
Oil? How about even MORE crippling?


A simple powdered metal charge fired from a fireworks mortar to the height of the powerlines outside of powerplants would do things to the grid you can't even imagine, and without pissing China and others off by blowing up a refinery they might buy from.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...6736.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Is Chicago in the crosshairs?

Smuggling a nuclear weapon into the city is not as improbable as it may seem

By Graham Allison

August 16, 2005

Many Americans consider the idea of a nuclear bomb exploding in an American city to be Hollywood science fiction, but FBI warnings that terrorists may be planning an attack on Chicago are hitting close to home and are eerily familiar.

One month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, a CIA agent code-named "Dragonfire" reported that Al Qaeda had acquired a small nuclear bomb from the former Soviet arsenal and had brought it to New York City.

Vice President Dick Cheney and hundreds of other government officials evacuated Washington for a then-undisclosed location. President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to search for signs of radiation.

Mercifully, Dragonfire's report was a false alarm.

The truth, however, is that the U.S. government had no grounds to dismiss the warning. While not likely, it is possible that Al Qaeda is hiding nuclear bombs in one or several American cities today. So who can say that the trucks the FBI warned about might not contain weapons of mass destruction?

Smuggling a nuclear weapon into Chicago is not as improbable as it seems.

The highly enriched uranium needed to build a simple nuclear weapon is smaller than a football. It could be smuggled through American borders and into the metropolis the way illegal drugs come into the city every day: in uninspected cargo containers delivered by ships and trains, contraband smuggled over the Canadian-American border, or innumerable other ways.

Why might Al Qaeda aspire to such a difficult, deadly assault? Bin Laden has challenged the Al Qaeda movement to trump Sept. 11. That calls for attacks more spectacular than hijacking jumbo jets to crash into trophy buildings. The ultimate terrorist spectacle would be an American city enveloped by a nuclear mushroom cloud.

In May 2003 Osama bin Laden obtained a fatwa from a Saudi cleric providing religious justification for Al Qaeda's use of nuclear weapons against the United States. Titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status for Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels," it asserts that "if a bomb that killed 10 million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslims' lands or dropped on them, it would be permissible."

If a bomb were put in the back of a tanker truck, driven downtown, and detonated at the Sears Tower, everything within a third of a mile would vanish. The United Center and all of Grant Park would look like the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The resulting firestorm and cloud of fallout would reach nearly to U.S. Cellular Field and Wrigley Field.

Despite President Bush's attempt to portray Al Qaeda as irrational "killers who simply want to kill," readers of bin Laden's letters and fatwas can identify clearly his objectives: to force American and other "crusaders" to remove their troops from Arab lands and end support for what bin Laden calls their corrupt puppet governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Bin Laden wants to convince Americans that the cost of keeping troops in the Middle East exceeds any benefits we can hope to gain. Certainly, no one can predict how Americans would react to Chicago being turned into an American Hiroshima. The real question, however, is what Al Qaeda operatives think they could achieve.

With FBI warnings that terrorists could wreck havoc with 18-wheelers, it is not surprising that 77 percent of Chicago's residents fear that an attack is imminent. Let's just pray it's not nuclear.

----------

Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, is former assistant secretary of defense and author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe."

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
 
I agree with Daemon, if your target is America, then economic damage is more crippling than killing people outright. On September 11th they targeted what they viewed as symbols of America. The message was your way of life is in danger. By the same token, depriving us of gasoline would drastically affect our way of life. We argue over our rights when our bags are searched, imagine the uproar if for several months we had to get by on literally half the gas we now use. Talk to somebody who remembers the gas coupons from WWII. It wouldn't be pretty.
 
Phoenix_III said:
I mean, seriously... if for some reason you were tasked to destroy this country from the inside out, how many years of planning would you need?
Are you using the term "country" as synonyms for "society" and "state"?

A team of 20 reasonable men could do some serious damage in a few months of planning, let alone the 'thousands of sleepers' in this country already.

Nowhere nearly as much as a team of hundreds of democratically elected politicians that have total(itarian) control over our lives.


I am happily disappointed with the effectiveness of terrorists in our country.

Why would they want to screw up with perfection? If they blew up a single refinery, the government could have actually made possible building a new one. And then a whole bunch of modern refineries – especially those processing heavy sour crude – could have been built. Somebody could even make a case that we should build refineries because the terrorists do not want us to have them.
As it is, the last refinery has been built in this country in 1975 despite huge increase in demand since. They are being destroyed every day – by age and exploitation that does not allow for maintenance and upgrades.

Remember, smart terrorists would not try to provoke the US government into doing something useful that would strengthen us – rather they would strive to provoke it into more self-destructive, wasteful, corrupting acts.

miko
 
My prediction is they will NOT attack US or UK again for a long time. But, they will hit other First World countries that have troops in Iraq and/or support the US.

See, that is the main misconception about the terrorists. Just because the footsoldiers are dumb murderous fanatics that "want to kill Americans etc." does not mean that their handlers are. All attacks produced damage but all attacks were POLITICAL rather than military operations. The leaders wanted to foment changes in the internal politics of the countries, so that there is a change in the external policy of the attacked, that might benefit the terrorist leader causes.

After Bush and the hawks proved their willingness to resort to military solutions, the terrorists have not attacked US soil again because they know that any such would only give more power to the hawks in the US. No matter how much I personally disagree with Bush's handling of things, that is a positive development that I must attribute to his policies.

The same situation was not clear about Spain, so they attacked and the Spanish backed down during subsequent elections. Logically, that was a success for the jihadists.

So, they went ahead to do the same scheme in UK and are now carefully watching what Blair and the Brits are doing. If the Brits only toughen as a result and the hawks manage to throw out Islamic leaders supportive of the attacks, etc, then the jihadists would have failed to knock the Brits out of active support for the US.

Logically, the next target would be other countries that have troops in Iraq or have shown active support for the US.

:cool:
 
I'm expecting Hillary etc to make illegal immigration a "Democratic" (party) issue; then I'm expecting one of the millions of illegals streaming over the border to do a major Beslan-style suicide attack using guns bought at a gunshow. Hillary wins in a landslide over McCain, and uses the powers from the Patriot Act, Real ID, and whatever other abominations get passed from now til then to close the "gunshow loophole" and rape freedom in a way that makes even the Wars on Terrorism and Drugs seem insignificant. Same thing if McCain wins; maybe even worse since he's a Pubbie and all the blind "conservatives" who think the GOP can do no wrong will follow him blindly.
 
What would be really smart would be for Mexico to underwrite/subcontract some Islamic terrorist attacks on their country, then request ‘asylum’ for millions more to come to the U.S. as refugees.

as long as we're discussing wild conspiracy theories.........
 
Economic damage was Osama's main goal.

America suffers from Imperial over reach. We waste $10B a month in the Iraqi money pit. China and the other asian countries have stopped buying our debt. The dollar is being replaced as the world's reserve currency. Oil is $66 a barrel.

GWB rushed a nearly bankrupt country into a costly war that will help to bury us financially. Do the math. Osama is smarter than GWB.

It is just a matter of time before our economic collapse due to our own stupidity. America is like a crack whore with $2B/day debt habit we can't break.
 
OBL: "Hey Achmed, come here !!"

Achmed: "What is it boss ??"

OBL: "More good ideas from The High Road !!!"

Achmed: "Oh Goody !!!, I will start writing them down and sending them to our cells in the infidel country !!!"
 
I'm guessing potential terrorists have already thought about most anything we can think of, except, maybe, if they set off their nuke in a remote cornfield or wheatfield in Heartland, USA. Now that would really send the message that they can reach anywhere. Sure hope they don't think of that.
 
This talk of terrorist nukes reminds me of the 50's when we were told to hide under desks in school from the Russians and their nukes - who were going to attack any moment. A frightened populace is easier to "manage" - and let's face it, we're getting pretty easy to manage.
I seriously doubt there will be a nuclear device set off by terrorists in this country in the next 10 years. I remain convinced there are people who want us to worry about this, but I'm not buying into it.
 
SteelyDan,

You're telling the terrorists about my nightmares. Now, if you tell them the one about how they all defeat America by stripping naked and running towards armed American soldiers and LEO's with a pocket knife, I won't be able to sleep at night... :D
 
You're telling the terrorists about my nightmares. Now, if you tell them the one about how they all defeat America by stripping naked and running towards armed American soldiers and LEO's with a pocket knife, I won't be able to sleep at night...

Really? I have the same dream except instead of knives they are all carrying sporks to give our soldiers and marines nasty red welts. :D
 
Still more worried about various US politicians than I am about terrorists. The terrorists only have power to frighten us if we let them--sure, they can murder a batch of people from time to time.

Politicians that ignore the fundamental principles of the US, justices that disregard the true meaning and intention of the consitution...well, those people are the ones that can destroy America.
 
If I read correctly, the original thrust of this thread was about attacks against refineries. A somewhat valid question. I wouldn't know where to start to disable (more than for a few days) a refinery. Maybe that is common knowledge in the middle east or maybe it is something that is easily picked up on the internet.

Blowing up all (or a large number) would of course be devestating to our economy and our country. I assume the people wouldn't go ape and make it worst but I wouldn't want to bet on it.

Blowing up one refinery might be better if they want to get us out of the terror war. Show us just what they can do.

As far as some of you expressing worries about the politicians... I don't fear them at all. I fear the sheeple sitting by and letting ANYBODY (including politicians) destroy what this country is about.
 
We can deal with anything Bin Leden and company can come up with. The US has more experience in dealing with terrorists attacking the economy than any other nation. We are attacked by Congress for at least 9 months of each year ;) .

Sam
 
uh

the oil prices are already nearing the threshold now. Seems the Oil barrons intend to break our foothold over there by making the cost of the lifeblood too high to stay there. It's time to cash in some chips in Iraq... If we were there for oil, or not, it's time to call that debt. They ARE attacking us financially these prices are SKY HIGH :cuss:
 
These prices may be high to you but are nothing compared to what the rest of the world pays.

What i paid for a gallon this morning $2.43 is what I paid for one of those deviant quarts in Germany 20 years ago. Half the price of a gallon of gas can be changed at the stroke of a pen, whenever the govt decides to cut the tax.

Sam
 
These prices may be high to you but are nothing compared to what the rest of the world pays.

Right - the "rest of the world" is standing tall with our brave men and women on the front lines of the war(s) in the middle east and protecting Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and Iraq. Let's not forget that's where most of the worlds oil sits, and I don't see daily reports of German soldiers giving up their lives to protect it. All they're paying is MONEY - our nation is paying in BLOOD. Big difference.
 
rick,
I hold the rest of the world in greater contempt than you do, believe me.
They are not even putting any money into it.

I am not even particularly happy with the folks that are sending troops either, except for Mongolia. They have been straight up in what they expact out of it and I applaud their honesty. I can always depend on a mans self interest, never on his better nature:D.


I never did answer the question about America' vulnerability. Comms, way too much dependance on communication. There is this place in Kansas where ....................... :)

Sam
 
It may be possible to somehow provide protection for some oil refineries. I think an easier and more likely target would be when the gas tanker delivers to your local gas station. Can you imagine the fireball if that could be ingnited? Now imagine a co-ordinated attack - several around a city, one in each state etc etc. Easy to do, impossible to protect them all, devastating, and every time you buy gas you'd be thinking what if? :uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top