al-Qaida No. 2: We Have Briefcase Nukes

Yahoo News ^

[sonsofliberty2000]

---

Patriot Paradox

[FReepaholic]

Well, they may have them now but they didn't on September 11, 2001 or they would have used them.

[brooklin]

If they had 'em, they would have used 'em.

[xJones]

This reminds me of the old joke: "The Soviets have a nuclear bomb capable of being fitted into a suitcase. But first, they have to find someone to make the suitcase for them."

[Dog Gone]

I own the Brooklyn Bridge.

[McGruff]

I agree that if they had them there have been too many opportunities to use them before they loose them.

[RandallFlagg]

But, I'VE got the RECEPIT!!

BWAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

[palmer]

"smart briefcase bombs"

I'm sorry Achmed, I'm afraid I can't do that.

[Sloth]

Bring it on.

[rellimpank]

--yes--and we have had some pretty convincing information from non-classified sources that the "suitcase" weapons don't "keep", but require maintenance largely beyond what the casual possessor can give--

[Thinkin' Gal]

Al-Zawahri — an Egyptian surgeon — is believed to be hiding in the rugged region around the Pakistan-Afghan border where U.S. and Pakistani troops are conducting a major operation against Taliban and al-Qaida forces at room temperature.

[The Mayor]

[whereasandsoforth]

If they use one, mecca will be the next crater.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I can think of three reasons why this report is false.

1. The US has been the world leader in warhead miniaturization for fifty years, and the smallest American Atomic Demolition Munition would not fit in a briefcase or even a suitcase. (This particular device was discontinued by the USA in the mid-1980s and all were dismantled).

2. If al-Qaeda has had such a weapon, they have shown uncharacteristic restraint in not employing it. That makes no sense. If Zawahiri got his grubby, goat-caressing hands on a nuke. it would be hotter than hot and every day they held it in inventory would be a very great risk of losing it. They would lose no time in employing this weapon. That they haven't is to me conclusive proof that they don't have such a weapon.

3. Such reports always suggest that the weapons are ex-Soviet in origin. Sometimes authors point to Russian and former Soviet republics' abandonment of nuclear delivery systems such as subs and bombers as proof of poor inventory control of these weapons. But the warheads were never handled by the military: they were under the control of the KGB. That organization came through both Russia's democratic revolution and the ongoing totalitarian counterrevolution of Putin without significant disruption.

I don't know that Mr Hamid Mir is necessarily spinning here. I think that he has been spun by al-Z. But, of course, both of them stand to gain by this report.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Euro-American Scum]

If they use one, mecca will be the next crater.

If they use one, we'll be hearing from every liberal loon about why, exactly, we deserved it.

[Trickyguy]

If they had 'em, they would have used 'em.

Not necessarily. We have the ability to make Mecca and Medina uninhabitable for a thousand years, and they know it.

[doug9732]

Logic suggests if Al Qaeda actually had a nuke that fact would be their most closely guarded secret.
However if they had failed to purchase a nuke boasting of having one would be a cheap and simple way to spread terror.

[CzarNicky]

"al-Qaida No. 2: We Have Briefcase Nukes"

And I have an enchanted jockstrap.

[AF68]

I can imagine the Russian mafia counting their money and telling these raghead morons that it's a "smart" suitcase bomb. Yeah, that's the ticket! It's a "smart" suitcase bomb!

[not_apathetic_anymore]

I know nothing about weapons systems.

What is a "smart" breifcase nuke? Set aside the issue of whether or not they're small enough to be briefcase vs. suitcase. Set aside the issue of maintenance needed. What does the descriptor "smart" mean relative to nukes?