20 Nuclear Suitcase Bombs inside the USA

Michael Savage July 13th Radio Program ^ | July 14, 2005 | Sweetjustusnow

[Sweetjustusnow]

Paul M. Williams author of The Al-Queda Connection which is due to be released soon, provides a compilation of data based on; FBI, CIA, Vice President Cheney, Homeland Security, Attorney General Ashcroft and news sources. Makes a strong case that there are 20 suitcase nukes in the USA which have been smuggled in through the border with Mexico.

[Mr. Mojo]

And they're using them "very, very soon" instead of now because?

The author's explanation is that Al Qaeda does things "when they're ready," so they're obviously not yet ready.

A BS explanation, of course, but it's the only one he can come up with.

[Southack]

"Makes a strong case that there are 20 suitcase nukes in the USA which have been smuggled in through the border with Mexico."

The Williams "case" isn't strong if you know the first thing about Physics (e.g. half-life of atomic elements).

Suitcase nukes are SMALLER than ordinary nukes.

The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.

The less shielding that you have, the sooner that your electronics and conventional explosives deteriorate from the radiation.

The less fissionable material that you have, the faster you generally need your atomic trigger isotopes to emit neutrons. The faster you emit neutrons, the shorter your half-life. The shorter your half-life, the less time that you have before the nuke simply fizzles instead of booms. Beryllium trigger isotopes can have as little as a 53 day half-life, for instance. Polonium 210, a Man-made isotope that can *only* be created in nuclear reactors or cyclotrons, has a 140 day half-life.

This is simple physics. Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).

So a "suitcase nuke" from 1991 (the fall of the CCCP) is likely little more than a rusted, shattered, fragmented collection of wiring and explosives today.

They *require* a constant, highly professional level of maintenance that needs to be performed in very, very highly advanced clean room labs.

No maintenance means no "Boom."

[Stellar Dendrite]

You're the typical vigilante...why don't you just STOP that criticism! (*goes back to drinking kool aid*)

[Little Pig]

It was my understanding that the nuke itself might have a long expiration date (though not indefinite), but the triggers are relatively volatile. You might expect to keep an unarmed suitcase in-country for 5 years or so before it would have to be serviced. However, the trigger would probably be sent/smuggled in only shortly before such a device would be used. If you didn't use the trigger within a year or so, it would degrade to the point that it would no longer work.

[ImpotentRage]

You know something? I'm not too sure about that. I haven't been too happy with the "winning hearts and minds" and "bring to justice" way the WOT has been handled so far.

[RightWhale]

Savage is skeptical of the report. Besides that, even if it is true what difference does it make?

[mikeus_maximus]

Oh, OK. And they're waiting for.....?

[Alter Kaker]

HE said 5000 sleeper cell INDIVIDUALS -- or 5000 murderous lunatics, take your pick.

That's still ridiculous. There's no way Al Qaeda has more than a few dozen actual operatives in the US, plus a couple hundred or so sympathizers capable of logistical support (i.e. fundraising).

[Sweetjustusnow]

The WTC bombings took a decade to carry out.

I don't know about the shelf life of nukes in suitcases.

I do know that many of the sources, and the statements from them, and much of the data that he sources is compelling and that I myself have read much of the same data.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[GingisK]

metal-lined to help concentrate the blast wave of the conventional explosives further...

Don't confuse the maintenance and lifetime issues of "hydrogen bombs" with those of "atomic bombs". These are worlds apart.

[DAC21]

5,000 sleeper cell members gearing up, huh? Seems to me with 20 suitcase nuke bombs you need exactly 20 Islamofascists. The extra 4980 dirt bags are just coming along for the ride to meet up with their 72 virgins? OK, I'll buy it.

If as much as one goes off I'll go on record now that Iran and Syria cease to exist, and if we are smart we will take out SA and Pakistan while we are at it. The civilized world will turn in a minute if a nuke goes off in that they will realize that innocents will need to die (ala WWII) in order to erase this scourge.

[Alter Kaker]

Not so far-fetched, ask the Brits.

I'm not saying there aren't any, just that they're not anything like that many. And they don't have nuclear weapons, either, or they'd have used them.

[CondorFlight]

Certain countries (not to name anyone, but N. Korea, Iran,
China, and even Russia, might be on the list) might not be unhappy to see the US get hit with nukes, and then be able to pin the blame on Al Qaeda--and even help us retaliate against Al Qaeda.
So, while Al Qaeda may not be able to pull something like this off on their own, they might get help from foreign intelligence services; and THAT is a scary thought.

[Little Pig]

And Southack's post 42 has even more detail.

[GingisK]

There's no way Al Qaeda has more than a few dozen actual operatives in the US.

10,000 people cross into this country from Mexico each day; and, only 12 so far have been hostile?

[Southack]

"What do you think would deteriorate quickly? The explosive used for the implosion? (Nope) The electronics that sets the detonators off? (Nope) The detonators? (Nope)"

Incorrect. The Russians had to steal British RDX to get their nukes to work, as RDX is one of the few conventional explosives that can survive radiation long enough to take a bomb from the lab into the field.

Electronics are fried by radiation, too...as are electric wires.

[randog]

And they're using them "very, very soon" instead of now because?

Because if it didn't happen "now" he'd look like the fool he is. "Soon" gives you wiggle room and stuff to talk about on the talk show circuit.

[nwctwx]

Permanent Link

al Qaida's WMD Fatwa: Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd

Until May 2003, al Qaeda did not have sufficient Islamic grounding on which to convincingly justify a WMD attack. In that month, however, a young Saudi cleric named Shaykh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd published "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels."

...

The study is lucidly written, comprehensive, and well-documented justification and authorization for using weapons of mass destruction against infidels-in this case, against the United States.

...

Without Question, Shaykh al-Fahd wrote, the "Proscription [of weapons of mass destruction] Belongs to God Almighty, and to None Other Than He, such as Humans."

Shaykh al-Fahd begins by describing the term "weapons of mass destruction" as an "inexact term," claiming that chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons that killed a thousand people would be called by the West "internationally banned weapons," whereas the use of "high explosive bombs weighing seven tons apiece and [that] killed three thousand or more" would be called "internationally permissible weapons." On that basis, he dismisses the WMD-armed West's treaties and regulations banning WMD proliferation as mere attempts to scare others and protect itself. "Thus it is evident," he wrote, "that [the Western nations] do not wish to protect humanity by these terms, as they assert; rather, they want to protect themselves and monopolize such weapons on the pretext of banning them internationally."

...

"All these terms have no standing in Islamic law, because God Almighty has reserved judgment and legislation to Himself...This is a matter so obvious to Muslims that it needs no demonstration...In judging these weapons one looks only to the Koran, the Sunnah [i.e., the sayings and traditions of the Prophet], and the statements of Muslim scholars."

Summary of al-Fahd's Fatwa:

• Shaykh al-Fahd first cites three examples from the Koran in which God says that Muslims may respond reciprocally for attacks made on them. "Anyone who considers America's aggressions against Muslims and their lands during the past decades," al-Fahd wrote, "will conclude that striking her is permissible merely on the rule of treating as one has been treated. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their weapons and come up with a figure of nearly 10 million."

• Shaykh al-Fahd next argues that large civilian casualties are acceptable if they result from an attack meant to defeat an enemy, and not an attack aimed only at killing the innocent. "The messenger of God [the Prophet Muhammad]," al-Fahd wrote, "commanded an attack on the enemy. In many traditions, he attacked others...He was not prevented from this by what we know, namely that he knew that women and children would not be safe from harm. He allowed the attack because the intent of the attackers was not to harm them...Thus the situation in this regard is that if those engaged in jihad establish that the evil of the infidels can be repelled only by attacking them at night with weapons of mass destruction, they may be used even if they annihilate the infidels."

• Shaykh al-Fahd concludes by addressing the issue of whether Muslims can kill other Muslims in pursuing jihad in God's name. He says that, indeed, the lives of Muslims are considered sacred and there is no permission from God to wantonly kill another Muslim. But, al-Fahd maintains, "If we accept the argument unrestrictedly, we should entirely suspend jihad, for no infidel land is devoid of Muslims. As long as jihad has been commanded...and it can be carried out only in this way [i.e., with Muslims being killed in attacks by Muslims], it is permitted." God allows this, al-Fahd explains, "so that the enemy cannot force us to abandon jihad by imprisoning a Muslim among them."

Excerpts from, Imperial Hubris , by Michael Scheuer: Pages 154-156

[D Rider]

Possibly, though if I recall correctly, the "suitcase" was metal-lined to help concentrate the blast wave of the conventional explosives further, so any non-nuclear detonation might do nothing more than turn the case into a metal beachball.

Too bad, I would hope that the terrorist would be lying there bleeding to death wondering where his arm went.

[Types_with_Fist]

You know something? I'm not too sure about that.

Neither am I. The consistent response since 911 and up to the London bombings has been that the "terrorists" are "extremists" only and that Islam is a "religion of peace." I don't think we'll nuke anybody.