Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terrorist Hiroshima in America?
http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2143&cid=11&sid=61 ^ | 9/11/06 | Ryan Mauro

Posted on 09/12/2006 12:27:09 PM PDT by standingfirm

In 2005, the mainstream media seemed shocked when a number of news sources, including WorldNetDaily.com released a report about an "American Hiroshima" plot against the United States by Al-Qaeda The plot calls for Al-Qaeda to detonate nuclear weapons on American soil, having arrived over the Mexican border with the assistance of MS-13 gang members. The report claims Al-Qaeda has already obtained a large number of nuclear weapons currently being maintained by Pakistani and Russian scientists.

Why the shock? In November 2002, this author provided similar and nearly identical information to the American public and intelligence agencies compiled from private and open-sources. The result was a research project of an enormous size, summarily published on this site with the entire version published on WorldThreats.com. Thus, we were quite surprised when this report rocked and shocked the mainstream media over two years after we had already published the same information.

Our original report, entitled "Exposing the Next Wave of Spectacular Terrorism: Terrorist Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction" seems antiquated as it had been tailored to the address the concerns at the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including the possibility of retaliatory terrorist attacks. Although there were several subsequent updates, we have re-compiled our information, now over two years old, to illustrate we sounded this alarm bell in 2002.

(Excerpt) Read more at globalpolitician.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: americanhiroshima; dirtybomb; islam; jihad; jihadinamerica; jihadist; muslim; nuclear; religionofpeace; rop; terror; terrorism; terrorist; thereligionofpeace; trop; uranium; wmd; yellowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last
Have been re-reading Bill Gertz's book "Betrayal", how the Clinton administration underminded American security. I was shocked to learn that 100 of these suitcase nukes disappeared from Russia. In the body of this article, it notes that Bin Laden says that he has nukes. I never heard that before.
1 posted on 09/12/2006 12:27:09 PM PDT by standingfirm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

You said -- "In the body of this article, it notes that Bin Laden says that he has nukes. I never heard that before."

The reason why you may not have heard it is that it's being "suppressed", as far as the MSM is concerned -- along with other "naysayers". However, that information has been "out" for a while.

Regards,
Star Traveler


2 posted on 09/12/2006 12:29:14 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

Minitier's book, "Misinformation," blows apart the notion of true "suitcase nukes" being easily smuggled, or used, anywhere. These are much larger than believed, and take incredible arming and operational know-how. However, a "dirty bomb" is quite easy to make, and use, and I'm surprised it hasn't been used yet.


3 posted on 09/12/2006 12:29:58 PM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
Heroshima

What is that, a Japanese hoagie?

4 posted on 09/12/2006 12:31:20 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
Most analysts think that while Al Qaeda may have enough material from old weapons to create a dirty bomb, they don't actually have a working nuclear device.

Of course, most analysts thought 9/11 was impossible, too...

5 posted on 09/12/2006 12:31:31 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
> Heroshima What is that, a Japanese hoagie?

No, it's a nuclear submarine sandwich!

bada bing

6 posted on 09/12/2006 12:33:14 PM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TChris

They sell them at the new Jewish-Japanese restaurant named Sosumi.


7 posted on 09/12/2006 12:36:03 PM PDT by Maceman (This is America. Why must we press "1" for English?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
"The report claims Al-Qaeda has already obtained a large number of nuclear weapons currently being maintained by Pakistani and Russian scientists."

Maintained how? Where would they get the "spares"?

And if they have the correct components to perform "maintenance", then are the weapons in Pakistan or Russia and not in the U.S.?

Sounds pretty bogus...

8 posted on 09/12/2006 12:36:44 PM PDT by etcetera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Anyone able to get to the article?


9 posted on 09/12/2006 12:37:55 PM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Sophomore dies in kiln explosion? Oh My God! I just talked to her last week...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

He detonates those over here and he could kiss his world good-bye. I wish we weren't so censored on here so I could use a more 'colorful' language.


10 posted on 09/12/2006 12:39:19 PM PDT by wastedyears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
In 2001, BBC reported about Bin Laden saying in some Pakistani newspaper interview that he had nukes amd would use them if the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons first. Of course there are translation difficulties again.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1648572.stm

Anyway, I think it is improbable that Al Quaeda uses Nukes or chemical weapons. I thinks this kind of weaponry would cost him too many sympathies in the Muslim world and an organisation like his is too heavily reliant on the support.

11 posted on 09/12/2006 12:39:30 PM PDT by Schweinhund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

I'd never say OBL won't be able to set off a real nuke inside the USA.
But as for the Russian suitcases, I think likelihood is low as many
professionals have talked about how these things are limited lifetime
in terms of usefulness.

I really do think theft modest amounts of really hot (short half-life)
redioisotopes from quite a few medical facilities...then aggregated and
set off as a dirty bomb in the worst-possible place is much more likely.


12 posted on 09/12/2006 12:42:23 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy

try clicking on the link just under the Title of the post.


13 posted on 09/12/2006 12:42:38 PM PDT by standingfirm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Heroshima
What is that, a Japanese hoagie?




HA HA HA !!!! ROFLMAO!!!

That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.


14 posted on 09/12/2006 12:43:25 PM PDT by Ribeye (Protective head wear courtesy of "Reynolds Aluminum Products - Implant Suppression Division")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
From the article: ALL of Osama's grievances against the West are related to crimes against the Muslim people, EXCEPT for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He and other Al-Qaeda operatives have said this is something we need to be punished for, and has cited it as one of our atrocities."

I have always thought it made no sense for Osama to be madder at us for Hiroshima than the Japanese people are. (As if he really cared about the Japanese.) Japan is our ally now. It all makes sense that he is using this to justify his own plan to use nuclear weapons against us as a first strike with the rationale that we were the first to use them and he is just meting out our long awaited punishment.

15 posted on 09/12/2006 12:43:52 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ribeye

Nothing like a good typo to raise the mirth index at FR.


16 posted on 09/12/2006 12:44:13 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
Trust me, if the terrorists had nukes, they'd have used them by now.

They have been getting their clocks cleaned over there for five years now. Pretty soon, there won't be very many of them left.

17 posted on 09/12/2006 12:44:42 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (The Program is Morally Good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
A working nuke in the hands of a terrorist would be a fantastically hot commodity.

Any other terrorist who learned of the thing would start an operation to get it for themselves, to use on their own target, plus every intel agency on Earth would be looking for it.

Restoring and maintaining a nuke requires access to certain things- not available at Radio Shack- that would make opsec a nightmare.

What I'm leaning towards here is a use-it-or-lose-it imperative that would preclude hanging onto a nuke for as long as there have been rumors of them, which is at least ten years.

The most likely scenario is for a nation-state to produce a working nuke suitable for clandestine use, pass it off to an operating terror cell, and that cell would use it within the week before the horde of seekers could sniff it out.

I find it highly unlikely that a terror org could keep even one nuke on the shelf for more than a few days.
18 posted on 09/12/2006 12:46:09 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
The possibility has been public knowledge for five years at least. The Russian suitcase bombs have been public knowledge for a decade. The existence of the possibility of the A-bomb has been public knowledge for sixty years. We still have callouses on our elbows from diving under our desks during 'duck and cover' exercises in school in the fifties. We are not impressed with OBL nukes.
19 posted on 09/12/2006 12:48:42 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm,

First, the probability that any portable nuclear devices were lost prior to or after the breakup of the Soviet Union appears low; the scenarios of loss offered by the special commission in 1996 are actually the least plausible among other possible scenarios. This does not mean that the threat does not exist, but rather that at this moment, it is probably not the most immediate threat to the home security of the United States or to U.S. armed forces abroad.

Second, even if any devices were lost, their effectiveness should be very low or maybe even non-existent, especially if the loss occurred during the period of the greatest risk, in the early 1990s. Without scheduled maintenance, these devices apparently can produce only minimal yield and eventually possibly no yield at all, and can only serve as a source of small amounts of weapons-grade fissile materials.

20 posted on 09/12/2006 12:48:56 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schweinhund
Anyway, I think it is improbable that Al Quaeda uses Nukes or chemical weapons. I thinks this kind of weaponry would cost him too many sympathies in the Muslim world and an organisation like his is too heavily reliant on the support.

I agree with this. On the other hand the majority of the Muslim world think the Jews in collaboration with Bush were responsible for 9/11. Osamas Hiroshima reference has meaning though. I have always thougt it is a means to pave the way and justify a nuclear first strike if he ever decides conditions are ripe and he can get away with it.

21 posted on 09/12/2006 12:49:15 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

review


22 posted on 09/12/2006 12:50:54 PM PDT by sauropod (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." PJO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Let's hope you are right....but once Iran produces or buys a nuke all bets are off. I think Al-Qaida and Iran are busy forming an alliance. They have been housing bin Laden's son and have recently sent him to go to Lebanon by way of Syria.


23 posted on 09/12/2006 12:51:18 PM PDT by standingfirm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: etcetera; LS
Maintained how? Where would they get the "spares"?

You weren't supposed to notice that part.

And if they have the correct components to perform "maintenance", then are the weapons in Pakistan or Russia and not in the U.S.?

At SOME point, someone would f*** up.

I've talked to a Special Forces vet who was assigned to deliver SADMs during the Cold War--he labels this scenario "crap," particularly when you're talking about tens of weapons--because there are so many things that can go wrong.

Two of his questions: "What happens if a terrorist smuggling a SADM gets into a car wreck and is seriously injured? What if a terrorist's truck--with the SADM inside--gets stolen while he's taking a leak?"

24 posted on 09/12/2006 12:54:17 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm
The so called "suitcase" nuke threat has pretty much been debunked a long time ago. It is mostly resurrected by people wanted to fear monger and sell books.

The smaller a nuclear device is, the most maintenance intensive it becomes. These nuclear devices (which I will not call suitcase/briefcase bombs because that is not what they are) have not been maintained in over 10 years. It is highly likely that they, if they even exist, no longer function.

25 posted on 09/12/2006 12:54:33 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
It is mostly resurrected by people wanted to fear monger and sell books.

Have you read Ryan Mauro's website? You just described it.

26 posted on 09/12/2006 12:56:17 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
"The most likely scenario is for a nation-state to produce a working nuke suitable for clandestine use, pass it off to an operating terror cell, and that cell would use it within the week before the horde of seekers could sniff it out."

Exactly. Not to labor the point but if such a nuke were used, the group that did it would NOT claim responsibility. They would just sit back and watch the chaos and we would have no one to retaliate against. Then Osama could claim that we deserved it because of Hiroshima while not claiming or disclaiming any responsibility . Or it could be blamed on the Jews. Anyway you look at it we are screwed if they get nukes.

27 posted on 09/12/2006 12:57:04 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

No, I haven't read it but I could have figured as much.


28 posted on 09/12/2006 12:58:24 PM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Free Republic is Currently Suffering a Pandemic of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LS
Minitier's book, "Misinformation," blows apart the notion of true "suitcase nukes" being easily smuggled, or used, anywhere.These are much larger than believed, and take incredible arming and operational know-how.

Like this?

The W54 warhead weighed 51-pounds and had an explosive yield of 0.18 kilotons. The projectile in the picture was 30 inches long, 11 inches in diameter, and weighed 76 pounds. The same warhead was used in so called "backpack" nukes and in the Falcon Air to Air missile.

29 posted on 09/12/2006 12:59:32 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: standingfirm

If Binny had nukes he would of used them. Just more internet rumor and fearmongering. It gives the drama queens in the Junk Media something to have today's case of the vapors over.


30 posted on 09/12/2006 1:00:06 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (Say Leftists. How many Nazis did killing Nazis in WW2 create? Samurai? Fascists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schweinhund
Anyway, I think it is improbable that Al Quaeda uses Nukes or chemical weapons. I thinks this kind of weaponry would cost him too many sympathies in the Muslim world and an organisation like his is too heavily reliant on the support.

I don't think it would cost him anything in the Muslim world at all. If it tipped one way or the other, he would probably gain a little support.

31 posted on 09/12/2006 1:00:12 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
I don't think it would cost him anything in the Muslim world at all. If it tipped one way or the other, he would probably gain a little support.

Only among the really stupid ones. The rest would be rioting to demonstrate their non-support for bin Laden to keep their city from evaporating.

32 posted on 09/12/2006 1:02:14 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
Exactly. Not to labor the point but if such a nuke were used, the group that did it would NOT claim responsibility. They would just sit back and watch the chaos and we would have no one to retaliate against. Then Osama could claim that we deserved it because of Hiroshima while not claiming or disclaiming any responsibility . Or it could be blamed on the Jews. Anyway you look at it we are screwed if they get nukes.

Precisely. MAD doesn't work unless you can assign responsibility. That's why preemptive war is imperative and moral in this situation.

33 posted on 09/12/2006 1:02:22 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

True "suitcase" nukes has indeed, very small amounts of fissile material in them and are reliant on injected 'hot' neutron sources such as tritium which 1. decay fast, 2. must be replaced, and 3. tend to contaminate other components - hence, regular maintenance is needed for them.

However.

This is only the case of the nukes made in the last 30 years.

The ones most worrisome are those left over from clandestine Soviet infiltration of key locations in the continental US during the 1950s and early 60's. They did this to ensure certain cities were hit even if their bombers were shot down.

Those were bulky, low-yield, and were very robust (lots of fissile material). These are the dangerous ones. One of these kinetic trigger types would make 10 high-yield nukes due to their poor design. But leave them sitting a few decades and you know what? You still get a mushroom cloud - but it's filled with tons of really dirty crap that'll poison the land for centuries.

And for those saying that OBL wouldn't use nukes, well, he had people slit women's throats and kill innocents - so how much can you actually say is beyond him? They will use nukes when they can get one, and it will be as soon as possible.


34 posted on 09/12/2006 1:02:50 PM PDT by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Schweinhund

If OBL had nukes he would use them. Muslims would be dancing in the streets, again. He would not lose support, but gain many more adherents.


35 posted on 09/12/2006 1:03:04 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: etcetera
Maintained how? Where would they get the "spares"? And if they have the correct components to perform "maintenance", then are the weapons in Pakistan or Russia and not in the U.S.?

Probably in the back room of your local Kwiki Mart or 7-11...
36 posted on 09/12/2006 1:03:09 PM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
"I don't think it would cost him anything in the Muslim world at all. If it tipped one way or the other, he would probably gain a little support."

The Muslim world will go with the winner.

37 posted on 09/12/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by Hound of the Baskervilles (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VOA
VOA, the Manhattan Project, the Nazi nuke researchers, and the Japanese nuke team all rejected the dirty bomb concept as not being practical.

If I sprinkle Co60 on an acre of land so that you'd get a lethal dose in one year standing in the middle of it, you'd get a lethal dose in 12 minutes if you had it all scraped up in a shoebox with a stick of dynamite under it. That would be hard to deploy.

If you upped the amount of cobalt so that you'd get a lethal dose in an hour standing in your acre, then the initial package would be lethal in 5 seconds. You have a difficult design for transport and dispersal, especially now that lots of cops have rad detectors in the car or on their belt. Unshielded, that much Co will be detectable for blocks.

And it would take about 100 hospital's worth of Co60 to do that. I suspect that someone would finger you round about hospital #12.

That's considering a real threat. A media howling panic, though, is more likely. In that case, chopping up an old Coleman mantle and sprinkling it on a sidewalk (more than enough to give a Geiger counter the chuckles) would lead a prepared-in-advance media to panic half the nation. Like ABC and their 20 bags of fertilizer. Katie in the studio, and the standout reporter in a bright orange suit with a chattering counter- "It's reading 12, Katie, and that is terribly serious for the residents of Redondo Beach. President Hillary is ordering an evacuation of the southwestern United States, and President Obrador says that he'll commit troops to help..."
38 posted on 09/12/2006 1:03:43 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
The ones most worrisome are those left over from clandestine Soviet infiltration of key locations in the continental US during the 1950s and early 60's. They did this to ensure certain cities were hit even if their bombers were shot down.

But leave them sitting a few decades and you know what? You still get a mushroom cloud - but it's filled with tons of really dirty crap that'll poison the land for centuries.

Actually, leave them sitting for 40-50 years, and they'll dud--because of contaminants building up from decay that either (a) emit a lot of gammas (which become heat, which in turn evaporates the volatile components out of the explosives), or (b) absorb a lot of neutrons (thus poisoning the chain reaction).

39 posted on 09/12/2006 1:06:09 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Or nearest Dearbornistan mosque?


40 posted on 09/12/2006 1:06:52 PM PDT by Panzerlied ("We shall never surrender!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Have a cigar and move to the head of the class.


41 posted on 09/12/2006 1:07:07 PM PDT by Trampled by Lambs (A storm is coming...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
And it would take about 100 hospital's worth of Co60 to do that. I suspect that someone would finger you round about hospital #12.

Mostly because you were showing signs of advanced radiation poisoning.

42 posted on 09/12/2006 1:07:17 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus
They will use nukes when they can get one, and it will be as soon as possible.

My point exactly. The terrorists do not have nukes or they would have used them already. They enjoy playing on our fears by hinting that they may indeed have a nuke. People who insist they have portable nukes play right in to their hands. The only reason Israel continues to thrive, is because the extremists truly believe Israel has nukes and wouldn't hesitate to use them. The only country that currently doesn't fear Israel's nukes is Iran because they believe by triggering a nuclear response from Israel will start the end-of-times scenario.

43 posted on 09/12/2006 1:09:19 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

That's odd. I've heard a reference to how the decay products can halt the chain reaction leading to a "dud", but my physics prof then showed what a "dud" would actually do. Taking Little Boy as a baseline, the reaction would halt (this is after a "what if" of 40 years) and result in 'only' a 5 kiloton blast instead of a 14kt or a 20 (can't remember the baseline, but it was like 1/3 to 2/5ths the original).

Now, it's been years since I was able to do decay series, but isn't a "dud" kinda relative when we're talking simple fission bombs?


44 posted on 09/12/2006 1:12:18 PM PDT by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
Exactly. Not to labor the point but if such a nuke were used, the group that did it would NOT claim responsibility. They would just sit back and watch the chaos and we would have no one to retaliate against

So just retaliate against all the "usual suspects", and we'd be likely to get the correct one. It would certainly serve as and example to any groups that remained.

45 posted on 09/12/2006 1:13:50 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Read this report:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e5_publications_Nuclear%20Terrorism.html
Aum Shinrikyo, Al Qaeda, and the Kinshasa Reactor: Implications of Three Case Studies for Combating Nuclear Terrorism
Sara A. Daly, John V. Parachini and William Rosenau, RAND Corporation, April 2005
View report

Revelations about A.Q. Khan’s global nuclear marketing efforts and Osama bin Laden’s contact with Pakistani nuclear scientists have raised concerns about terrorist acquisition of a nuclear or radiological weapons capability. Such a capability would pose a grave danger to U.S. national security and to the security of the international system of nation-states. This study suggests that strict controls on nuclear weapons, materials, and expertise will reduce opportunities for terrorists to acquire these resources.


46 posted on 09/12/2006 1:14:12 PM PDT by griswold3 (Ken Blackwell, Ohio Governor in 2006- No!! You cannot have my governor in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus

"But leave them sitting a few decades and you know what?"

Yep, their neutron generators and batteries will have gone dud, unless it's decay of the conventional explosives that duds it.

If The Evil Empire has planted huge crude nukes in US cities, isn't it odd we have never found one? They'd be findable by the radiation they'd emit, and some building manager in Manhattan may investigate why his basement has so much more radon 222 than other buildings.


47 posted on 09/12/2006 1:15:47 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Only among the really stupid ones. The rest would be rioting to demonstrate their non-support for bin Laden to keep their city from evaporating.

Evaporating their cities isn't so easy when we can't clearly assign responsibility to a nation state. Are you comfy killing tens of million of people who we know are innocent on the POSSIBILITY that their leaders passed a suitcase nuke or operational knowhow to the bad guys? Suppose there are five regimes that might have been responsible? Do we annihilate all cities in all five countries? Or only some? How certain do we have to be that it was THAT country?

Suppose it may be a rogue element of ISI in pakistan (one of the likely possibilities). Do we nuke Islamabad while Musharaf is there or let him leave first?

And suppose it might have been Russia, who has second strike capability? Do they get a pass while Iran doesn't?

Because assigning responsibilty is so hard, the nuke, dirty bomb, or biological scenario is a really hard one for us to counter and has no easy response that is effective or moral. That's why it's so scary.

And even if we get the assignment of responsibility right and vaporize some cities, it will be a 55/45 proposition and Islam's useful idiots in the media will spend the next 100 years accusing us of wrongful genocide based on bad intelligence.

One almost wishes for the clarity of the cold war.

But your post assumes we can generate a nuclear response to a dirty bomb. It's not clear to me we can muster the will to do so or that it would be necessarily be moral to do so given the ambiguities inherent in the situation.

48 posted on 09/12/2006 1:15:48 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

What makes you think the dems would let us respond to a nuclear attack?


49 posted on 09/12/2006 1:17:09 PM PDT by MrLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: etcetera

If Osama had nukes they would have been used by now....too many innocent people to slaughter before the nukes go bad...You know they would not want to risk not being able to bath in that blood-bath.


50 posted on 09/12/2006 1:20:25 PM PDT by never4get (I Do Whatever My Rice Krispies Tell Me To......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson