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

Skip to comments.

Analysis: Will terrorists go nuclear?
The Middle East Times ^ | July 7, 2008 | Claude Salhani

Posted on 07/19/2008 1:51:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

One recurring question that has been at the forefront of most intelligence agencies since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon just 1 mile outside Washington concerns the ongoing efforts by terrorist groups to acquire weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and mostly nuclear.

Each of the NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons comes with a certain advantage and disadvantage -- for the terrorist, that is.

Of the three sorts, biological weapons are quite possibly the easiest to safely reproduce in a lab, assuming one knows what to do. A biological agent, as a weapon of mass destruction or as a terror weapon, is the least expensive as well as the easiest to disseminate. A bio-agent does not need a delivery mechanism and can be transported by a single person. It can pass through customs and border guards undetected, given that it is odorless and colorless.

All that is needed to spread an epidemic of botulism, for example, or mad cow disease, is to hang around a truck stop for a few hours until a semi pulling a load of cattle on its way to market in a nearby town drives in. Wait until the driver leaves his load unattended, then scrub a previously infected rag around the railings and the mouths of a few of the cattle, and let nature do the rest. The disadvantage, for the terrorist, is that the person carrying the rag is most likely to become contaminated himself (or herself). But with no shortages of jihadists queuing up to become "martyrs," finding two or three volunteers willing to die a horrible, slow and excruciatingly painful death should be no problem.

From a financial and cost-effective perspective, biological agents remain most likely the cheapest and, in all probability, the most likely agent of mass destruction to become available to terror groups.

In their haste to leave training camps and bases of operation in Afghanistan in the wake of rapidly advancing U.S. forces, al-Qaida agents left behind piles of documents, including videotapes showing tests and effects of chemical agents on animals.

Chemical weapons are more cumbersome to produce; they require larger amounts to cause enough damage to leave a psychological scar; and they require a delivery mechanism, such as an artillery shell.

Realistically, a bio-agent can cause far more deaths than a nuclear weapon, because it is not limited geographically, unlike a nuclear bomb. For example, an infected truck driver in Omaha infects a U.S. Army sergeant he met in a diner outside Tulsa, Okla. The GI travels by plane to New York, where he changes planes and boards one bound for Frankfurt. Again he changes planes, this time flying to Kuwait, where he joins up with several members of his unit heading into Iraq. Along the way the GI will have infected scores of people at every airport between Omaha and Baghdad. Those people in turn would have traveled on to Australia, South America, Canada, every European city and other parts of the world. Within a few days people from Sydney to Seattle could start dying.

A nuclear device, on the other hand, would completely devastate the immediate area and, depending on its size, would contaminate everything in a radius of several miles, but the damage would be confined to the immediate area of detonation, plus the fallout zone; in addition, depending on the wind direction and speed, radioactive particles could be carried hundreds, if not thousands, of miles. But psychologically the image of a nuclear blast carries greater impact.

Brian Michael Jenkins, who has just released a book titled "Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?" writes, "There is no doubt that the idea of nuclear weapons may appeal to terrorists." However, Jenkins stresses: "Nuclear terror can also have another insidious effect, one that imperils our very democracy. Terrorism does pose a terrible danger, but our fear of real and imagined threats must not persuade us to diminish our freedoms or our core values. There is no tradeoff between security and liberty. One does not exist without the other."

As Jenkins points out, it is important to differentiate between real and existing threats. A perfect illustration is his description of al-Qaida: "Al-Qaida may have succeeded in becoming the world's first terrorist nuclear power without possessing a single nuclear weapon."


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedanukes; alqaida; globaljihad; iran; islam; jihad; mohammedanism; nuclear; terrorism; wot
The Middle East would be a sheet of glass the next day, unless you-know-who is elected, then we'll probably apologize for thinking that a Muslim might have been the culprit.
1 posted on 07/19/2008 1:51:09 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Hijacking a LPG super tanker and detonating it in a major harbor would be nearly as destructive as nuke.

In regards to nukes and bio, some folk like to say that it can’t be done with “cave tech” like what the islamotards have on hand. You know the cave tech they’re talking about... it’s slightly better than the late ‘50s, early ‘60s tech that churned out those really big hydrogen bombs.

Anyone ever find out what happened to those hundreds, if not thousands, of former Soviet scientists that migrated out after the wall came down?

Another question...
how many Fat Man or Little Boy sized bombs could fit in a standard issue shipping container? The tech that those were built by wouldn’t even rise to the level of current “cave tech”.


2 posted on 07/19/2008 2:06:23 AM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

> or mad cow disease...

Or, if the terrorists aren’t complete idiots, select something that isn’t lethal to humans but highly contageous and devastating to economies. Such as foot-and-mouth disease, for example.

I am astonished that they haven’t tried this one out yet.


3 posted on 07/19/2008 2:25:29 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

A liquefied petroeum tanker ship detonation would leave one ugly harbor for quite some time... but it would probably burn, not fully explode utilizing all of the potential chemical energy, and would probably fail to do much damage to the city outside of the port-side. It certainly wouldn’t have the body-count (few ports are within 5 miles of the population center) or the long-term effects of an actual nuclear attack... unless you meant a dirty-bomb assembled by the usual Middle East morons. It might approach that kind of damage.


4 posted on 07/19/2008 2:26:11 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Thank you Dith Pran for showing us what Communism brings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

> Hijacking a LPG super tanker and detonating it in a major harbor would be nearly as destructive as nuke.

Detonating a medium-sized grain elevator, or setting a sugar refinery alight, would do more than plenty of damage, without requiring any special level of technology.

Detonating a port grain-handling facility would be mighty inconvenient, and would require a level of technology bordering between the moronic and the imbecilic.

An e.coli outbreak would be childishly simple to engineer, and could be done over and over and over again, defying detection until lots of people were very ill.

Foot-and-mouth disease? An outbreak would be nearly impossible to contain in a place like the United States. With no risk to the terrorist, and no easy way to stop it happening again and again and again.


5 posted on 07/19/2008 2:32:37 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

Well, ya don’t want to package multiples together. Multiple missile strikes on a target were staggered (the sequence of arrival) to keep them from minimizing the effect.

The problem with the Fat Man / Little Boy are at least two or three separate issues plus at least one common issue (to oversimplify). This assumes a weapons-grade supplier:

1) Handling the nuclear material requires special machinery and environment. The Saudis have the money to finance this surreptiously though movement of the equipment would be noticed. The tolerances are very fine as I understand it and crude formation can lead to a non-event or very low yield.

2) Triggering the compression simultaneously on Fat Man type weapon. These are part of the reason krytons (I may be too sleepy, LOL) are part of an inventory. Saddam had a few of these, no doubt hoping Osirak would come on line.

3) Formation of a shaped-mass for a Litle Boy type weapon to put the fired wedge into the receiving target mass and achieve detonation.

You can bet the farm they’d love to do it but they didn’t have one. Manhattan would have ceased to exist, or most of it.

I just wonder if they’ll be able to buy one before Iran gets closer with theirs. The day is surely coming.


6 posted on 07/19/2008 3:38:32 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, John 11:25, 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13, John 6:69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
All that is needed to spread an epidemic of botulism, for example, [...] is to hang around a truck stop for a few hours until a semi pulling a load of cattle on its way to market in a nearby town drives in. Wait until the driver leaves his load unattended, then scrub a previously infected rag around the railings and the mouths of a few of the cattle, and let nature do the rest.

This article is filled with scientific inaccuracies and misleading statements.

Without getting too technical, let me point out that botulism cannot be spread as described here.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/index.asp

The pathogenic bacteria Clostidium botulinum is an anaerob, which means that it connot thrive in an oxygen-laden environment. (However, its spores are a natural component of the soil, where it can survive in a dormant state.) The neurotoxin, botulin, which the organism produces, is what kills you. It cannot be used to "infect" cattle, etc. which then might spread it to consumers. As such, it is not infectious.

Regards,

7 posted on 07/19/2008 3:40:27 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The Middle East would be a sheet of glass the next day

Wishful thinking, even if McCain is POTUS. Since we as well as the world import a huge percent of their oil from the ME.

Heck, they could even attack our major institutions like our financial, military and political structures and not get nuked....................Oh, yeah. Been there already!!!

8 posted on 07/19/2008 4:07:51 AM PDT by Popman (McCain as POTUS is odious, Obama as POTUS is unthinkable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; swarthyguy
The Middle East would be a sheet of glass the next day...

Somehow, I doubt it. Seeing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being rewarded as they are, after 9-11, what makes you think the ME would be nuked?

Besides, what would nuking one's own energy source do to one's economy?

9 posted on 07/19/2008 4:09:28 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"...unless you meant a dirty-bomb assembled by the usual Midde East morons. It might approach that kind of damage."

You are underestimating them. The 'morons' are just cannon-fodder that the real players use. Think of them as 'smart bombs' but with human brains. The real players- the ISI (not exactly M.E, but they are a player, nonetheless), etc., are not as moronic as you might imagine. Read about them; they are an extremely dangerous and determined bunch.

10 posted on 07/19/2008 4:15:57 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

The big attack is a big pr deal and deadly. But if anyone remembers what those two guys did a few years ago, sniping and shooting people all over the country and how disturbing it was, it is suggestive that constant small attacks over the country would be devastating. Just a constant chipping away at the sense of safety. I think anonymous shootings agt malls, service stations, busstops, school yards would be hideous, unpredictable and lead to everyone feeling terrorized.


11 posted on 07/19/2008 4:19:02 AM PDT by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Analysis: Will terrorists hijack passanger jets and fly them into major government and financial assets?


12 posted on 07/19/2008 4:20:10 AM PDT by Eddie01 (Freeper ID clue: I spy something blue and cold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
The big attack is a big pr deal and deadly. But if anyone remembers what those two guys did a few years ago, sniping and shooting people all over the country and how disturbing it was, it is suggestive that constant small attacks over the country would be devastating. Just a constant chipping away at the sense of safety. I think anonymous shootings agt malls, service stations, busstops, school yards would be hideous, unpredictable and lead to everyone feeling terrorized.

This wouldn't work too well. After a while, people get used to it. That's what happened in Israel and India.

13 posted on 07/19/2008 4:21:30 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Even a smallpox attack won’t have the effect as a nuke going off in 2 or 3 cities, and the threat that more are coming.

Nuclear attack is without a doubt, far FAR worse than the other options. A bio attack would be bad, but could possibly be no worse than the tomato scare or anthrax attack. It *can* be contained typically.

A few nukes going off randomly, and threats that any city will be next, will cause intense chaos (justifiably so) that can’t be imagined yet.


15 posted on 07/19/2008 4:36:54 AM PDT by MartinStyles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
"botulism cannot be spread as described here."

Nor can BSE (Mad Cow Disease). The incubation time in humans can be decades, and there is no way the pathogens could make the traverse described.

16 posted on 07/19/2008 4:38:33 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

More than bio-terror, mega-arson scares me. Terrorists could burn millions of acres with virtually no technology whatsoever, if they hit at the right time and place.


17 posted on 07/19/2008 5:03:40 AM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Only a Kennedy between us and tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Yes. Next dumb question please.

"But how will they get them?" Iran will give them away, as soon as they have 25 or so left for themselves. While the west does nothing.

18 posted on 07/19/2008 5:05:12 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What I fear is economic terrorism, we are seeing a form of it right now and we have no defense for it.


19 posted on 07/19/2008 5:24:26 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (The world WILL be cleaner, safer and more productive without Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

I’d try a highly communicable diseasein an area of low resistance. Small pox spread in San Francisco bath houses for a start/ Maybe plague? That is relatively easy.


20 posted on 07/19/2008 5:37:58 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01
"Analysis: Will terrorists hijack passanger jets and fly them into major government and financial assets?"

Doubtful. Previous attacks were predicated on the belief that cooperation would be exchanged for safety. That illusion was hopelessly shattered. Passengers would not go along with terrorists regardless of what weapons they had, because everyone knows the likely outcome of cooperation is death anyway. The terrorists would have trouble getting through the flight cabin door as well.

21 posted on 07/19/2008 5:39:36 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Yes. Next dumb question please. "But how will they get them?" Iran will give them away, as soon as they have 25 or so left for themselves. While the west does nothing.

We routinely undersetimate the difficulty of producing reliable nuclear weapons. It turns out the Iranians have trouble launching 4 missles simultaneously, from OLD technology!

22 posted on 07/19/2008 5:42:30 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick; Popman
This was discussed shortly after 9/11, a FReeper Petroleum Engineer wrote then that drilling though the 18 inches or so of glass would not be a problem. He also pointed out that the oil itself being far underground would not be effected by surface or air burst nukes even if for some reason they were used on the oil fields rather than on the intended targets. That Engineer was of course banned during the FR purge of evil scientists.
23 posted on 07/19/2008 5:46:37 AM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Years from now, I think (based on the recent revelation of 500 tons of yellowcake removed from Iraq) we will learn that the Bush administration in fact found tons of chem/bio materials in Iraq; that it was secretly and over a long period of time removed so that the terrorists didn't know where it was, or when it was being taken out; and that the "Iraq Study Group" was in fact a cover, a sleight-of-hand to draw attention away from the real sites where we have been working since 2003.

The yellowcake and the 100 buried fighter jets that we didn't know about suggest to me that vast quantities of deadly materials can exist without the media, or the "Iraq Study Group," ever knowing about it.

I am less certain that there has been a "doomsday note" sent to all ME governments that in the event of a major chem/bio/nuke attack on American soil, Mecca ceases to exist, but I don't entirely exclude it.

24 posted on 07/19/2008 5:47:38 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Not much of an analysis


25 posted on 07/19/2008 6:02:08 AM PDT by nuconvert (Obama - Preferred by 4 out of 5 Dictators & Terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

Heh heh!

And, the extra support provided by the thick glass flooring will go a long way in stabilising the drill column, and providing a good sealant for steam-injection oil extraction techniques to be employed. It’ll even convert some of the hardened crude into liquid, effectively boosting production.

Bomb away!


26 posted on 07/19/2008 6:07:46 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
FReeper Petroleum Engineer wrote then that drilling though the 18 inches or so of glass would not be a problem.

Yeah, but those radioactive suits and full head gear you have to work in would be a bitch in 120 degree weather


27 posted on 07/19/2008 6:12:27 AM PDT by Popman (McCain as POTUS is odious, Obama as POTUS is unthinkable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

Call me paranoid, but I have been suspicious about the ongoing salmonella infections. The Rajneeshi cult in Oregon spread salmonella by surrepticiously spraying salad bars. I wonder if there is a jihadi working in a vegetable distribution company somewhere in America? Homeland Security should be looking into this possibility.


28 posted on 07/19/2008 6:24:32 AM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: darth

> Call me paranoid, but I have been suspicious about the ongoing salmonella infections.

One of the things that this points out is the widespread damage that can already be done, even without biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

Plenty of damage can be done by conventional means, like ordinary run-of-the-mill diseases. And one of the nifty byproducts is that we will never be certain whether an outbreak is due to ordinary causes or due to terrorist activity. This would allow them to claim all outbreaks as their own work, greatly multiplying their effectiveness.

Asymetrical warfare at its finest.


29 posted on 07/19/2008 6:33:34 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

btt


30 posted on 07/19/2008 6:35:44 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimmy Valentine

> I’d try a highly communicable diseasein an area of low resistance. Small pox spread in San Francisco bath houses for a start/ Maybe plague? That is relatively easy.

Product recalls get pretty expensive very quickly, too. Even if a company is insured, and even if the recall is found to be for a false alarm, the ongoing effects of a recall can be extremely damaging. Remember the Tylenol recall? Now imagine that, done on purpose, to say 100 different products in different industries.

How easy would *that* be for a terrorist group to finesse? And how many times per year could they carry it off?

Even if 99% of the recalls were false alarms, it would only take one or two to be real — with some nasty consequences — in order to make this a very legitimate terrorist weapon.

Have the terrorists thought of this one yet? They would be fools if they hadn’t. And one thing that they have demonstrated time and again is that they may be fanatics, but fools they are not.


31 posted on 07/19/2008 6:39:46 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Another unexpected bonus is the glass surface would reflect solar radiation far more efficiently than sand and dirt, cooling the planet and saving us from Global Warming.


32 posted on 07/19/2008 7:13:30 AM PDT by xDGx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xDGx

Fantastic!

Maybe an aerial spraying of silver oxide just before the nukes would glaze the surface with a mirror finish!

:^)


33 posted on 07/19/2008 7:18:08 AM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
A "dirty bomb" conventional high explosives laced with relatively easy to obtain radioactive materials would wreak havoc in a major city. The BBC made for TV movie "A Dirty War" portrays just such an attack on central London with chilling accuracy.

However, even hijacking a gasoline tanker and ramming it into a shopping mall, hospital or school would have almost the impact of a WMD.

34 posted on 07/19/2008 8:33:51 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
As long as we are playing the scenario games, I'm sure that a few of us here could scare us witless.
1)Liquefied natural gas is always a fun option. If Boradwater energy ever builds their proposed regasification terminal in Long Island Sound, it would be a ripe target.
2. The chemical plants and refineries in Northern New Jersey or along the Delaware River. These plants not only give the areas that pleasant odor, but also contain some rather nasty inflammable substances.
3. Speaking of refineries, oil refineries are a twofer. Not only do they burn nicely, but destroying a few would hurt the US economy disproportionately to immediate deaths.
4. Speaking of energy, electrical plants, generators, substations, and powerlines are ripe targets. ConEd is not secure and our powergrid is overloaded. Tick tock.
5. Railroads. Derailing a train isn't that hard. Commuter lines are nice targets, but the trais carrying chemicals are also newsworthy.
35 posted on 07/19/2008 9:30:09 AM PDT by rmlew (Liberalism is like AIDS; it destroys the natural defenses of a nation or civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The Russian suitcase nukes have never materialized. No doubt the terrorists are even now looking for the manual. Was it blue wire then red wire, or red wire then green wire?


36 posted on 07/19/2008 9:33:07 AM PDT by RightWhale (I will veto each and every beer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
They hardly need them to be reliable, and they got our own designs via the Chinese. Swiss middlemen sharks have been caught with the bomb designs, and we know the Chinese stole every warhead design we have from Los Alamos more than a decade ago. As for tech help on all of it, thousands of Russian scientists are more than sufficient, and they have bought machines from Germany and Singapore.

The only routine underestimation going on is the threat, and the sole cause is outright cowardice.

37 posted on 07/19/2008 9:57:21 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The scariest possibility (to me) is that a potential aggressor might act predicated on their belief that a reflexively apologetic (Obamafied) US Government would do everything in its power to avoid determining or assigning responsibility for the attack.

Even a misguided belief on the part of such an aggressor that the US would not pursue them with unrelenting effort would greatly increase the likelihood of a CBN strike. Much of the Japanese military command did not believe we would respond to an attack on Pearl Harbor as we did. Admiral Yamamoto came to understand otherwise.

38 posted on 07/19/2008 9:58:11 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick

Well, we’ve been inundated with these dire scenarios for a long time now.

It’s really easy to scare the bejesus out of ourselves.

If you wanted to conduct terror, America could be a relatively easy place to conduct it in. Look at the number of nuts who go postal, etc.

The fact that nothing major has happened is telling.
Consider Gerald Posner’s theory that the Saudis themselves have boobytrapped their wells with nukes so as to negate any threat to them.

Pakistan, well, A PIA jet with a nuke crashing into CONUS would be treated as a “rouge” operation, :>>>


39 posted on 07/21/2008 10:00:31 AM PDT by swarthyguy (Osama Freedom Day: 2500 or so since September 11 2001! That's SIX +years, Dubya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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