How Terrorists Will Get Their Nuclear Weapons

The scenario unfolds at the beginning of America's war on terrorism when the first tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. With all the right words, and all the correct justification, the U.S. has embarked upon a "patience lost" battle against Terrorism.

Few civilized people believe Terrorism can go unchecked, and even nations who have turned a blind eye to their extremist citizens or even other so-called friendly nations in the Middle East, suddenly realise, that except for the hand of God, there go I. When terrorism moved from making simple stagecraft or blackmail for the release of prisoners, that new form of terrorism did indeed become a new form of war that frightened any country concerned with their welfare. We make that distinction, because we don't think Saddam Hussein is particularly worried. As a martyr and a supplier of terrorist needs whether it be weapons or finance, Hussein can pretty much be assured, no terrorist is going to be attacking Baghdad in the near future. After all, he is a terrorist himself -- simply look at the expenditures on his retinue and military weapons programs compared to that spent on his starving, dying people.

In any case, the scenario moves from those terrifying days of mourning over the attacks on the World Trade Center - phase two (least we forget they tried before), to those heady moments when the U.S. President, obviously angered, hurt and resolute declared war on Terrorism with every fibre of his soul, and the backing of his countrymen.

Unfortunately, barely two weeks after the disaster, the appeasement crowd, joined by the ever present pacifist anti-war radicals began a dis-information and propaganda campaign to instil doubt, fear, and lack of resolution in the American people. Disgusting and traitorous in the eyes of most Americans, we know we have to allow it, at least to a certain degree, least we become a country like Iraq where no one speaks ill of the leadership with severe and usually terminal punishment. But that set the stage for and continues to fuel the movement to appease the terrorists as illogical and ill fated as Chamberlain's incredibly stupid and naive return to Britain with his positive message from Chancellor Hitler.

Other forces began to play a few weeks ago. Almost immediately, the Taliban government began a song and dance designed to hold onto power in that country. As soon as Osama Bin Laden was intimated at being the lead terrorist behind the plot, Afghanistan began to look like a large hole in the ground. Pakistan, right next door, also became a doubly dangerous place to live. For the Taliban came from Pakistan, an export of ill-repute that the present government led by President Musharraf immediately wished had never been born. But born it was in the angry faces and ugly anti-western rhetoric of extremist Islamic schools, mosques and homes of the Middle East, and all too frequently in the streets. Not only in Pakistan, and of course, not principally Pakistan. For that struggling country was only one nest where terrorism is bred. By no means the largest hotbed, and of course only a small player, Pakistan is, never-the-less, the key player now on the stage of World Terrorism, and certainly without asking to be placed there by the majority of its people who practice a much gentler form of the religion of Islam.

Why is Pakistan so important? It is very simple. There are four elements which make Pakistan the most dangerous place on the earth, even more frightening, a more frightening prospect than even Iraq or Afghanistan, more desperate than Lebanon or Syria, more deadly than Sudan, and perhaps more pivotal than Israel and the Palestinians.

In reverse order of the elements that make up our concern,, we find Element Four: A volatile and unpredictable Pakistani people spurred by extremist anti-western, anti-modernisation, fundamentalist culture. "The old way is best" and "Western influence is evil" and "Attacks against the evil is okay". These perversions of the rational thought process set the climate for the Islamic Jihad intoned by extremists the day Israel became a nation and was attacked that very day. The fact that the climate continues and in countries distant from Israel confirms that this ideology is as pervasive and evil as the virulent form of communism that produced a five decade long Cold War.

Element Three is even more important: The prospect of an unstable government in Pakistan. Musharraf is concerned. And he well should be. With huge protests in the streets of his citizenry, both against his own policy to go along with the anti-terrorist coalition, and the street player's incredibly violent anti-western dialogue, it is clear his tenure is threatened. He has to hold his government together while walking the tightrope between keeping his citizens from general revolt, and begging for western retaliation for harboring or spawning the support structure for Osama Bin Laden. It is only a short leap of logic to realize that the Taliban are the export spoken of earlier, an export from Pakistan that might not go unpunished. In the middle, Musharraf is in danger. Fortunately he appears to have the strength to survive. But what if he doesn't? What are the stakes in the game if Pakistan loses Musharraf ?

Element Two is the almost certain radicalization of the Pakistani government if Musharraf is deposed. While one would hope for rationale thinkers like former Information Minister Mushahid Hussain, the truth is that analysts doubt a non fundamentalist government would survive the downfall of Musharraf . It is because of Element Four, the irrational, angry, fundamentalist element in Pakistan and it is because the country is, as Element Three intimates, the shakiness of the Pakistan government that few doubt that if Musharraf falls, so does Pakistan. And fall it would, right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden. The scenario at this point becomes a simple piece of logic. The fundamentalist extremists of Pakistan spawned the self righteous Taliban -- a set of students of Islam incorrectly interpreting the most holy works of Islam into the virulent evil-speak of Islamic extremism preaching hate, death, and Jihad. Osama Bin Laden is the poster child of the Taliban and that very same evil mantra of the extremist. While living in a cave in Afghanistan, the Taliban's secret leader Bin Laden, could, and would, rule an extremist Pakistani government, if not by deed, by influence. And that leads us to the most frightening element of all.

Element One is armageddon. Again simple logic dictates what happens next. With Osama Bin Laden's influence deep into the Pakistani government, with Jihad on the minds of everyone in power, the New Pakistan is a terrorist nation from top to bottom, with the silent majority of religious, reverent and anti-evil marginilized and forced into a corner where they no longer have any say in their country's future, and perhaps in its existence. And that existence would be short lived. As a terrorist nation, Pakistan would become the center of attention of the World's newly focused anti-terrorist, anti-extremist fervour. And what happens to a nation with its very survival at stake? Why they bring out their big guns, don't they? And there-in lies armageddon. Osama Bin Laden, if necessary can probably pull together $100 million despite the efforts to cut off his finances. Whether he needs to or not, that money, presented to the Pakistani government as a gift or a payment, buys him the Terrorist's most sought after tool for striking back at the infidels -- the nuclear weapon.

So now that we have taken you to that horrible place in your mind, let's explore it just a little further. We have been worried about nebulous reports of missing Soviet suitcase weapons. We have seen Peacemaker, a movie correctly spelling out how easy it is to use a primary from a thermo-nuclear weapon as a backpack nuke. Well, that is nothing compared to the very real and possible scenario of Pakistan happily handing over primaries or ready-to-go hydrogen weapons to people like Bin Laden, Khaddafi, or Hussein. The nuclear option, as soon as it is in the hands of a terrorist, is coming to America, Britain, Germany, France, and eventually via the Chekneyans, Russia. And some time after that, China too, who while hiding pretty effectively their own Islamic extremist terrorism problem, knows full well their own brand of terrorism within would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon.

So there you have the worst case scenario. It hinges greatly on maintaining a rational, anti-terrorist regime in Pakistan. And perhaps, the pivotal events are taking place as we speak. The western world must take great care in Pakistan, with what it asks Pakistan to do, and how its own actions portray Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan becomes the center of the universe for a good long while. And the Western world must also take great care to foster restraint in the country of India, a nation at odds with Pakistan since Pakistan separated its lands from that of India. The Kashmir conflict must not be the trigger for the downfall of the Pakistani government thus that issue must be marginilized for a while. And the western nations must take great care to provide the current government with the tools to continue their survival, which may mean a totally public hands-off approach, not involving Pakistan in the anti-terrorist efforts, and clearly dis-associating western influences, while quietly providing finance and support to the current regime. And while the west might not particularly like how the current regime came into power, might not like their intractable approach to slow and painful movement to assist the ATC (Anti-Terrorist Coalition), we must keep in mind that a change in government now is VERY likely to quickly lead to a nuclear explosion in Chicago, Detroit, New York, Dallas, L.A. or San Francisco. Or perhaps even Washington, London, Paris, Frankfurt, or Moscow. And the leader of which ever nation receives that gift from Islamic extremism, will retaliate in kind or face a revolt in their own country. A nuclear change that will change the world forever.

And for those reading thus far and guffawing at the whole idea...just consider the intelligence facts behind the amount of money and efforts by Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea to acquire, built or build, nuclear weapons. All it really takes is a nation friendly to the terrorists and you too could have a nuclear explosion in your back yard. And today there is no greater possibility for that nation to emerge, no more easily done, than that nation being Pakistan.

I think the Nuke option for Terrorists is not viable. The use of nukes would be viewed as utterly abhorrent by even many of these freaks jumping up and down in the streets of Pakistan. It would also scare off many of Osama's investor's. If a dirty nuke or small nuke that killed several hundred thousand in a major American city were set off then the entire world economy would change. America would most likley repsond in kind with a full barage of nuke attacks in Afghanistan. Further we would kill or try to any leader or group or businessman and their family whom we even suspected had anything to do with it. Then America would also isolate and build it's own energy resources and Arab oil prices would plummet. A nuke option is not viable for terrorists for it would earn a fierce response that make their goals seem idiotic in comparison to the suffering caused by our response. At least that is my view.

It also hinges on our or somebody's intel knowing where the Paks keep their nukes and going in an taking them out.Or maybe it hinges on telling the New Paks that India will have the go ahead to do whatever the hell they want to Pakistan and to Muslims in general.

What must be made clear to these fanatics is that their fanaticism will have terrible consequences. Maybe the U.S. is starting to get the mesage out. The other night on Fox or Pmsnbc I saw a chief researcher for NIH asked about smallpox. He was optimistic that we will have enough vaccines in four months for all, and he was confident in our protocols for dealing with an outbreak. Then he said something very dark. We would deal with smallpox. People would die and suffer, but we'd handle it. But the people who would do that would be very foolish since there is no way that smallpox would not make it back to the developing world where the effects would be catastrophic. A prediction based on the communicable nature of the disease or on the reality that it would be hand delivered back where it came from? This from a chief government spokesman.

The truly scary thing to me is not the basic threat of nuclear weapons -- we have lived with that threat since soon after WWII -- but rather that terrorists could acquire them, use them against us, and not have any idea who committed the crime. Where is the evidence? What is left after a nuclear blast? Who do you retaliate against? It is pretty clear that Pakistan would be the primary culprit and, in such an occurrence, I think that nuclear retaliation would be the only reasonable response.

But, really, let's face it: Even if the Pakistanis used a nuke against us, it would not result in Armageddon. They lack ICBM capability at present. More likely, it would be a tactical "suitcase" nuke with horrific devastation but not the kind that would put an end to life as we know it. Still, our leaders need to start addressing the cold, hard facts that any unstable nation possessing the capability to refine uranium or plutonium is a threat to the entire planet.

My comment comes from reading Henry Kissenger's "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy"

The object of having nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them is that if provoked, that they be employed in a manner that is most debilitating to an enemy.

We are dealing with religious zealots.

If they understood that any use of any nuclear or other WMD would result in the utter and total destruction of their religious symbols (along with a big black rock) - they will be deterred, and we may avoid this scenario - AS LONG AS they believe that we'll do it.

The question then is - how do you convince them that you're serious.

Say it.
Say it often.
and rattle the sword.

I think we can have a HUGE psychological effect on the zealots if we overfly Mecca at low altitude with a B-1B at a supersonic sprint.

Imagine the horror - theirs.

This was very well-written. It's possible this is a credible scenario. If they initiate it, probably half of Islam will die. Please note that the total energy of the WTC event was comparable to the yield of a small tactical nuke. The environmental damage can be compared to the damage the fallout from such a nuke would cause, though not as long lasting. (I do note however that Nagasaki and Hiroshima both have thriving metropolises around the memorial parks of their Ground Zeroes.) In other words: they took nineteen plane tickets, some box knives, and made a weapon of mass-destruction. THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT.

Whether we should reply in kind at this point in time is another question. If we could persuade the appropriate individuals to all line up in one spot.... For the moment, I'm perfectly happy whacking them with tiny stuff. I would like to see a lot of dragon's teeth sown across their folks, and I wouldn't mind having some of the nuke burrow bombs dropped on some of their holes. That seems much nicer than sending some poor slob with a .45 down the tunnels after them.

I don’t think this is a likely scenario. The leaders who have them. Will keep a tight leash on there N bombs. Once you let out one of your control. Well you’ve lost control of that one. And It just may come back and bite you. Do you know who your friends are. And what’s a friend today may not be tomorrow. And even so if you had an A-bomb would you give one to some Terrorists. The number one goal in to keep power. and you let one go and you may see it being returned to you..... Armed.

Also these bombs must be maintained. The elements that make them go boom Are unstable and must be refurbished. There is a reason things above 93 are not found in nature. You just can’t make one and it will be good forever. Along with these there are detectors that can detect N bombs by the decay of the elements in them.

I don’t think there lost at all They know were they are and that’s still in Russia. The reported missing ones I think are so they can claim we have gotten rid of all ours. Or some of those from the old KGB have them And if they do they will keep them for the same reason. They could be used on them.

As I said You can’t leave one sitting around on the shelf for years. The Polonium, Plutonium and other components will decay into uselessness in a short time.

When I was in the Navy. One of my responsibilities was to load the “ special Weapons “ on the Aircraft’s. So I know a little about the security and how they are handled. And I’m positive the Russkeys do the same. There not something you just walk off with. There are sensors that detect the “ rays “ given off. placed by the doors and all kind of other things in place.

We're almost there:

I would like to see a lot of dragon's teeth sown across their folks, and I wouldn't mind having some of the nuke burrow bombs dropped on some of their holes. That seems much nicer than sending some poor slob with a .45 down the tunnels after them.

America would most likley repsond in kind with a full barage of nuke attacks in Afghanistan. Further we would kill or try to any leader or group or businessman and their family whom we even suspected had anything to do with it. Then America would also isolate and build it's own energy resources and Arab oil prices would plummet.

This is what we would HOPE America would do, however ...

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.