Posted on 10/22/2001 6:20:06 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Could the next chapter of our national nightmare be a nuclear one? How hard would it be for operatives of Osama bin Laden to deliver a "suitcase nuke" to our doorstep?
The technical answer is that the threat is still considered to be remote; there is no hard evidence that any terrorist group, including bin Laden's, has a finished nuclear weapon in its arsenal. But not long ago, anthrax seemed a distant threat. And it is possible for the bad guys to assemble an atom bomb with contraband uranium and off-the-shelf parts. "It's not particularly probable, but it's possible,'" says Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The difficulty is that we are dealing with a wide range of low-probability cases. We can't be afraid of any one, but we have to be concerned about all of them." Among those probabilities: "dirty" conventional bombs loaded with radioactive garbage and attacks on nuclear plants that cause massive radiation leaks.
For years, cloak-and-dagger stories have circulated that Soviet suitcase nukes (also known as atomic demolition munitions, or ADMs) had gone unaccounted for and presumably ended up on the Russian black market. The Russians have offered confusing and conflicting statements about the disposition of their ADMs, leading some to suspect the worst. The ADMs weigh from 60 lbs. to 100 lbs., according to Bruce Blair, a former U.S. Air Force officer and expert on Soviet nuclear weapons. They could be carried in a case 8 in. by 16 in. by 24 in. The fissile material inside the mini-nukes degrades over time, though, and it's unlikely that the Russians maintained them or that their new owners could. "There's no good evidence that any rebel group or terrorist has these," says John Lepingwell, a nuclear expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
If terrorists can't buy portable nukes, they would have to make them. And in a frightening study done by the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonproliferation group in Washington, a panel of nuclear-explosives experts concluded that a group of dedicated terrorists without nuclear backgrounds could assemble a bomb if it had the right materials (such as plutonium 239, uranium 235, plutonium oxide and uranium oxide). It would take about a year to complete the job. "There's little question that the only remaining obstacle is the acquisition of the material," says Paul Leventhal, the institute's president. Less than 110 kg of active ingredients could yield 10 kilotons of explosive power--a Hiroshima-size weapon. Even if the terrorists didn't get the recipe quite right, a 1-kiloton yield could still devastate a city. And forget the suitcase: a truck will do, or a container ship to float the bomb into an American port.
Where would bin Laden get the material? Again, the most common answer is Russia, with its reputation as a fissile flea market. And a bin Laden associate has told authorities that the mastermind is shopping for nuclear ingredients. Adds Leventhal: "My feeling is that the prudent assumption is that bin Laden is nuclear capable in some fashion." Other experts are less certain that any terrorist group could pull off a nuke. A 1999 Rand study on terrorism noted somewhat reassuringly that "building a nuclear device capable of producing mass destruction presents Herculean challenges for terrorists and indeed even for states with well-funded and sophisticated programs."
Which is why the greater danger may lie in dirty bombs, conventional weapons used to spray radioactive material--anything from used reactor rods to contaminated clothing--over wide areas. Although the death toll wouldn't be great, the contamination and the public panic could be widespread. "The ultimate dirty bomb is a nuclear power reactor," says NCI's Leventhal. That someone will run a jet into a cooling tower isn't the only risk. Periodically the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has staged mock attacks against facilities, and the faux intruders won half the time--meaning they were in a position to cause severe damage. It's a target-rich environment: not only is the core vulnerable, but one NRC study also concluded that if terrorists blew up the cooling pool that holds the spent fuel, the radiation could kill 6% of the people living within 10 miles of the plant.
with reporting by Mark Thompson/Washington
" 02 October 2000
Secretary of Defense Cohen (remember him?) Cites Russia, China, Weapons of Mass Destruction as Top Foreign Policy and Defense Challenges Link to discussion of terrorism
Addressing an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) October 2, Defense Secretary Cohen: "With regard to weapons of mass destruction, we are now seeing at least 20, 24 countries let's call it two dozen countries who either have developed or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's a word that doesn't mean a lot, I suppose, to most people who hear it.
And that's the reason why, when I went on television a couple of years ago, I held up that five-pound bag of sugar, because it loses its meaning when you use that phraseology.
If you take a five-pound bag of sugar and you say, assuming this were filled with, let's say, anthrax instead of sugar and you spread that with the right kind of temperatures and right kind of wind over a city the size of Washington DC, you could wipe out almost 70 percent of the population just with five pounds.
There are tons of anthrax in existence. There are tons that have been manufactured. And so this is just one element that we have to contend with for the future. How do we gain control over these weapons of mass destruction, which are proliferating and will continue to proliferate?" (Then Poet Cohen just had to lapse into girlie-man gobbledeegook )"If you recall the words of the poet Auden, he talked about a "man clutching a little case who walks out briskly to infect a city whose terrible future may have just arrived."
The Israelis recently intercepted one individual carrying such a device in a backpack trying to enter Jerusalem via Ramallah.
Shouldn't the failed faux intruders have died? Do the defenders use mock defenses? Mock bullets?
If they really had nukes, why would they have put us on our guard with the 9/11 attacks? Why wouldn't they just put them in place and make that their first strike? They stand a much greater chance of failure now than they did before 9/11. It doesn't make sense.
The leaders of these groups have either gone to the best schools in the west or come up through the ranks of para-military groups having survived dozens of conflicts and or terror attacks. Often both.
A third level of leadership are the mullahs or Imams. Only the smart ones make it to the top. Knowing this has also lead me to believe that for the leaders other than the religious leaders, this campaign is not as much about religion as it is about power. Religion is just necessary to unite Moslems across national boundries.
The other thing that amazes me is their level of dedication. Many of these guys have been going hard at it for thirty years or more. And it is not nationalistic fervor because their main focus is always Pan Arabic and or multi national. Why give over one's life to such a cause? I do not think it is religious fervor. It is not something that can be accomplished in a single lifetime. Even if accomplished, a united Islam would never hang together for more than a few years. I suspect a giant hidden hand behind the curtain. The same hand which caused fasicsm to spring up all around the globe in the '30s.
The yield on one probably wouldn't be much, but used on a building it would be the ultimate irresistable force. Used in 1993 instead of the truck bomb, a SADM would have easily brought down one of the Twin Towers.
Now, whether you could actually move something spewing tell-tale radiation around the country is another matter (search on "Nuclear Emergency Search Team").
They said a suitcase bomb like this could cause as much damage as the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima. Also that the bombs could be carried in a back pack.
Always answer with ... REBUTAL No.1.****there has not been any credible information released that shows an attack of this type imminent ****
Follow up with SUBREBUTAL No.1-a is recommended if dealing with anyone with a nationalistic bent.:**** Spreading fear on false threats is not the only horrible tactic of big-media. They are also down-playing real threats toward the United States and trying to undercut all preparations for such a threat.****
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.