Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2

[The Viceroy]

Although its complete BS, if such an attack did take place, it would most certainly herald a rather bleak future in for all of us. Not just the fact that a group of extremists had managed to get hold of weopans of mass destruction, and could continue to do so after the initial hit, but the reaction from the western world.

Being married to an Indian, I already know that many English people thing she is from Pakistan, and as she is from a Punjabi family, who are Sikh, I know how they feel when people call them "Paki's", or think they are muslim.

If this happens now, how much worse will it get when society starts turning a blind eye to this ignorance and blind racism ?? what when society starts aiding it .. and our politicians find favour from electors who want the "Pakis" out ??

It is easy to make a scape goat of Islam for the wrongs of those who claim to act in its name. The UK did not invade St Peters in Rome because the IRA claimed to be Catholic ! We should not blame Islam and muslims for Al Quida.

Thank God ive got my house in India ...

[Solver]

I don't want to put words into Solver's mouth, but I read the original quote as saying (Some) muslims pissed half the world off, but even if (some) muslims nuked New York, that wouldn't make it ok to nuke cities full of muslims, because 98% of those muslims didn't support nuking New York. I'm not sure I understand what your issue with that is, unless you misunderstood it (or I did).

That's right.

[Kuciwalker]

Come to think of it, the response I mentioned is probably the same one I'd give playing Civ except it wasn't quite as harsh

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Although its complete BS, if such an attack did take place, it would most certainly herald a rather bleak future in for all of us. Not just the fact that a group of extremists had managed to get hold of weopans of mass destruction, and could continue to do so after the initial hit, but the reaction from the western world.

Being married to an Indian, I already know that many English people thing she is from Pakistan, and as she is from a Punjabi family, who are Sikh, I know how they feel when people call them "Paki's", or think they are muslim.

If this happens now, how much worse will it get when society starts turning a blind eye to this ignorance and blind racism ?? what when society starts aiding it .. and our politicians find favour from electors who want the "Pakis" out ??

It is easy to make a scape goat of Islam for the wrongs of those who claim to act in its name. The UK did not invade St Peters in Rome because the IRA claimed to be Catholic ! We should not blame Islam and muslims for Al Quida.

Thank God ive got my house in India ...

Wow, finally a decent, rational response. Listening to people here depresses me, and makes me think that for all the crap about "not letting the terrorists win" by going shopping, they already won, by exposing the weakness of the commitment of people to the "values of the west" we supposedly champion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava

it's about principality... the Islamic world, whether it wants to admit it or not, has declared war on us (I say us, because it's not just America buddy)... sure... people dismiss it as "a few extremists". I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Kids in the Muslim world wear T-Shirts of OBL. Islamists have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of supporters. Sure, the regimes in the region (except for Iran and Saudi Arabia) may not actively support their efforts, but they allow them to exist. And America shouldn't sit back and wait to get hit again. And if an American city gets nuked??!! Well that's it. All bets are off. Any civilians not wanting to be vaporized should get the **** outta Dodge.

Too bad we don;t have a "crying" smiley, becuase a simply does not convey the correct feelings.

You know something..I bet this is the same line of thinking that someone who would nuke acity would have. IN essence, you agree with OBL and his ilk, at least with thier mode of thinking (not just you but everyone in this threat who makes it a relgious war agains muslim, ie. most people in this thread) that makes 9/11, and any WMD attack against a city a legitimate tactic..if only becuase "THEY" supposedly hate "US".

[Pekka]

I think nukes are the worst weapons to fight terrorism.. even if the terrorists succeed in massive attack. Maybe even with their own nuke. Because we can't nuke terrorists, it's impossible. But terrorists can nuke a country, their target is pretty large and anything goes and counts, where as our side has to be more careful.

So let's say the nuke would explode here then and not in the US. Let's say I and everyone I know dies from it. I still don't hope we'd nuke back.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that if someone nuked New York one of the first things we'd want to know is where they got the weapon. AFAIK the only real potential sources would be stolen weapons from Pakistan, or the ex-Soviet Union, or a weapon bought from North Korea. I don't think there is any other plausible source. In any case, the cost of procuring such a weapon would be extraordinarily high, unless Al-Queada was able to place a mole within the Pakistani nuclear facility, so any covert operation aimed at placing a nuke in New York would have to involve not only the terrorist organization, but also the country from which the weapon was procured, and the money source. The response to such an attack would have to be at least in part focused on identifying and neutralizing the threat from these three entities.

The most likely money source for a terrorist operation attempting to put a nuke in New York would be the people who have put up the big money for such operations in the past, the Saudi Arabians. A nuclear attack on the US then would almost certainly eventually lead to the US mounting some sort of response to Saudi money being used to massacre Americans.

The next question is, how would the US response to the nation providing the weapon? If the weapon was found to have been procurd by theft, then certainly the US would demand some sort of assurances that the source nation's nuclear weapons stock would be better secured in the future. If the source were Pakistan the US might even demand the surrender of its weapons stock and the termination of its nuclear weapons program. If North Korea sold a weapon to terrorists The response might be stronger. I wonder if China would give aid to North Korea under such circumstances, or might even be persuaded to do something to bring its unruly neighbor under control.

[GePap]

Thank you Strangelove for a reaosned response

Most of it I would agree with with the exception of the US asking Pakistan to end its nuclear weapons program- that would not go anywere, as the paks will simply point to India and our own stocks and say "you think you need them for defense, well so do we, so go screw yourselves.."

It would be interesting if such an attack helped fuel a movement for total nuclear disarmament, but that is pie in the sky: people with nukes right now are not willing to give them up.

[PLATO]

GePap...You must someday learn the difference between an idealogical world and the real world. That's the problem with most liberals. Great ideas, but not the way the world works.

The response of the United States would be to use whatever pressure necessary to determine the country that allowed the training of the terrorist. Then an invasion is almost assured. Someone would be brought to justice. Very little chance that the US would respond with nuclear weapons. As far as world reaction? No one would question that type of response. It is exactly the one that was given after 9/11.

Ming is right, however, it would definately take the game to the next level. Countries like Syria would probably be given an option...Give up the terrorist or your next. Western Europe would eithier support or stay out of the way when this happened. Whatever the politics, we are all united on the use of nuclear weapons and just about any action to send a message to the next generation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
GePap...You must someday learn the difference between an idealogical world and the real world. That's the problem with most liberals. Great ideas, but not the way the world works.

Please. The world works according to the ideas people make up for it..in essence, if you think the world is a nasty, brutish place, you make it so. The world has no preset reality-people make it up- Now, you want a bleak, violent revenge filled, mindless world- you got one. I am trying to make a better one- if only becuase it would be cnie to try out for a while.

The response of the United States would be to use whatever pressure necessary to determine the country that allowed the training of the terrorist. Then an invasion is almost assured. Someone would be brought to justice. Very little chance that the US would respond with nuclear weapons. As far as world reaction? No one would question that type of response. It is exactly the one that was given after 9/11.

After 9/11 there was a great surg of pro-Americanism in most places. After 2 years of our response, worl opinion of the US is lower than it has been in a few decades. I amsure a similar patter would follow the nuking of a US city-given our likely failed response. As for saking what coutnry trained the terrorists- Al Qaeda rains itself (witness, besides the failure to find WMD's in Iraq, any serious Al Qaeda-Iraq connection). We already invaded the state where most of their training was in-afghanistan, and we have kept only 10k men there, while we sent 120k to an complex Iraqi misison at best tangetially connected to the war on terrorism.

Ming is right, however, it would definately take the game to the next level. Countries like Syria would probably be given an option...Give up the terrorist or your next. Western Europe would eithier support or stay out of the way when this happened. Whatever the politics, we are all united on the use of nuclear weapons and just about any action to send a message to the next generation.

The US does not have the capability to invade and hold Syria, which is small, given the commitments we have right now withut creating huge strain on the military..far less to get involved in the one place they would really have to get involved in, Pakistan. Things don;t hapen in a vacuum- the failure of invading Iraq as a serious breakthrough in the "war on terrorism" realistically precludes any other such pre-emptive attacks, specially since the US used the rationale that attacking Iraq would make it safer from a WMD attack- if a WMD attack took place, it would reveal the utter emptyness of the claim, and lay open the question of how invading any state other than the possible source of the nuclear weapons (which would be most likely-perhaps undoubtedly, pakistan) would do what invading Iraq so demostrably failed to do.

The US has a limited number of men at its disposals- even if it begun to draft for more men, it would take a year or more for them to be usefull on the field ad fully equiped. Our military is starined to meet its current commitment- that means what we could do after such a nuclear attack is limited, unless we puled out of iraq. And as I said, things don;t begin on a clean slate- if a nuke attack did happen, the the effecitveness of all anti-terrorism steps taken, form the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Department of Homeland security would be under great scrutiny. Of those three, Iraq would show itself to be an utter failure in terms of lowering Al qaeda's ability to hurt us- thus making repeats of such a policy against states not known to have significant ties with Al qaeda highly questionalbe. Doctor Strangelove was right- the two states most liekly to fall under the microscope would be SA and Pakistan.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that if someone nuked New York one of the first things we'd want to know is where they got the weapon. AFAIK the only real potential sources would be stolen weapons from Pakistan, or the ex-Soviet Union, or a weapon bought from North Korea. I don't think there is any other plausible source. In any case, the cost of procuring such a weapon would be extraordinarily high, unless Al-Queada was able to place a mole within the Pakistani nuclear facility, so any covert operation aimed at placing a nuke in New York would have to involve not only the terrorist organization, but also the country from which the weapon was procured, and the money source. The response to such an attack would have to be at least in part focused on identifying and neutralizing the threat from these three entities.

The most likely money source for a terrorist operation attempting to put a nuke in New York would be the people who have put up the big money for such operations in the past, the Saudi Arabians. A nuclear attack on the US then would almost certainly eventually lead to the US mounting some sort of response to Saudi money being used to massacre Americans.

The next question is, how would the US response to the nation providing the weapon? If the weapon was found to have been procurd by theft, then certainly the US would demand some sort of assurances that the source nation's nuclear weapons stock would be better secured in the future. If the source were Pakistan the US might even demand the surrender of its weapons stock and the termination of its nuclear weapons program. If North Korea sold a weapon to terrorists The response might be stronger. I wonder if China would give aid to North Korea under such circumstances, or might even be persuaded to do something to bring its unruly neighbor under control.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Please. The world works according to the ideas people make up for it..in essence, if you think the world is a nasty, brutish place, you make it so. The world has no preset reality-people make it up- Now, you want a bleak, violent revenge filled, mindless world- you got one. I am trying to make a better one- if only becuase it would be cnie to try out for a while.

Please continue trying...the world needs the help. You might also try recognizing the reality of the world as it is. In most places there is not the time to dream of the altruistic when your wondering how to survive the day.

After 9/11 there was a great surg of pro-Americanism in most places. After 2 years of our response, worl opinion of the US is lower than it has been in a few decades. I amsure a similar patter would follow the nuking of a US city-given our likely failed response. As for saking what coutnry trained the terrorists- Al Qaeda rains itself (witness, besides the failure to find WMD's in Iraq, any serious Al Qaeda-Iraq connection). We already invaded the state where most of their training was in-afghanistan, and we have kept only 10k men there, while we sent 120k to an complex Iraqi misison at best tangetially connected to the war on terrorism.

Although you rambled a lot, I take it you agree that we would see a similar response as that which we saw to 9/11? In addition, you are confusing the war on terror as just being a war on Al-qaeda. Al-qaeda is just a part of it. It is the entire problem that our policy now seeks to solve. Your posts continually refer to the situation as if it should only have been a war on Al-qaeda. While this may agree with the conventional wisdom in the Franco-Germanic-Russiam triangle, I would argue that to win even that part of the war on terror you must address regimes like Sadaam's. Once again, after 12 years of trying...

BTW, I don't suppose that you would argue the fact that Sadaam is a terrorist would you? And, as you put it, "please" on the tierd old argument that other leaders may be guilty of the same crimes.

The US does not have the capability to invade and hold Syria, which is small, given the commitments we have right now withut creating huge strain on the military..far less to get involved in the one place they would really have to get involved in, Pakistan. Things don;t hapen in a vacuum- the failure of invading Iraq as a serious breakthrough in the "war on terrorism" realistically precludes any other such pre-emptive attacks, specially since the US used the rationale that attacking Iraq would make it safer from a WMD attack- if a WMD attack took place, it would reveal the utter emptyness of the claim, and lay open the question of how invading any state other than the possible source of the nuclear weapons (which would be most likely-perhaps undoubtedly, pakistan) would do what invading Iraq so demostrably failed to do.

The US has a limited number of men at its disposals- even if it begun to draft for more men, it would take a year or more for them to be usefull on the field ad fully equiped. Our military is starined to meet its current commitment- that means what we could do after such a nuclear attack is limited, unless we puled out of iraq. And as I said, things don;t begin on a clean slate- if a nuke attack did happen, the the effecitveness of all anti-terrorism steps taken, form the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Department of Homeland security would be under great scrutiny. Of those three, Iraq would show itself to be an utter failure in terms of lowering Al qaeda's ability to hurt us- thus making repeats of such a policy against states not known to have significant ties with Al qaeda highly questionalbe. Doctor Strangelove was right- the two states most liekly to fall under the microscope would be SA and Pakistan.

We are talking about a post nuclear attack on New York right? The US would have no problem funding and fielding whatever size military that would be needed to handle the job. Soldiers could begin to take the field within 10 weeks of enlistment. To equip them with the latest gizmo's could take a while as production ramps up, but there is really no need for that. There are vast amounts of less than state of the art military equipment around. The new soldiers would likely be used as occupiers with older 2nd level equipment while the experienced and well equiped units formed the edge of the spear. Even this would probably not be necessary however, given the nearly 40 year old Pentagon requirement to be able to fight two major wars at one time. The US is far from mobilized at this point, but a nuke attack could change that quickly.

Once again, I invite you to step down off the liberal diaz and look at the world for that which it is.

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
What the heck. Why February 2? IIRC the date September 11 had some meaning for the attackers, but does the date February 2 have some meaning for Muslim extremists?

If Osama comes out of his cave and sees his shadow, it's 3 more weeks of terrorist strikes against the infidels.

[Jack_www]

GePap:

I dont know about Europe, but I think I would know how the USA would react to such an attack. First you must realize that couple of million of people would be dead from such an attack. If you think that 9-11 angered most Americans, this would have a much far reaching effect.

First I doubt there would be a attack in a short period of time. I think that American Intelligence would first go to work finding out were this weapon came from. At the same time a draft or if enough people volunteered, the US millitary would see a major moblization. The Nation Guard would also be called up.

Also I think much tighter security at the borders and ports would be seen as well. Just like after 9-11 and the airports. We would see a complete shut down of all ports and the border untill security could be upgraded.

Once the nation is found that supplied the weapon, well I think that they would not have a very fun time. ALso I bebt that nations like Syria, Iran, and North Korea would be invaded one by one, and the ones not being invaded first would be given a certain period of time to come clean or face the might of US millitary.

If we still have Bush in office this would be a certainity. I just hope it never happens.

[Agathon]

Does anyone have an answer to this question?

Where is a terrorist going to get a nuclear weapon from?

I mean, it requires massive infrastructure, enough power to run a small city and wads of cash to make one. That requires a state.

So which state?

1. Iran? Nope. Osama has made it clear that Shia Muslims are the enemies of God.

2. North Korea? Nope. Kim Jong Il is a Communist and they fall under "enemies of God" too.

3. Israel?

4. Pakistan? Musharraf won't give him one. Secular leaders of Sunni Muslim nations are, you guessed it, enemies of God.

5. The Black Market? Nope. There is no black market for nuclear weapons. At least no real one, I mean it's probably like the market for "fashionable desert properties".

That leaves India, the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Which one of these states would risk massive retaliation by giving AQ a nuclear weapon?

I'd say none.

A radiological weapon is not out of the question though.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that if someone nuked New York one of the first things we'd want to know is where they got the weapon. AFAIK the only real potential sources would be stolen weapons from Pakistan, or the ex-Soviet Union, or a weapon bought from North Korea.

You forgot one nation where the nukes could come from. America itself. John Mohammed? Ex-army. Timothy McVeigh? Ex-Army. I know at least one conservative ex-military type who wants a revolution.

Deny it if you wish, and I know security is incredibly strict in these facilities, but it is also a large beauracracy in many ways, especially when counting nuclear plants.

Anthrax? Welll a new theory says muslim fundamentalists, but evidence clearly points to a U.S. Army lab.

Pop-Psychology? Spurned military can be very, very dangerous. Wes Clark has gone from prasing Bush to hating him.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Agathon
Does anyone have an answer to this question?

Where is a terrorist going to get a nuclear weapon from?

Actually, North Korea has already threatened to do just that. We shall see about that.

[Vince278]

One last moment thought: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Such things have happened before (even if only for a short while...).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Vince278

Actually, North Korea has already threatened to do just that. We shall see about that.

Where did they threaten to give one to OBL?

Anyway, you should know by now that most of what Kim Jong Il says is not to be taken at face value. All he wants from nukes is safety from US attack. It would be ridiculous for him to invite it by allowing his weapons to be used against the US.

Actually, Kim Jong Il did call GWB a "hooligan and a bastard" in an official state speech so he can't be all that bad.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I know at least one conservative ex-military type who wants a revolution.

What kind of society would he like to see put into place instead of the present one?

[Heresson]

H. Even if they do not have the bomb, France will be happy to lend one or two.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by NeOmega


You forgot one nation where the nukes could come from. America itself. John Mohammed? Ex-army. Timothy McVeigh? Ex-Army. I know at least one conservative ex-military type who wants a revolution.

Deny it if you wish, and I know security is incredibly strict in these facilities, but it is also a large beauracracy in many ways, especially when counting nuclear plants.

Anthrax? Welll a new theory says muslim fundamentalists, but evidence clearly points to a U.S. Army lab.

Pop-Psychology? Spurned military can be very, very dangerous. Wes Clark has gone from prasing Bush to hating him.

The problem is, even if they could get through security, how would they get the bomb out of the silo? The thing is mounted in huge missile, and they can't just walk into the silo and pick up the warhead. I'm sure they couldn't get it off a carrier. Maybe an air force base, but still, I don't see a possibility their.

[Agathon]

Hey, who lives in NY?

They can post all day and tell us when the bomb goes off.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

nukes? even if a 9-11 attack happens again it's over for a few more countries. war on terror is just against Al-qaeda??? please. Iraq just happened to fit in nice to the 'time table' the US happens to have. Everyone dogs Bush for being Bush and than you all believe him when he says Iraq was about WMD. Please, Iraq was about getting a big fat powerful US present right smack in the middle of the middle east. Oh, and oil... probably.

Al-qaeda's high point was 9-11. The best they can do now is jump and down and make noise. and even that is a job for them. It appears bin baby can't even afford a VHS recorder. These 'tapes' of him spewing out some god crap are getting boring.

nukes... please. I'll say it again. The US could take on the world - and win. We took Iraq and up to this point have lost less than 500 men. I believe I said that would be the case more than a year ago right here on apolyton. where the folks now, who said that was way off???

oh, and 9-11... as good as it went down for Al-qaeda was a lot of luck. that second plane almost missed comming in so fast. although it would have made a mess somwhere in NYC had it missed the tower. My point? Dont expect another 9-11... or anything like it from Al-qaeda. Not anytime soon (years to come).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
H. Even if they do not have the bomb, France will be happy to lend one or two.

Of course, we just love the idea of being nuked!
Like everybody else btw.

No secular country wan possibly give nukes to Al Qaeda, because they are too unpredicatble, and simply because the secular country doesn't want to be nuked by the US (having one's nuke shipped by a missile or by a terrorist is the same: it's the declaration of a nuclear war).
The chances that Pakistan or Korea give their nukes willingly to Al Qaeda are about as high as a nuclear aggression from the USSR was. (and no, the fact that you Yanks were paranoid about it doesn't make the threat any true)

The only country that would be willing to declare a nuclear war would be one led by religious extremists, placing their delirium higher than the survival of their people. Such situation could arise if the moderates lose in Iran, if the islamists overthrow Musharraf, or if Israel is taken by a religious frenzy (fortunately it won't happen anytime soon).

[pchang]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course, we just love the idea of being nuked!
Like everybody else btw.

No secular country wan possibly give nukes to Al Qaeda, because they are too unpredicatble, and simply because the secular country doesn't want to be nuked by the US (having one's nuke shipped by a missile or by a terrorist is the same: it's the declaration of a nuclear war).
The chances that Pakistan or Korea give their nukes willingly to Al Qaeda are about as high as a nuclear aggression from the USSR was. (and no, the fact that you Yanks were paranoid about it doesn't make the threat any true)

The only country that would be willing to declare a nuclear war would be one led by religious extremists, placing their delirium higher than the survival of their people. Such situation could arise if the moderates lose in Iran, if the islamists overthrow Musharraf, or if Israel is taken by a religious frenzy (fortunately it won't happen anytime soon).

Islamists overthrowing Musharraf or Islamists within the Pakistan military stealing a nuke are well within the realm of possibility. Musharraf's hold on Pakistan is tenous.

[Heresson]

You know, I just recalled a poll according to which a third of the French wished Saddam would win the recent war...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by pchang
Islamists overthrowing Musharraf or Islamists within the Pakistan military stealing a nuke are well within the realm of possibility. Musharraf's hold on Pakistan is tenous.

Yes. I only held the religious frenzy in Israel for near-impossible in the near future.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
You know, I just recalled a poll according to which a third of the French wished Saddam would win the recent war...

... and this soooooo obviously means Chirac will nuke the US

[Heresson]

Knowing Chirac, I wouldn't be so suprised. :P
Chirac is one of the most childish, arrogant, and ruthless world leaders.