Newspaper: Al-Qaida Has Suitcase Nukes

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

That's a lot less than 80 kilos Cerberus

If you're a suicide bomber who doesn't mind a lethal radiation dose and you don't care if it goes off in transit you can strip it down to that kind of size by dumping the casing and safety devices.

Then again if a nuclear device could be reduced to something that simple everyone would be making them.

[lightblue]

If they had access to plutonium that is...

[Odin]

I am 99.9999% sure this is BS.

Jimmytrick, it is gullible, easily fooled people like you that fall for the Neo-Con scaremongering tactics.

[Ramo]

Yawn. Al-Qaeda is running its mouth again, big deal.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Odin
I am 99.9999% sure this is BS.

Jimmytrick, it is gullible, easily fooled people like you that fall for the Neo-Con scaremongering tactics.

Yes, Mister Chamberlain.

[GePap]

Give me a break..this is just silly.

They have had them since 1998 and have been in storage..where? Bob's apartment down by the Kasbah?

All stories of "nuclear black market" make better fiction that truth. A scientist selling nuclear know-how..yes, somoene selling actual working devices? No one has shown decent proof yet.

[Odin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Yes, Mister Chamberlain.

Don't compare me with that pathetic peice of British sh*t. WW2 was a conventional war, this isn't you nimrod. After Afganistan the War on Terror should mostly a job fo the CIA, law inforcement, and Special Ops.

Chicken-Hawk morons.

Bob's apartment down by the Kasbah?

[Pax]

Originally posted by obstructor


Mass destruction weapons can`t be found on every corner despite what you government thinks.

I respect a bit of paranoia but this si too much.

Mass destruction weapons can't be found on every corner. They can be found on ANY corner.

That is the problem. I personally think the first step is to sit down and try to work these issues out.

In any conflict
1. What does the other side want?
2. What will they give in return?
3. How far are they willing to go to get it?
4. How far are we willing to go to keep it?
5. Is theri cause just? Is ours just?
6. How does the other side feel about our cause?
and etc..

For example,
The problem in Afghanistan stems partly from a broken promise the U.S. made to help rebuild after the war with the USSR, and the question of sovereignty in Saudi Arabia. How bad the we want to stay in Saudi Arabia. How bad did we want Al qaida after they started target U.S. interests? Was dialogue ever attempted. Could the whole 9-11 tragedy have been avoided if we had kept our promise to rebuild or if we would have agreed to give assistance in return for peace(i.e. keep our promise).

When dialogue fails then we should resort to violence in self defense.

[Pax]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Customs?

Tons of illegal drugs are smuggled into America each year.

The regulations for Nukes are quite different. You absolutely have to take it through customs. That's how we had the incident at Hiroshima.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Sandman
Were I a terrorist leader, I'd not bother wasting my precious suitcase nuke on a soft target, slaughtering thousands of people, which would just enrage the rest of the population. It's surely powerful enough to severely damage a military base, or an oil refinery.

Logical, yes, but where's the terror in that? Damaging an oil refinery or a military base wouldn't do jack to the United States (or many other nations) in the long run. Taking out a chunk of a good-sized city is another story altogether, though.

They don't call 'em terrorists 'cause they hit police stations, kill soldiers and whatnot. Nice, big, juicy soft targets pulsating with innocents are the prime ribs of terrorists.

Gatekeeper

[Pax]

Osama Bin Laden is a highly intelligent charismatic innovative leader. He does not see himself as terrorist. He sees himself as a freedom fighter.

If you were him, would you blow up a nuclear device at this point in time. This would be absolute worst time to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S.. I'm sure that he never imagined what would happen when he blew up the WTC. Know one imagined it even though it had been attacked several times. For a leader, this was a PR nightmare. Only one country in the entire world came to his aid. Who would help him now if he sat off a nuke.

People make the mistake of thinking that Mr. Bin Laden, Mr. Bush, or any other leader is not intelligent because they don't understand there methods. I don't understand President Bush but he persuaded millions of people to vote for him, he persuaded congress to allow him to invade Iraq the same as another leader persuaded men to give their lives for a cause that we don't understand. In the aftermath both men have to justify their actions to their followers and the world around them or they will lose.

In short Al qaida will not be blowing up nukes in the forseeable future or they lose.

[Nubclear]

Actually, no: If Al Qaeda blows a nuke, they win. Even if their organization falls apart, America will act more intensly than it is now.
America will lose every ally it has. America will get bogged down in so many messes.
The American people will be terrorized, and America probably will fall deeper into despotism.

Al Qaeda suceeded in its goal on Sep11, and would suceed again with the detonation of a nuclear device.

[MRT144]

america isnt going to lose allies if its nuked. It's in how america reacts that it will lose allies.

[Nubclear]

And we all know America will act with complete rationality, just like with Sep11.

Oh wait....

[MRT144]

i dont think america acted completely irrational in some regards. In others though we have gone overboard. The thing im afraid of is something happening where Bush feels he needs to sieze control of the government idefinitely. I dont think he would be hasty in doing that given the right circumstances.

[ravagon]

I'm curious comrade ... What exactly do you find irrational about the way the US handled post Sept 11?

[Oncle Boris]

Suitcase nuclear device?




BTW, Bin Laden is not a terribly brilliant man. Not that I can deduce his IQ or anything, but he's not at all a cultured man. He knows about nothing about the Western world, and he doesn't speak any of its major language.

I doubt we can guess his intentions with traditional, western-style, 'geo-strategic' reasoning.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by ravagon
I'm curious comrade ... What exactly do you find irrational about the way the US handled post Sept 11?

There is the Iraq war, which doesn't even desserve explanation. Just about everyone in the world is pissed at America for their unilateralism, and the country is on the verge of civil war.

Then there's the Patriot Act, which will do about nothing good. Efficient intelligent services need not abuse their citizen's privacy to prevent terrorism.

What about Afghanistan? Did you know why the Taliban were in power, in the first place? Because Karzai's Northern Alliance had been even worse, which is what allowed the Taliban to build up on the opposition against them.

Now, the Taliban warlords are controlling most of the countryside again, and Muslim fundamentalism is on the rise. America is screwing the humanitarian help they were supposed to give, and, in such, are not showing to the Afghan people their commitment towards helping them. The situation will probably worsen when Osama gets caught, if he hasn't already.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the country is on the verge of civil war.

Hyperbole much?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by ravagon
I'm curious comrade ... What exactly do you find irrational about the way the US handled post Sept 11?

To put it quite simply, the US has been acting like an arrogant ass all over the world.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

the country is on the verge of civil war.

Hyperbole much?

When a country requires the presence of 200,000 highly trained foreign soldiers to be kept peaceful, I call this 'on the verge of civil war'.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't specify what country... I assumed you were refering to the US.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Suitcase nuclear device?




BTW, Bin Laden is not a terribly brilliant man. Not that I can deduce his IQ or anything, but he's not at all a cultured man. He knows about nothing about the Western world, and he doesn't speak any of its major language.

I doubt we can guess his intentions with traditional, western-style, 'geo-strategic' reasoning.

What requirement is it that he speak a European language to be brilliant. He's pretty damned smart. Don't underestimate a friend or enemy.
He was able to carry out successful attacks on the U.S. all over the world. He managed to cripple a U.S. warship and destroy several buildings on U.S. soil. The last time a country was able to do that was the war of 1812/Napoleonic wars.

He may not have originated the idea which only gives him more credit in the ability to utilize the talent he has available rather than be a one man show.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


If you're a suicide bomber who doesn't mind a lethal radiation dose and you don't care if it goes off in transit you can strip it down to that kind of size by dumping the casing and safety devices.

Then again if a nuclear device could be reduced to something that simple everyone would be making them.

The DHS has the details on the site. Are they lying when they say that suitcase bombs ar only 10 kilos?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus


What requirement is it that he speak a European language to be brilliant. He's pretty damned smart. Don't underestimate a friend or enemy.
He was able to carry out successful attacks on the U.S. all over the world. He managed to cripple a U.S. warship and destroy several buildings on U.S. soil. The last time a country was able to do that was the war of 1812/Napoleonic wars.

He may not have originated the idea which only gives him more credit in the ability to utilize the talent he has available rather than be a one man show.

I meant that he doesn't truly understand the Western world (the same could be said of Western heads of state about the Middle-East, I guess). The hatred for America in the Muslim world is huge; but still, OBL can't manage to do more than sending a few kamikazes here and there. Besides, most evidence shows that he is not the brain behind the attacks, but a mere spiritual figure.

No, OBL is not a grand strategist.

[Docfeelgood]

bullshit.

Concure.



Propaganda to instill fear in the public.

I recall some many moons ago on a news magazine show that there is no such thing as a "suitcase nuke".

Coventianal explosives in such a small space would creat a bigger explosin than a "suitcase nuke".


A small nuke artillary shell is quite big!


This type of propaganda is terrorism in it self.


"Panic and fear is the mind killer"

[notyoueither]

Right. The CIA planted the storey in the Islamic press. From there Rueters picked it up on the orders of their masters at the NSA. Meanwhile, Hearst's brain has been hooked up in a lab in area 51 and it is directing all efforts...

While the Cold War was still on, it was theorised that one of the most effective ways of stopping a Soviet armoured advance through Western Europe would be to have members of special ops groups with small devices secreted near major choke points of communications (bridges). When Warsaw Pact echelons was concentrated near the choke point and after most NATO forces were long gone, BOOM.

There is no reason to expect that these devices do not exist.

Denial of what is very possible is why we have intelligence failures in the first place. Pearl Harbour, you mean torpedoes in a harbour? 9/11, you mean several airliners simultaneously hijacked and flown into buildings purposely? You have to be joking!

[Guynemer]

I can't believe I'm saying this...

I agree with Dissident.

"bullshit.

they would have used them by now"

[notyoueither]

What if you were worried the response would be Mecca turned into glowing glass?

Perhaps MAD applies to OBL?

[Pax]

President Bush/FDR did not plan the wars the U.S. was involved in that's not necessarily the job of the leader. IMO, the best leaders are the ones who can gather the talent and make them work for you.