Aljazeera.net: Al-Qaida may have nuclear weapons
The link
Is this possible? If it is, how likely is it that these turkeys have The Bomb?
Is this effecting Amercian foreign policy? Is the West being blackmailed?
Is this possible? If it is, how likely is it that these turkeys have The Bomb?
Is this effecting Amercian foreign policy? Is the West being blackmailed?
Comments
First, how would one deliver "a crushing blow" to a diffuse and global group?
Second, since when are these butchers inclined to hold something in reserve?
Seems to me if it were true they would talking about raining nuclear fire on the cities of the infidel, not implying that attacking them would lead to a bad result.
Originally posted by dmz
Is this possible? If it is, how likely is it that these turkeys have The Bomb?
I believe it if one of those babies detonates (OK, I hope they never).
You cannot just carry around A-Bombs and import them. Imho, this is crap.
Blah blah blah.
Originally posted by addabox
The article says that Al Queda would use their bombs if they faced "a crushing blow".
I think they realize that, if they used a nuke on us first, tomorrow the whole middle east would be a fish bowl. And if there are no muslims, they suddenly lose their bank accounts.
By making a paper that Al-Quaeda have nuclear weapons, they spread the fear of an atomic bombing across the occidental world. Bringing fear is part of the terrorist behavioring. by promoting this rumor, purposely or not, Al Jazeera play the game of terrorists.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Some poeple here said that Aljazeera was supporting Al-Quaeda. I wonder if there is not some truth in this assertion.
By making a paper that Al-Quaeda have nuclear weapons, they spread the fear of an atomic bombing across the occidental world. Bringing fear is part of the terrorist behavioring. by promoting this rumor, purposely or not, Al Jazeera play the game of terrorists.
I don't think so. Al-Jazeera branched off from the BBC and reports in a style very similar to their origins. They are equal opportunity offenders. They may have access to OBL or someone close enough to Al-Quaeda to get this information but I believe they support it. Besides this stuff sells papers if they support OBL or not.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think they realize that, if they used a nuke on us first, tomorrow the whole middle east would be a fish bowl. And if there are no muslims, they suddenly lose their bank accounts.
So a nuke in an American city means we indiscriminatly annihilate the entire middle east?
At that point nothing else really matters because we can kiss civilization goodbye.
Originally posted by addabox
So a nuke in an American city means we indiscriminatly annihilate the entire middle east?
At that point nothing else really matters because we can kiss civilization goodbye.
There are a two solutions:
1) Pull troops out of foreign lands
2) Kill all muslims
Now, I think that we should have pulled all troops out after the cold war, but what do power tripping politicians think? I don't think that the whole middle east would be carpet-nuked in the end, but in the end the terrorist problem would not be solved unless everyone is happy or unless there's no-one left to get upset.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There are a two solutions:
1) Pull troops out of foreign lands
2) Kill all muslims
Now, I think that we should have pulled all troops out after the cold war, but what do power tripping politicians think? I don't think that the whole middle east would be carpet-nuked in the end, but in the end the terrorist problem would not be solved unless everyone is happy or unless there's no-one left to get upset.
"Kill all Muslims" is a "solution" that is orders of magnitude worse than the problem.
First, because it is morally grotesque, and secondly, because it would lead to a world-wide conflagration that would destroy life as we know on a global scale. Surely you don't imagine the rest of the world would stand by while we killed millions of innocents?
America isn't special in that a wound against us is somehow so out-of-bounds that it permits wildly unproportionate response.
If a nuclear bombing occured, it will be a terrorist attack : nobody will know who bringed the nuke. And when finally the investigations will have shown who made this crime, they will be already elsewhere (even in an occidental countrie).
That's bad political sci-fiction, i do not even want to think about it. I doubt that this info is true. The ex KGB, will have never allowed that nukes where selled to muslims : remember the Tchetchenia is not far away. Russia was and is a good target for terrorists.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I doubt that this info is true. The ex KGB, will have never allowed that nukes where selled to muslims : remember the Tchetchenia is not far away. Russia was and is a good target for terrorists.
The problem is that the KGB and the Russian military lost track of the bombs during the 80's. They were in some of the outlying states and vanished. They are 'easily' detectable so they can't really just be brought on a plane. That's probably one reason they haven't been used yet.
Originally posted by Moogs
I tend to agree. If these suitcase bombs are really unaccounted for, they'll almost certainly be brought to US soil via ship (if they're brought here at all).
That's my guess as well. I don't know for certain how powerful they are, but they're more devastating than a dirty bomb and probably far less than a true missle. Still, they've been a huge threat for the past decade and I'm constantly pissed that they're still a threat.
One more difficulty, is the maintenance of such bombs : some componements (the electronical ones) have to be changed from time to time. I guess this is a major problem for potential illegal owners.
You're welcome world...
(yes, heavy sarcasm)
Originally posted by bunge
The problem is that the KGB and the Russian military lost track of the bombs during the 80's.
I am no expert on nukes, so I could be talking out of my behind here, but I believe the uranium or plutonium decay at a rate you have to dismantle the core and enrich it again every 20 to 30 years. I would further presume very small bombs decay faster (nearer to critical mass), so quite likely they are dysfunctional now or going to be in the next few years.
Originally posted by Smircle
I am no expert on nukes, so I could be talking out of my behind here, but I believe the uranium or plutonium decay at a rate you have to dismantle the core and enrich it again every 20 to 30 years. I would further presume very small bombs decay faster (nearer to critical mass), so quite likely they are dysfunctional now or going to be in the next few years.
No, untrue.
The halflives of Pu-239, and U-235 are significantly long
Plutonium-239 24 400 years
Uranium-235 700 000 000 years
2) When/if the terrorists get a nuclear bomb, they can well detonate it in the middle of Sahara and announce the second one will go off in a major US city unless their demands are met. Do you think the politicians will call their bluff? If they do, what about the mass panic?