1) Drugs get into US, is there a reason nuclear bombs don't?
Yes but nukes don't fit into body cavities nearly as easily.
Quote:
they've been a huge threat for the past decade
No they've been a huge threat for the past 5 or 6 decades. Ah, the tangled web we weave. Funny how things can turn around and bite you on the bum years later.
Gon, if they had two bombs I don't believe they would "demonstrate" one for effect.
They would have used one on 9/11 probably in the Capital. Then save the other for a back up strike.
If these fanatics have 'em, the'll use 'em...
Not all terrorists are fanatics. Not all terrorists want the same thing.
Do you have any idea what magnitude of extortion is possible if you can demonstrate you have a nuclear bomb?
Do you think there are no other people than Al Quaeda who would like one?
Even if you just have one and use it in a demonstration, for an extortionist it can be just as good as having ten, as long as no one knows you are out of bombs.
If you think that the majority of drugs on the streets of the US are smuggled into the country in body cavities, you're way off-base.
It takes more than people with some condoms hidden somewhere inside them to feed the market.
But then again, maybe you're being sarcastic.
Yes I was being sarcastic (meant to stick in a smiley, sorry). I was just momentarily swept away by the image of someone trying to shit out a suitcase nuke.
But I wasn't being sarcastic in the second bit (well not in the same way). It occurred to me not long before this thread appeared that I felt much more personally threatened back at the height of the arms race than I do today from the threat of terrorism. The stakes seemed much, much higher. And yet today, the paranoia seems far greater than back then. At least as it affects everyone on a day-to-day basis.
Not all terrorists are fanatics. Not all terrorists want the same thing.
Do you have any idea what magnitude of extortion is possible if you can demonstrate you have a nuclear bomb?
...
Even if you just have one and use it in a demonstration, for an extortionist it can be just as good as having ten, as long as no one knows you are out of bombs.
Not so sure it's that cut and dry. I think the parties being extorted would want proof of a second nuke (paper trail or video or whatever) before considering demands. What's more, even for terrorist groups there is the threat of MAD. All we have to know is which countries the leaders of that group hail from, and the US could play dirty and retort: "OK, but if you nuke one of our cities or an allied city in Europe or Asia, we're going to anihilate your homelands, putting their blood on your hands. You've been warned, so don't do it unless you're willing to sacrifice all those people."
Might even make a lunatic think twice....
I also don't think men as wreckless as Bush or Cheney would hesitate about calling the bluff. What do they care; they won't be anywhere near the prime targets at that point but rather in Air Force One or this bunker or that. More likely sitting underground in Oklahoma somewhere or flying over Canada than sitting in Washington. They want to "look strong in the face of terror" at all costs, lest they have no legacy.
"Intelligence sources tell Insight that at least several dozen of the weapons were never recovered following the U.S.S.R.'s collapse. "That's a fact," a former high-ranking intelligence official with one of the United States' pre-eminent spy agencies says emphatically"
"It used to be a journalistic standard that every story had to be vetted by two reliable sources before being printed. Nowadays, unfortunately, some news outlets consider that to be two sources too many."
It seems Alexander Lebed is the only person claiming the USSR had suitcase nukes and lost track of several of them. Russian officials deny this but of course you cannot successfully deny any urban legend.
No they've been a huge threat for the past 5 or 6 decades. Ah, the tangled web we weave. Funny how things can turn around and bite you on the bum years later.
I was talking about suitcase nukes, and the threat from terrorism in particular. Obviously nuclear weapons have been a threat for a long time.
Comments
They would have used one on 9/11 probably in the Capital. Then save the other for a back up strike.
If these fanatics have 'em, the'll use 'em...
Originally posted by Gon
1) Drugs get into US, is there a reason nuclear bombs don't?
Yes but nukes don't fit into body cavities nearly as easily.
they've been a huge threat for the past decade
No they've been a huge threat for the past 5 or 6 decades. Ah, the tangled web we weave. Funny how things can turn around and bite you on the bum years later.
Originally posted by crazychester
Yes but nukes don't fit into body cavities nearly as easily.
Yes i never see story of nuclear assholes
Originally posted by crazychester
Yes but nukes don't fit into body cavities nearly as easily.
If you think that the majority of drugs on the streets of the US are smuggled into the country in body cavities, you're way off-base.
It takes more than people with some condoms hidden somewhere inside them to feed the market.
But then again, maybe you're being sarcastic.
Originally posted by hardhead
Gon, if they had two bombs I don't believe they would "demonstrate" one for effect.
They would have used one on 9/11 probably in the Capital. Then save the other for a back up strike.
If these fanatics have 'em, the'll use 'em...
Not all terrorists are fanatics. Not all terrorists want the same thing.
Do you have any idea what magnitude of extortion is possible if you can demonstrate you have a nuclear bomb?
Do you think there are no other people than Al Quaeda who would like one?
Even if you just have one and use it in a demonstration, for an extortionist it can be just as good as having ten, as long as no one knows you are out of bombs.
Originally posted by audiopollution
If you think that the majority of drugs on the streets of the US are smuggled into the country in body cavities, you're way off-base.
It takes more than people with some condoms hidden somewhere inside them to feed the market.
But then again, maybe you're being sarcastic.
Yes I was being sarcastic (meant to stick in a smiley, sorry). I was just momentarily swept away by the image of someone trying to shit out a suitcase nuke.
But I wasn't being sarcastic in the second bit (well not in the same way). It occurred to me not long before this thread appeared that I felt much more personally threatened back at the height of the arms race than I do today from the threat of terrorism. The stakes seemed much, much higher. And yet today, the paranoia seems far greater than back then. At least as it affects everyone on a day-to-day basis.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes i never see story of nuclear assholes
Fellows
Originally posted by Gon
Not all terrorists are fanatics. Not all terrorists want the same thing.
Do you have any idea what magnitude of extortion is possible if you can demonstrate you have a nuclear bomb?
...
Even if you just have one and use it in a demonstration, for an extortionist it can be just as good as having ten, as long as no one knows you are out of bombs.
Not so sure it's that cut and dry. I think the parties being extorted would want proof of a second nuke (paper trail or video or whatever) before considering demands. What's more, even for terrorist groups there is the threat of MAD. All we have to know is which countries the leaders of that group hail from, and the US could play dirty and retort: "OK, but if you nuke one of our cities or an allied city in Europe or Asia, we're going to anihilate your homelands, putting their blood on your hands. You've been warned, so don't do it unless you're willing to sacrifice all those people."
Might even make a lunatic think twice....
I also don't think men as wreckless as Bush or Cheney would hesitate about calling the bluff. What do they care; they won't be anywhere near the prime targets at that point but rather in Air Force One or this bunker or that. More likely sitting underground in Oklahoma somewhere or flying over Canada than sitting in Washington. They want to "look strong in the face of terror" at all costs, lest they have no legacy.
"Does al-Qaida have
20 suitcase nukes?"
Link
Then 2003:
"Intelligence sources tell Insight that at least several dozen of the weapons were never recovered following the U.S.S.R.'s collapse. "That's a fact," a former high-ranking intelligence official with one of the United States' pre-eminent spy agencies says emphatically"
Link
(Yeah right, a fact... read about the other "facts" concerning Saddam for a good laugh)
So, now it's 2004 and the same story surfaces again...
Snope classifies it as a hoax: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nukes.htm
I like Snope's stand on this (from 2002):
"It used to be a journalistic standard that every story had to be vetted by two reliable sources before being printed. Nowadays, unfortunately, some news outlets consider that to be two sources too many."
It seems Alexander Lebed is the only person claiming the USSR had suitcase nukes and lost track of several of them. Russian officials deny this but of course you cannot successfully deny any urban legend.
Originally posted by crazychester
No they've been a huge threat for the past 5 or 6 decades. Ah, the tangled web we weave. Funny how things can turn around and bite you on the bum years later.
I was talking about suitcase nukes, and the threat from terrorism in particular. Obviously nuclear weapons have been a threat for a long time.
Originally posted by Gon
1) Drugs get into US, is there a reason nuclear bombs don't?
Radiation detectors have been in use at airports and other locations for a long time.