News Chance of a terrorist A-bomb detonating in a major city

[Loren Booda]

What do you believe is the chance of a terrorist atomic bomb exploding in a Western metropolis, or even on a battlefield like Iraq's?

 

[Astronuc]

Sure it's possible, but depends on a critical factor - access to a pit of Pu-239 (~5-8 kg) and appropriate triggering device.

A western metropolis is a more likely target, than the Iraqi battlefield.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think the possibility is remote, unless terrorists can get a nuke from an advanced nuclear power. It is my understanding that a nuclear device is very large and bulky. It would need to be an advanced device in order to be small enough to smuggle.

A western metropolis would be a much likelier target than the Iraqi battlefield.

It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the current administration will use battlefield nukes against Iran.

 

[Smurf]

It's remote enough it's not worth considering.

 

[vanesch]

It's remote enough it's not worth considering.

We should maybe considering how many physicists would be willing to work on a nuke for terrorists, against a lot of $$$ ?

 

[Townsend]

I think the possibility is remote, unless terrorists can get a nuke from an advanced nuclear power. It is my understanding that a nuclear device is very large and bulky. It would need to be an advanced device in order to be small enough to smuggle.

A western metropolis would be a much likelier target than the Iraqi battlefield.

It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the current administration will use battlefield nukes against Iran.

I have heard speculation that both the US and Russia developed suitcase bombs that could be used as tactical nukes if the need were to ever arise.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

 

[Townsend]

We should maybe considering how many physicists would be willing to work on a nuke for terrorists, against a lot of $$$ ?

I agree, I think perhaps we should...

 

[stoned]

It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the current administration will use battlefield nukes against Iran.

Exactly!, or maybe White house looking for pretext for attack on Iran will nuke US city and blame it on evil Iran.

 

[Burnsys]

Exactly!, or maybe White house looking for pretext for attack on Iran will nuke US city and blame it on evil Iran.

I think that is the most posible scenario...

 

[vanesch]

I think that is the most posible scenario...

Now, if they would pick Washington...and forget to tell the boss...

 

[Burnsys]

Now, if they would pick Washington...and forget to tell the boss...

Well. you know, there isn't a very good comunication between the various agencies.

 

[BobG]

What do you believe is the chance of a terrorist atomic bomb exploding in a Western metropolis, or even on a battlefield like Iraq's?

Chance of an atomic bomb? Virtually none.

Chance of a bomb that will spread radioactive material exploding in a Western metropolis? Very good.

The actual effect of a 'dirty' bomb won't be very big, since a conventional bomb can't spread the radioactive material very effectively, but it will cause a huge reaction of terror, especially in the city where it occurred. If it's detonated in a location where even a local spread of radioactive material can affect a huge number of people, it will have an even bigger emotional impact.

 

[edward]

Chance of an atomic bomb? Virtually none.

If it's detonated in a location where even a local spread of radioactive material can affect a huge number of people, it will have an even bigger emotional impact.

I have a concern for the Seaports on the west coast. They unload thousands of large containers of imported goods from Asia in a single day. Two dirty bombs one at the port of Los Angeles and one at Long Beach would be a disaster for us financially.

And I think that is what they want. Even Bin Laden said that they will bleed us financially. The war in Iraq is already doing a number on our finances.

 

[Manchot]

I think that there's a bigger chance that somebody in the military will accidentally hit the "red button."

 

[Pengwuino]

What do you believe is the chance of a terrorist atomic bomb exploding in a Western metropolis, or even on a battlefield like Iraq's?

From what I hear...

fission bomb: almost impossible
radiological "dirty bomb": highly likely

In a western city: highly likely
In Iraq: highly unlikely, too dangerous of a proposition to pull off.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think that is the most posible scenario...

Coming from someone who thought the WTC attacks were controlled demolitions, I am not surprised

Or was that the smoking dude...

 

[vanesch]

And I think that is what they want. Even Bin Laden said that they will bleed us financially. The war in Iraq is already doing a number on our finances.

Yes that is absolutely true, and with the current bozo in the white house, he's helping them a lot. So probably the best strategy, if I were OBL, would be to tickle Dubya just enough for him to engage in another war, like Iran. How, I don't know. He could send in a cardboard model of a bomb, with "BOOM" on it, may be ? And a note "the next one is the real one my friends the Iranians are making for me" ?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes that is absolutely true, and with the current bozo in the white house, he's helping them a lot. So probably the best strategy, if I were OBL, would be to tickle Dubya just enough for him to engage in another war, like Iran. How, I don't know. He could send in a cardboard model of a bomb, with "BOOM" on it, may be ? And a note "the next one is the real one my friends the Iranians are making for me" ?

Maybe he'll say the French are making it for him... I mean that's what the French have historically done, arm nations/militant groups in the middle east against international sanctions. Maybe we'll finally do what the British have been telling us to do for so long.

 

[loseyourname]

I have a concern for the Seaports on the west coast. They unload thousands of large containers of imported goods from Asia in a single day. Two dirty bombs one at the port of Los Angeles and one at Long Beach would be a disaster for us financially.

I'm sure nobody remembers at this point, but I told a story a while back about how some friends and I drove a racing boat, more than large enough to contain a bomb, right into the Port of Long Beach. We were only looking around for run, but it was surprising how easy it was. We only saw one Harbor Police boat, that finally started coming toward us after about fifteen minutes, but it was way too slow to catch us when we took off.

Then again, we were coming from elsewhere in Long Beach, so it's not like we entered through the jetty. The security out there might be somewhat tighter. I can only hope it is.

 

[vanesch]

Maybe he'll say the French are making it for him... I mean that's what the French have historically done, arm nations/militant groups in the middle east against international sanctions. Maybe we'll finally do what the British have been telling us to do for so long.

Well, given the fact that George believes just any imposter calling for a war (style Chalaby), after all, why not. The aim is that you go uselessly to war, and spend all you have on it (and even a bit more). If as a side effect, you also create a sense of menace to all those that could potentially turn into OBL fans, then that's even better (fear works on both sides). That's why France wouldn't be the ideal target: there's not so many potential OBL fans around here. The UK is already slightly better of course . But the real attraction is a country with a strong Islamic population. If he could get you to war with Iran, Syria, Lybia, Turkey, Pakistan and, cherry on top of the cake, Saoudi Arabia, that would be his dream. If in doing so, he can even create an international wave of indignation, so that the US looses its friends, all the better. You'd be broke, no friends left, and create a lot of sympathy for OBL. And all this for the price of a cardboard bomb and a few stamps :-)

 

[NewScientist]

There are a number of difficulties in creating and placing and finally detonating a nuclear bomb. (I ignore the difference between a dirty bomb, and a nuclear bomb with detonator etc)

In creating the bomb there are these problems.
1) Acquiring enough (and the correct purity) of nuclear material
2) Preventing tracing of the nuclear material.
3) Finding physicists (+ perhaps electronics experts - to wire a non-defuseable bomb) who have the knowledge to make the bomb work.
4) Preventing the tracking of the physicists and any suspistion they have become 'rogue'.
5) To find a secure location to build the bomb in.
6) Finding the funds to fuel the operation.
7) Crossing borders with such material.
8) To not arouse suspicion in the way they work.

In placing the bomb there are these problems.
1) Moving the bomb to target country (if different)
2) Moving the bomb into target country (if different)
3) As it is unfeasible to transport the bomb as 1 unit - the bomb would be broken down int composite parts and so another job would be to rebuild it - this would require moving the technical members of the team - physicists and the like to the new country - an issue worth considering. also, as the bomb will be spread over multiple transports, it is more likely it may be discovered.
4) Finding the place where the bomb will cause the appropriate amount of damage. (I use appropriate as the goal of terrorists may be to solely show they are capable of such an act rather than actually committing mass murder.) If mass murder is the objective then placement is important to cause maximum fall out damage.
5) Not arousing the suspicion of intelligence agencies and the public - as a terrorist cell who has acess to nuclear material - you are probably known to the intelligence services and so are probably being watched - this will make the whole operation ni on impossible to carry out unless state sponsored. (States can hide the transport, procurement and placing of the bomb with more ease than a terrorist organization.)

In detonating a bomb :
1) There is a chance of failure
2) The chance of discovery by an intelligence agency.


Due to these factors it is hard to create such a bomb + then fulfil the mission objective. Studying the problems one will probably decide the profile for a nuclear bomb exploding in a metropolis is :

A dirty bomb (they are simpler to make), with a timer wired so it is non-defuseable, sponsored by a nuclear state 9declared or not) which perhaps has diplomatic relations with the target country. Also, the bombers will not be affiliated to any states or terrorist organizations which are known to the security forces of the world. The physicists will not be well known or have links to terrorist cells or rogue nations.

The bomb will more than likely be made or sponsored by North Korea or Iran or a similar state and detonated on US soil to create as many casualties and as maximum shock as possible - this means an attack in a major city - visible to many the world over. I would suspect Washington or New York.

-just my 2 cents

 

[The Smoking Man]

Just a thought but has anybody actually found the nukes that the Soviets lost during the collapse of the Union?

I've heard reports of as many as 200 and as low as 17.

North Korea is supposed to have maybe one or two.

That would leave ... oh, ... NYC, Seattle, LA, Austin, Columbus, Philadelphia, Detroit ...

You get the drift.

And remember, they all went missing before 9/11 so conditions on the west coast were ideal for dropping stuff off on the beaches.

Pravda Terrorism Questions & Answers http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/latimes.htm http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_3_7_nucw.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37605,00.html so it must be true.

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

i heard (my brother said) that when USSR broke some nuclear power bombs were lost.
Nah... that's just a speculation by my brother . hey don't curse me if it is wrong.

 

[gurkhawarhorse]

Just a thought but has anybody actually found the nukes that the Soviets lost during the collapse of the Union?

I've heard reports of as many as 200 and as low as 17.

North Korea is supposed to have maybe one or two.

That would leave ... oh, ... NYC, Seattle, LA, Austin, Columbus, Philadelphia, Detroit ...

You get the drift.

And remember, they all went missing before 9/11 so conditions on the west coast were ideal for dropping stuff off on the beaches.

Pravda Terrorism Questions & Answers http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/latimes.htm http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/thisweek/2002_3_7_nucw.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,37605,00.html so it must be true.

why am i always late to make it look as if i copied it?

 

[The Smoking Man]

why am i always late to make it look as if i copied it?

Shhhh ... Don't tell them. Nobody will know we're brothers.

 

[stoned]

if terrist had any suitcase bombs they would have use them long time ago, real terrorist are our governments and I'm 10000000x more affraid of them .

 

[Skyhunter]

I have heard speculation that both the US and Russia developed suitcase bombs that could be used as tactical nukes if the need were to ever arise.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

That is why I thought that it would need to come from an advanced nuclear power. I had heard of that, I think it was from you.

Thanks for posting the link

 

[edward]

Small nuclear devices are definitely out there.

Then came the bombshell. If that missile deal went through, asked the Lithuanians, was there interest in small nuclear devices? The undercover cops said they would be very interested. They nicknamed this new deal "Project 2" and agreed to put it off until the missile deal was concluded.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/scenario/

The container held devices that use the radioactive element americium to probe oil wells. It had been imported from Russia by Halliburton Energy Services and was bound for Houston, but was shipped from Newark to Boston by mistake.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...e_equipment_brings_rebuke_for_nuclear_agency/

There is a lot of radioactive material used in the oil industry.

 

[Dayle Record]

If a nuclear bomb devastated a US city, it would be an internal matter, a matter of treasonous activity aimed at terrorizing our nation for political gain. It would take a rogue fascist American general to accomplish something like that. Or else what would happen is that they way electronics work these days, someone will just hack a communications system somewhere, and one of our subs will let loose on us. The US government employs so many civilian contractors these days, they run some of the most sensitive situations. A civilian contractor, for instance, runs the FBI's computer systems. Many, many routine communications are being outsourced to foreign nations, and in my mind that creates a more, and more open network in general, and at some point there will be a conduit that makes a mess of things.

I think that the rash of airline crashes in South America is a possible indicator of future activities. I think that we depend on extremely accurate measurement, and take it for granted. There is a possibility that terrorist activity could happen as a matter of a few degrees, that results in a slow rise in overall error, that once perfected will result in perhaps some more horrific results.

I don't buy the term terrorism. I think that some people that we have been walking all over, for some time, are acting out against us. I think that some other people that have a lot to gain have profited enormously from the "war on terror". I see this as giant corporations and their doings, have put our nation at risk. If they had behaved properly to begin with, none of this would be happening.

Oh yes, and there is also the "idiot factor", that being Murphy's Law applied to nuclear disaster. Stupid things happen, really stupid things happen and that something stupider than Hiroshima or Nagasaki hasn't happened yet, is simply a miracle.

I was once in a rest stop, going west on the interstate heading into Nevada. A big red semi tractor with a large sleeper compartment stopped at the stop. There was no trailer on this vehicle. It was a cherry red rig, in great condition. The middle eastern guys just kept getting out of this thing to use the restroom. There had to be at least 12 guys stuffed into that vehicle. The were coming out in rotations of 2-4. I quit watching them because I was nervous to do so. If there were going to be a weapon in one of our cities, it would be driven right into the heart as easily as that, they would intercept a shipment somewhere, and make it happen. I think we have hurt a lot more people than we have helped with our policies, especially in more recent history. As hard as people work for the good, we still on the balance do a lot of harm.

The laws of physics are that balance will be achieved, by one means or another, and there is a physics of the personal accountability of nations. We have a very short term mentality in this nation, take now, take now, make bigger markets. Other nations do not forget, and practice a very long term planning, and remembrance strategy, I have never harmed anyone in my life, or discriminated, but my nation before I was born, committed acts that I may someday have to answer for, in the long term game.

 

[Skyhunter]

Nice post Dale. I concur.

I always thought it was quite naive to believe that people are willing to blow themselves up because they "hate our freedom".

 

[NewScientist]

If a nuclear bomb devastated a US city, it would be an internal matter, a matter of treasonous activity aimed at terrorizing our nation for political gain. It would take a rogue fascist American general to accomplish something like that.

I don't see how a rogue fascist general could make political gain from the murder of millions of citizens of his country.

Or else what would happen is that they way electronics work these days, someone will just hack a communications system somewhere, and one of our subs will let loose on us.

Okay - every year the US government go around the top universities ad take off the best programmers and encoders and use them to develop newn encoding techniques and cracking techniques, such is the development and overlay of skills that hacking a DOD is beyond even the greatest supercomputer currently in existence.

Let me express it very simply for you - we have (in this case) an crytographic arms race between the US gov.t (DOD) and the global community of terrorists and cryptographers.

The DOD has a multi-billion dollar budget per annum just for cryptography - the worlds terrorists and crypto guys don't have 10million between them to be spent on such efforts.

The DOD has the power to imprisson every terrorist crypto agent they deem a threat - the terrorists hav eno such ability.

And before I risk talking to you like you are a pre-school child i will stop there.

The US government employs so many civilian contractors these days, they run some of the most sensitive situations. A civilian contractor, for instance, runs the FBI's computer systems. Many, many routine communications are being outsourced to foreign nations, and in my mind that creates a more, and more open network in general, and at some point there will be a conduit that makes a mess of things.

So you are suggesting that the US gov't is voluntarily making itself more open to attacks on itself?! Think that through!

Also consider all fighter jets are made by contractors - do you have a problem there, or the fact most weapons are?! Or thesunglasses US troops wear? Or that the language specialists used to train US officials and troops tend to be natives of foreign nations?!

I think that the rash of airline crashes in South America is a possible indicator of future activities. I think that we depend on extremely accurate measurement, and take it for granted. There is a possibility that terrorist activity could happen as a matter of a few degrees, that results in a slow rise in overall error, that once perfected will result in perhaps some more horrific results.

Do you even know how air traffic control systems work? Do you know who monitors thm after 9/11? No? - Go research.

I don't buy the term terrorism. I think that some people that we have been walking all over, for some time, are acting out against us.

That is still terrorism -I point you to wiki:
"Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into a strategy of guerrilla warfare. According to one view, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Random violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action."

Oh yes, and there is also the "idiot factor", that being Murphy's Law applied to nuclear disaster. Stupid things happen, really stupid things happen

As this thread illustrates.

Although in all seriousness there is a case to say that the chance of a nuclear attack is always there but then again that does not mean that there will definitely be a nuclear bomb that goes off.

The middle eastern guys just kept getting out of this thing to use the restroom. There had to be at least 12 guys stuffed into that vehicle. The were coming out in rotations of 2-4. I quit watching them because I was nervous to do so.

The London bombings were made my invisibles ( an ethnic native of the target country) thus your presumtion that 12 middle east guys (a soccer team?) were a threat seems rather rascist. Also one must take into account the culture difference - the idea of close nitt friends is more common in the gulf than here.

If there were going to be a weapon in one of our cities, it would be driven right into the heart as easily as that, they would intercept a shipment somewhere, and make it happen.

As could you are I - what is your point here? And do you not have the common sense to know that the US intel agencies watch movement of nuclear material and explosives like hawks - as do other intel agencies. Also, ship manifests are extensively checked, cargos can be checked on the spot and raids can occur - if you look above I suggest a nuclear bomb will not be transported as a whole entity - if you understood that it is clear why an attack would not occur straight from boat - ground vehicle - target.

I think we have hurt a lot more people than we have helped with our policies, especially in more recent history. As hard as people work for the good, we still on the balance do a lot of harm.

Hindsight is always 20/20 - I do not think though you can say that allowing the Hussein regime (for example) to remain in power would have been a better option. However I do take the point, and support it that other aggressive strategies have not perhaps been the best possible course of action however the US is in a very dangerous position as the worlds only superpower and as such must be treated as a special case.

The laws of physics are that balance will be achieved, by one means or another, and there is a physics of the personal accountability of nations. We have a very short term mentality in this nation, take now, take now, make bigger markets. Other nations do not forget, and practice a very long term planning, and remembrance strategy, I have never harmed anyone in my life, or discriminated, but my nation before I was born, committed acts that I may someday have to answer for, in the long term game.

Benjamin Disraeli said - "An eye for eye leaves the whole world blind." The US has a short term mentality - it has existed less that 400 years - it is hard for it to have a long term mentality! And I doubt your statements validity, India has reconcilled with Britain, the world has reconcilled Germany - I cannot see your point.

And SKYHUNTER you're right that view IS wrong - each terrorist has his own reason to commit those acts, be it the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia or the occupation of Iraq and eah complaint must be at least observed although one must always remember that to give into terrrorists sends the wrong message and breads destruction

-NS

 

[Burnsys]

I don't see how a rogue fascist general could make political gain from the murder of millions of citizens of his country.

tell me again, why did you captured saddam husein??

Okay - every year the US government go around the top universities ad take off the best programmers and encoders and use them to develop newn encoding techniques and cracking techniques, such is the development and overlay of skills that hacking a DOD is beyond even the greatest supercomputer currently in existence.

Let me express it very simply for you - we have (in this case) an crytographic arms race between the US gov.t (DOD) and the global community of terrorists and cryptographers.

The DOD has a multi-billion dollar budget per annum just for cryptography - the worlds terrorists and crypto guys don't have 10million between them to be spent on such efforts.

The DOD has the power to imprisson every terrorist crypto agent they deem a threat - the terrorists hav eno such ability.

And before I risk talking to you like you are a pre-school child i will stop there.

"between the US gov.t (DOD) and the global community of terrorists and cryptographers. "

Terrorist and cryptigraphers, i like that.. or you could say the us against the world..

"The DOD has the power to imprisson every terrorist crypto agent they deem a threat"

Nice,, prety facist police state...

So you are suggesting that the US gov't is voluntarily making itself more open to attacks on itself?! Think that through!

First are profits for corporations, next is security...

Also consider all fighter jets are made by contractors - do you have a problem there, or the fact most weapons are?!

You should not trust that much in private contractors, i wonder what could they do if the government decides it doen't need their services anymore..


That is still terrorism -I point you to wiki:

"Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians."

You mean us invasion of irak? it fits perfectly

As could you are I - what is your point here? And do you not have the common sense to know that the US intel agencies watch movement of nuclear material and explosives like hawks - as do other intel agencies. Also, ship manifests are extensively checked, cargos can be checked on the spot and raids can occur - if you look above I suggest a nuclear bomb will not be transported as a whole entity - if you understood that it is clear why an attack would not occur straight from boat - ground vehicle - target.

You trust too much in the intel agencies... do you remmber 911?

Hindsight is always 20/20 - I do not think though you can say that allowing the Hussein regime (for example) to remain in power would have been a better option.

Better option would habe been not to suport him in the first place.. the same for osama bin laden in afganistan i think

However I do take the point, and support it that other aggressive strategies have not perhaps been the best possible course of action

You are critizicing the methods, i critize the motives directly...

"An eye for eye leaves the whole world blind." The US has a short term mentality - it has existed less that 400 years - it is hard for it to have a long term mentality!

That is nonsense...

Each terrorist has his own reason to commit those acts, be it the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia or the occupation of Iraq

Tomorrow may be myself will be a terrorist, i have now 400 marines at steps of my country, with total inmunity, ready to secure gas fields in bolivia oil in venezuela, and north argentina, plus the bigest water reserve in the world, "Aquifero Guarani". Should i start training myself?

that to give into terrrorists sends the wrong message and breads destruction

Again, give in your motives not your methods...

 

[SOS2008]

There is a lot of speculation regarding logistics, etc., but not motive. The targets of 9-11 were primarily governmental/military (Pentagon & Whitehouse), and WTC was economically motivated. Now the focus is in Iraq against U.S. military. OBL and Al Qeada are accomplishing what they want--to bleed the U.S. of economic and military strength. Civilian targets, such as discussed in this thread (whether the A bomb or dirty bombs) would create a global backlash that would be counter-productive to what they desire. They want to be rid of the bullies on the block, the infidels/military bases on their soil/holy land, meddling with their governments/politics, the imposition of western values and religion upon them and in replacement of their own culture and beliefs.

The removal of settlements in the occupied regions, such as Gaza is a step in the right direction. This is now an issue that groups like Al Qeada can no longer use. The U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. If the reasons for attacks are removed, there will be no excuse or sympathy for their cause.

 

[Skyhunter]

It believe it was Ghandi who said; "An eye for eye leaves the whole world blind"

 

[NewScientist]

Burnsys please back up your statements so I can reply to facts rather than suposition

 

[NewScientist]

I think SOS2008's post is very interesting however one must also use the thought process that a concession such as the withdrawl of troops in response to a specific grievance of a terrorist group will lead other groups to believe they can accomplish what they want by attacking the US. This is rather similar to the 1930s problem where states began to use war as an instrument of foreign policy as the world failed to act over machuria and the like - i.e. give them a foot they take a mile.

On the idea of the attacks on a civilian US target, I believe that a Nuclear strike anywhere in the country would cause massive and perhaps crippling economic damage and mass hysteria that could cause civil unrest and massive problems. Also if a nucelar bomb went off in DC during a sitting of the houses with the president and v.p. in DC - imagine the reprocussions for the government. I believe an attack on a US civilian target - as an insturment of war by a foreign state or as a display of hatred by a terrorist group is a very present and real threat.

-NS

 

[Kakarot]

I saw a documentary on the al qaeda fleet of ships. Apparently they own up to several dozen commercial shipping vessels around the world. They use them to make money for their organization and maybe to ship weapons. In the program they said that almost none of the containers that reach us are inspected. If they got a nuke they could easily bring it in themselves on their own ships or on a legitimate one. I agree with Dale that once its in they just have to drive it their desired location. But they could just as easily blow it up at a port.

They are making a new scanning device now that all crates will pass through to detect radioactive materials. Also the containers will be inspected in their original country of departure. They said it can take like a day to inspect one container by hand and there are hundreds on those boats that come in.

Also on another program about the russian mafia there were allegedly mobsters in miami looking to sell a nuke to undercover agents. I don't know if they acquired it but I don't think that kind of story would ever get out to the public.

 

[Townsend]

If the reasons for attacks are removed, there will be no excuse or sympathy for their cause.

Do you believe that? What makes you think the other countries of world will take sides with the US unless it is in their own best interest?

And if everyone does not mind I would appreciate it if Ms. help the liberals next election would be allowed to speak for herself.

 

[NewScientist]

I saw a documentary on the al qaeda fleet of ships. Apparently they own up to several dozen commercial shipping vessels around the world. They use them to make money for their organization and maybe to ship weapons. In the program they said that almost none of the containers that reach us are inspected. If they got a nuke they could easily bring it in themselves on their own ships or on a legitimate one. I agree with Dale that once its in they just have to drive it their desired location. But they could just as easily blow it up at a port.

They are making a new scanning device now that all crates will pass through to detect radioactive materials. Also the containers will be inspected in their original country of departure. They said it can take like a day to inspect one container by hand and there are hundreds on those boats that come in.

Also on another program about the russian mafia there were allegedly mobsters in miami looking to sell a nuke to undercover agents. I don't know if they acquired it but I don't think that kind of story would ever get out to the public.

I saw a documentary saying the moon was made of cheese. Something you must also consider is that the Us gov't takes part in illegal operations and as such will not b ereported - these included assasinations, seizing of goods etc and so the inspection of a boat by delta for example would not be brodacast

 

[vanesch]

Also if a nucelar bomb went off in DC during a sitting of the houses with the president and v.p. in DC - imagine the reprocussions for the government.

This will certainly NOT happen by the hands of OBL. He will never do that to his best promotor !

 

[selfAdjoint]

This will certainly NOT happen by the hands of OBL. He will never do that to his best promotor !

Seeing that OBL was the reason Bush beat Kerrie in 2004, it works both ways!

 

[Dayle Record]

A nuclear weapon detonated by an American insider would benefit if the insider was also able to blame the detonation on someone else, or some outside nation. If such a catastrophe were to happen, it was discussed plainly that this nation would go under martial law, until further notice. That this form of government is obsolete anyway. Chillingly it was a major player in the current Iraq conflict that made this statement, oh yes, it was Tommy Franks, yes it was. That statement by General Franks, now retired, was read by me as a terrorist statement, threatening the American People if we didn't fully accept the threat assessments of this government at the onset of the Iraq invasion.

That mentality of "we are the best", "we recruit the best", "there is no better", in regards to the Cyber Security of the DOD, is the same mentality that allowed the Shuttle disasters. The only real security is world peace, and taking care of our world, and everything on it. Peaceful trade that serves humans of every social circumstance, that is what makes peace happen on a day to day basis.

The odds are stacked against us, at this time, in regards to nuclear attacks. We are the only nation that has ever made nuclear war. This creates a vacuum of sorts, I have heard it said that "Nature abhors a vacuum."

In regards personally to my thinking, I think about many things, and study many things. Nothing that I say here, that purports to be of a serious nature, is said with lack of forethought. I just don't let any particular loyalty, or hatred, get in the way of my realistic, or unrealistic assessments of things.

I believe strongly that the citizens of the United States, have been ceaselessly terrorized by their own government since GW Bush took office. I think that the secrecy, the illegal agendas, the artificial separations between entities supposedly doing similar work; has resulted in a very poor performance in terms of government security services to the American people. We are all in more jeopardy than we have been since the depth of the cold war. Why?

Because none of these billions have benefited the American people, only war corporations. Our government has misbehaved in Iraq, and therefore leaving more than a hundred thousand american soldiers in harm's way. These loyal Americans did not deserve to be used in this way.

Now the baby boomers are a huge, upcoming problem, because the money that would have eased the retirement of this huge generation fresh born from WW2 reconstruction, has been spent trying to create an oil energy monopoly, world wide. Who is in charge in Afghanistan? We are, and I have to think that the agenda was the heroin trade, and the Unocal pipeline. All that smoke about anything else, was just that.

How many billions of dollars does it take to find a needle in even the biggest haystack? One man's needle is the next mans goose laying billions of golden eggs, by virtue of his continued existence, and perceived threat index.

Fact: We have to demand better behavior from our leaders, if we want to feel safe in this nation, or traveling in any other nation. We have to learn to treasure what is ours, and leave the rest alone. We have to be certain we are really doing good, as opposed to doing what we are told is good.

In answer to the question posed at the top of this thread, there is a very good chance of such a weapon being detonated by forces that oppose our government's actions, well yes there is. There is a lot of money floating around to support activities like this. But detonation of these weapons will harm, all nations that trade. We are a big market, until we are bankrupted we have more money to spend than anyone, even with our enemies. It is counter productive to do us in, in a reasonable mindset. But, go for broke types, zealots of any creed, males whose families can't fund bride prices, and followers of mono-sexual firebrand ministers, will do such a thing as this, and feel Godly about it.

Again, I think it will be us, or one of our "allies" that does this. It will be a threat made privately and unrevealed to the American people, and carried out for revenge in some bigger play that no reasonable entity, will have been invited to. It then will be the excuse to take whatever the original game piece was, including our nation.

 

[The Smoking Man]

A nuclear weapon detonated by an American insider would benefit if the insider was also able to blame the detonation on someone else, or some outside nation. If such a catastrophe were to happen, it was discussed plainly that this nation would go under martial law, until further notice. That this form of government is obsolete anyway. Chillingly it was a major player in the current Iraq conflict that made this statement, oh yes, it was Tommy Franks, yes it was. That statement by General Franks, now retired, was read by me as a terrorist statement, threatening the American People if we didn't fully accept the threat assessments of this government at the onset of the Iraq invasion.

Am I the only one that appreciates Peter Sellers movies? Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)

Or how about http://home.earthlink.net/~atomic_rom/007/6.htm

http://www.thezreview.co.uk/reviews/s/sumofallfears.htm

Too much time on my hands I guess.

 

[edward]

Am I the only one that appreciates Peter Sellers movies? Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)

Or how about http://home.earthlink.net/~atomic_rom/007/6.htm

http://www.thezreview.co.uk/reviews/s/sumofallfears.htm

Too much time on my hands I guess.

TSM you need some laughs. Try to find an older English movie titled: Cold Comfort Farm.

Ohhh Gawd now I am having a flashback. I was working in underground missile silo's when Dr. Strangelove was released.

 

[The Smoking Man]

TSM you need some laughs. Try to find an older English movie titled: Cold Comfort Farm.

Ohhh Gawd now I am having a flashback. I was working in underground missile silo's when Dr. Strangelove was released.

You'll love this then.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Do you believe that? What makes you think the other countries of world will take sides with the US unless it is in their own best interest?

And if everyone does not mind I would appreciate it if Ms. help the liberals next election would be allowed to speak for herself.

Dude, we all interact as we choose. And if you'd make your case with a little more information and facts it would be more helpful than derogatory remarks directed at a specific member.

 

[SOS2008]

Do you believe that? What makes you think the other countries of world will take sides with the US unless it is in their own best interest?

And if everyone does not mind I would appreciate it if Ms. help the liberals next election would be allowed to speak for herself.

My quote per your post was:

Originally Posted by SOS2008 -
If the reasons for attacks are removed, there will be no excuse or sympathy for their cause.

I do not say anything about other countries taking sides with the U.S. I say the terrorists will lose sympathy for their cause, just as they have within Islam for the taking of innocent civilian lives. Success in bleeding the U.S. militarily and economically helps them gain support/recruits, and this is now best accomplished in Iraq.

 

[cronxeh]

Its very likely that they take over one of American missile silos and detonate it on the spot or even launch it manually

 

[NewScientist]

Its very likely that they take over one of American missile silos and detonate it on the spot or even launch it manually

what evidence do you have for this claim

 

[cronxeh]

Evidence is for the federal agents to find, its not my niche. Suppose an optimal combination of an airman's family taken hostage, a certain missile silo under a complete electronic and EM blanket cover - no signals in and out, and a total military overthrow of a particular silo

Impossible? I think not. The US government doesn't think and neither has the capacity to execute protective measures against a broad scale professional terrorist attack that would include a statistical monitoring of a given base or missile installment over a period of time, a surveilance of every military personnel working on that base, a detailed knowledge of rocket science - from blueprints to knowledge of advanced engineering, and a significant amount of firepower to overrun, takeover and control anyone of those silos.

I bet as of today 'osama bin laden' is no longer a key terorrist worry for US. However there are a lot of people with money and a Bayesian conspiracy lovers who could hire ex-KGB specialists and execute aforementioned procedure. Improbable? Very probable. Likely to occur? depends on how far the US foreign policy is willing to go