Lebkuecher
Flashlight Enthusiast
This doesn't sound too good. If true I would be willing to bet they would use them here in the US. I don't think I would like to live in New York or Washington now. Foxnews Story
Report: Al Qaeda Has Nukes - Fox news
- Thread starter Lebkuecher
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
PhotonBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
"All I have to do is go to a hospital and steal some Cesium 137 or Cobalt 60, which by the way al-Qaida - the British officers found al-Qaida had some Cobalt 60. It's used in nuclear treatment facilities. I take that and conventional explosions, TNT or something Timothy McVeigh used with diesel fuel and fertilizer and make a bomb and disburse it."
Dirty Bombs
Dirty Bombs
Charles Bradshaw
Flashlight Enthusiast
PhotonBoy, there is a big difference between Nuclear Devices and dirty bombs. US Intelligence has historically underestimated Al Queda's abilities.
Nuclear devices as classified into two categories based on Yield: Strategic and Tactical. A suitcase device would be a Tactical Device. Thermonuclear devices are primarly Strategic weapons (fusion). Small tactical weapons are Fission (1 or 2 stage). That third stage is needed to make it into a fusion weapon.
I would not discount the possibility based merely on 'we could not find evidence of such.'
Nuclear devices as classified into two categories based on Yield: Strategic and Tactical. A suitcase device would be a Tactical Device. Thermonuclear devices are primarly Strategic weapons (fusion). Small tactical weapons are Fission (1 or 2 stage). That third stage is needed to make it into a fusion weapon.
I would not discount the possibility based merely on 'we could not find evidence of such.'
PhotonBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Whether the devices are classic nuclear devices (fusion or fission) or 'merely' a dirty bomb which spreads radioactive material using conventional explosives, the results are the same: terror and an area, such as the downtown core of a major city, poisoned by radioactive fallout.
I guess my point is that a dirty bomb is the easiest to assemble and extremely difficult to prevent due to the widespread availablity of radioactive materials in hospitals, universities, research labs, etc.
I guess my point is that a dirty bomb is the easiest to assemble and extremely difficult to prevent due to the widespread availablity of radioactive materials in hospitals, universities, research labs, etc.
Sure makes we wish we were focusing all of our energy, military and money on the war on terrorism instead of "the war on terrorism + we had to get Saddam".
I still believe the war has two very necessary steps:
1. Go get whatever Al Queda you can find
2. Work on the roots of why the terror exists in the first place
I am convinced that "Only #1" won't do the job. If you want proof, just look at Israel. They been doing #1 for decades (not on Al Queda but on their own terrorists). They've caught, imprisoned and killed countless terrorists...there always seem to be more.
#1 without #2 simply won't work IMHO.
I still believe the war has two very necessary steps:
1. Go get whatever Al Queda you can find
2. Work on the roots of why the terror exists in the first place
I am convinced that "Only #1" won't do the job. If you want proof, just look at Israel. They been doing #1 for decades (not on Al Queda but on their own terrorists). They've caught, imprisoned and killed countless terrorists...there always seem to be more.
#1 without #2 simply won't work IMHO.
tsg68
Flashlight Enthusiast
Ikendu, #2 will continue to exist as long as there are fundamentalist militants who believe the only way we can bring an end to terrorism is to convert to Islam and end support to Zionists. So seeing as we live in a country that supports freedom of religion and refuses to accept theocracy based on Islamic law, we will have terrorism. Osama stated this himself in an interview with a western journalist when he was asked what the US and other western countries could do to end Al Quaeda attacks he said simply "Convert to Islam."
I'm not ready to do that, are you?
Tad /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I'm not ready to do that, are you?
Tad /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
ledlurker
Enlightened
News week did a story on "Dirty Bombs" over a year ago and the summary of the story would be they would only be good for scare tactics against the population. If I remember the stats. The conventional explosion would kill far more people than the exposure to the worst case radioactive isotope even in the long term. The stats I remember would be a typical backpack or suitcase bomb would kill over 30 people. The immediate exposure to the radiation would kill 3 more and then over 20-40 years you would have up to 6 more people die from medical problem (like Cancer). And all other people in the blast/fallout area would have about a 3% increase in cancer and the like. So again this type of bomb would be used just to scare the public more than anything else.
A study is currently going on the sign up people that were exposed to the World Trade Center debris to track there long term health. Asbestos exposure is actuall more deadly than any dirty bomb. In long term researchers are already predicting more people will die from the asbestos ( and other debris) exposure than people killed on 9/11 in NYC
A study is currently going on the sign up people that were exposed to the World Trade Center debris to track there long term health. Asbestos exposure is actuall more deadly than any dirty bomb. In long term researchers are already predicting more people will die from the asbestos ( and other debris) exposure than people killed on 9/11 in NYC
tsg68 said:...[terrorism] will continue to exist as long as there are fundamentalist militants who believe the only way we can bring an end to terrorism is to convert to Islam...
Well, that is one way to look at it. And...you might even be right, although it is not my view.
Your notion requires the belief that terrorism is inevitable. And since we didn't use to live with it, I think there can be an end to it without all of us converting to Islam.
Is it your point to imply that there is no purpose to spending time on eliminating the roots of the terror...that it is hopeless to do so?
Well, that is one way to look at it. And...you might even be right, although it is not my view.
Your notion requires the belief that terrorism is inevitable. And since we didn't use to live with it, I think there can be an end to it without all of us converting to Islam.
Is it your point to imply that there is no purpose to spending time on eliminating the roots of the terror...that it is hopeless to do so?
PhotonBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
I think the Arab world is just reacting to the invasion of worldwide culture carried by modern technology. They are having difficulty absorbing the influx of non-Arab culture transported via satellite, TV, the internet, radio, videotape, movies, microwave towers, fiber optics, PCs, cell phones, DVDs, you name it.
The only thing to do is to wait until the reaction dies down. Then you'll see a transformation in their culture similar to what is happening right now in China. I expect it will take about another 40 years, or two generations.
The only thing to do is to wait until the reaction dies down. Then you'll see a transformation in their culture similar to what is happening right now in China. I expect it will take about another 40 years, or two generations.
pedalinbob
Flashlight Enthusiast
i believe that terrorism will not be stopped by appeasement. terrorism has been building againts the US for a long time, and eventually peaked with the WTC murders.
"For us, that war started on 9/11. For them, it started years before. After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 came the murders at the Saudi Arabia National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, in 1995; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000. In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad--the mastermind of 9/11--first proposed to Osama bin Laden that they use hijacked airliners to attack targets in the U.S. During this period, thousands of terrorists were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. And we have seen the work of terrorists in many attacks since 9/11--in Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Baghdad and, most recently, Madrid."
(Cheney)
in my opinion, Clinton tried to pacify terrorists and those nations that support them. he lobbed a few missiles and bombs...and did nothing else.
9/11 was NOT America's fault. blame appeasement and the terrorists that carried it out.
"The attacks of September 11, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal--the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11 gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction--on their own or with help from a terror regime--they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror. Remembering what we saw on the morning of 9/11, and knowing the nature of these enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to government: We must do everything in our power to protect our people from terrorist attack, and to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons of mass destruction." (Cheney)
"And we are applying the Bush doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account."
i have no problem with this doctrine--it calls evil for what it is,"evil", instead of playing nicey-nicey while terrorists plot newer more effective ways to kill us.
some nations dont like the above phrase. too bad.
i really dont care about their feelings if they are supporting terrorists.
you mileage may vary.
back on topic: we had better hope that terrorists never get a nuke. if they do, maybe we can tak them into being nice with their bomb.
Bob
"For us, that war started on 9/11. For them, it started years before. After the World Trade Center attack in 1993 came the murders at the Saudi Arabia National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, in 1995; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000. In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad--the mastermind of 9/11--first proposed to Osama bin Laden that they use hijacked airliners to attack targets in the U.S. During this period, thousands of terrorists were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. And we have seen the work of terrorists in many attacks since 9/11--in Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Baghdad and, most recently, Madrid."
(Cheney)
in my opinion, Clinton tried to pacify terrorists and those nations that support them. he lobbed a few missiles and bombs...and did nothing else.
9/11 was NOT America's fault. blame appeasement and the terrorists that carried it out.
"The attacks of September 11, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal--the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11 gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction--on their own or with help from a terror regime--they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror. Remembering what we saw on the morning of 9/11, and knowing the nature of these enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to government: We must do everything in our power to protect our people from terrorist attack, and to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons of mass destruction." (Cheney)
"And we are applying the Bush doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account."
i have no problem with this doctrine--it calls evil for what it is,"evil", instead of playing nicey-nicey while terrorists plot newer more effective ways to kill us.
some nations dont like the above phrase. too bad.
i really dont care about their feelings if they are supporting terrorists.
you mileage may vary.
back on topic: we had better hope that terrorists never get a nuke. if they do, maybe we can tak them into being nice with their bomb.
Bob
Al_Havemann
Enlightened
Al Quaeda cannot entirely like results from Sept. 11 all that much. They took down two buildings and killed 3000 people. The US responded and now, Pakistan is gone, Afghanistan gone, Iraq gone, Syria, Iran shifting to a less aggressive stance. All this as a result of 9/11 and the election of an aggressive US President.
If Al Quaeda were to nuke a major city in the US the reaction by the American population is likely to be even more extreme, very possibly, even radical. There's a large (very large) percentage of the population that would happily support an extreme response, and given a President careless of world opinion, the result could be ugly indeed.
Don't kid yourself that even a moderate President would be able to restrain the response either, I'm sure you've all seen how rabid people become when there's the possibility of a new nuclear power plant inside their state borders, or even that nuclear waste might pass through their state. If that frightens them so, now consider how they will react if Al Quaeda were to detonate a nuclear weapon, even a fairly small one that only killed a few hundred or so. Their family is now directly, demonstrably, threatened by nuclear weapons. It's over. They'll demand - demand a solution and most won't care much what that solution is or how much it costs, so long as their not threatened ever, ever again. It will be the only topic on the news and there isn't a politician out there that will be able to resist the pressure and remain in office.
Also think about how the last few years have strengthened the military, trained the troops and field commanders. Prior to 9/11 it had been years since real action, now there are hundreds of seasoned field commanders and many thousands of seasoned troops. The US has, by far, the most capable military in the world. Also, unlike 9/11, we now have a large cadre of Arab speaking translators and spies. And then there's those new machine translators that are fast and very accurate, able to listen to hundreds of phone conversations at once while running high level word and sentence filters.
Lets all hope Al Quaeda has enough smarts to restrain their radical members. Even the Arab world would be badly injured by such an event. Their reputations have already suffered terribly, few trust them anymore as it is, add a nuclear attack on top of it all and there no place to go but down.
Al
If Al Quaeda were to nuke a major city in the US the reaction by the American population is likely to be even more extreme, very possibly, even radical. There's a large (very large) percentage of the population that would happily support an extreme response, and given a President careless of world opinion, the result could be ugly indeed.
Don't kid yourself that even a moderate President would be able to restrain the response either, I'm sure you've all seen how rabid people become when there's the possibility of a new nuclear power plant inside their state borders, or even that nuclear waste might pass through their state. If that frightens them so, now consider how they will react if Al Quaeda were to detonate a nuclear weapon, even a fairly small one that only killed a few hundred or so. Their family is now directly, demonstrably, threatened by nuclear weapons. It's over. They'll demand - demand a solution and most won't care much what that solution is or how much it costs, so long as their not threatened ever, ever again. It will be the only topic on the news and there isn't a politician out there that will be able to resist the pressure and remain in office.
Also think about how the last few years have strengthened the military, trained the troops and field commanders. Prior to 9/11 it had been years since real action, now there are hundreds of seasoned field commanders and many thousands of seasoned troops. The US has, by far, the most capable military in the world. Also, unlike 9/11, we now have a large cadre of Arab speaking translators and spies. And then there's those new machine translators that are fast and very accurate, able to listen to hundreds of phone conversations at once while running high level word and sentence filters.
Lets all hope Al Quaeda has enough smarts to restrain their radical members. Even the Arab world would be badly injured by such an event. Their reputations have already suffered terribly, few trust them anymore as it is, add a nuclear attack on top of it all and there no place to go but down.
Al
Ordin_Aryguy
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 131
They may in fact have suitcase bombs. Then again, if the same intelligence ops are telling us that whom also told us that Iraq qas rich with WMD's... well, maybe we ought to liberally apply grains of salt to the data.
Dirty bombs could be much more of a problem than a suitcase bomb. The purpose of a dirty bomb is to make an area unihabitable and create pandamonium. Say for instance a dirty device was to be exploded in the middle of a very large city, very few people would be killed, but millions of them would have to find new homes. All those tall buildings would be empty for centuries. All that infrastructure would be useless. Talk about pandamonium, try to instantly relocate 5 million people to new homes.
That's a problem.
Ordin
Dirty bombs could be much more of a problem than a suitcase bomb. The purpose of a dirty bomb is to make an area unihabitable and create pandamonium. Say for instance a dirty device was to be exploded in the middle of a very large city, very few people would be killed, but millions of them would have to find new homes. All those tall buildings would be empty for centuries. All that infrastructure would be useless. Talk about pandamonium, try to instantly relocate 5 million people to new homes.
That's a problem.
Ordin
Ordin_Aryguy
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 131
They may in fact have suitcase bombs. Then again, if the same intelligence ops are telling us that whom also told us that Iraq qas rich with WMD's... well, maybe we ought to liberally apply grains of salt to the data.
Dirty bombs could be much more of a problem than a suitcase bomb. The purpose of a dirty bomb is to make an area unihabitable and create pandamonium. Say for instance a dirty device was to be exploded in the middle of a very large city, very few people would be killed, but millions of them would have to find new homes. All those tall buildings would be empty for centuries. All that infrastructure would be useless. Talk about pandamonium, try to instantly relocate 5 million people to new homes.
That's a problem.
Ordin
Dirty bombs could be much more of a problem than a suitcase bomb. The purpose of a dirty bomb is to make an area unihabitable and create pandamonium. Say for instance a dirty device was to be exploded in the middle of a very large city, very few people would be killed, but millions of them would have to find new homes. All those tall buildings would be empty for centuries. All that infrastructure would be useless. Talk about pandamonium, try to instantly relocate 5 million people to new homes.
That's a problem.
Ordin
JonSidneyB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Ummmm, people live in nagasaki and hiroshima.
This is not meant to be flip.
Just don't really understand but I think I have a good idea why.
My best guess is that Cessium 33 and Radioactive Iodine dissapates and the heavier items such as Strontium can be cleaned up.
This is not meant to be flip.
Just don't really understand but I think I have a good idea why.
My best guess is that Cessium 33 and Radioactive Iodine dissapates and the heavier items such as Strontium can be cleaned up.
It's fairly widely assumed that the suitcase nukes, if they ever existed, decayed and became useless in the mid 1990s. The shelf-life of a nuke, without maintainence, is not all that long - I think I read 10 years? and terrorists certainly don't have the staff and the infrastructure to do it.
I could believe they've bought one or two. I don't believe they'd successfully detonate.
I could believe they've bought one or two. I don't believe they'd successfully detonate.
Ordin_Aryguy
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 131
Yep, your on the mark with that. People do live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I wasn't careful enough with my post, nor clear enough. My bad.
The point remains, the purpose of a dirty bomb is not to outright kill. They are tactical tools used to create havoc.
If someone were to tell the residents of NYC, Chicago, LA or some other mega-city, that their city was contaminated and no longer safe to live in, what sort of mess would that create? A giant one!
So the mess might be able to be cleaned up eventually. That takes lots of time, piles of money and lots of resources.
The terrorist mind set is vectored on creating the greatest levels of terror. A dirty bomb would certainly do that very effectively, very likely without ouright killing a single person.
Ordin
The point remains, the purpose of a dirty bomb is not to outright kill. They are tactical tools used to create havoc.
If someone were to tell the residents of NYC, Chicago, LA or some other mega-city, that their city was contaminated and no longer safe to live in, what sort of mess would that create? A giant one!
So the mess might be able to be cleaned up eventually. That takes lots of time, piles of money and lots of resources.
The terrorist mind set is vectored on creating the greatest levels of terror. A dirty bomb would certainly do that very effectively, very likely without ouright killing a single person.
Ordin
KC2IXE
Flashaholic*
[ QUOTE ]
Ordin_Aryguy said:
...snip...If someone were to tell the residents of NYC, Chicago, LA or some other mega-city, that their city was contaminated and no longer safe to live in, what sort of mess would that create? A giant one!
So the mess might be able to be cleaned up eventually. That takes lots of time, piles of money and lots of resources.
...snip...
Ordin
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they would be lieing! OK, let's saw we have a radiological bomb (proper term for a dirty bomb)
The radiological component will spread no further than, say, the actual soot from the explosion. Folks, we talking about contaminating a few square blocks, at WORST, and more likely an area about the size of a few football fields
Yeah, it creates havoc - you have to clean that area up. It makes it a REAL problem for the first responders, and a lot of people will panic. MOST of the radiological component will stay in chunks/whatever size particles it started off in, and NOT go that far. The problem is, now you have to deal with it to get to the other folks
The quick summation - you shut down a few square blocks, you cause panic, the people who were IN that area are going to have a hard time, but folks a mile away have nothing to worry about. - NYC isn't small - it's 301 square miles (everyone forgets the "outer boroughs" - Queens, Brooklyn, The Bronx and Staten Island). Set a dirty bomb of in Times Square, and the folks in say, Riverdale, or Howard Beach will be more affected by the news media, or the fact that a firend or loved one works in the Times Square area, than any direct affect
Ordin_Aryguy said:
...snip...If someone were to tell the residents of NYC, Chicago, LA or some other mega-city, that their city was contaminated and no longer safe to live in, what sort of mess would that create? A giant one!
So the mess might be able to be cleaned up eventually. That takes lots of time, piles of money and lots of resources.
...snip...
Ordin
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, they would be lieing! OK, let's saw we have a radiological bomb (proper term for a dirty bomb)
The radiological component will spread no further than, say, the actual soot from the explosion. Folks, we talking about contaminating a few square blocks, at WORST, and more likely an area about the size of a few football fields
Yeah, it creates havoc - you have to clean that area up. It makes it a REAL problem for the first responders, and a lot of people will panic. MOST of the radiological component will stay in chunks/whatever size particles it started off in, and NOT go that far. The problem is, now you have to deal with it to get to the other folks
The quick summation - you shut down a few square blocks, you cause panic, the people who were IN that area are going to have a hard time, but folks a mile away have nothing to worry about. - NYC isn't small - it's 301 square miles (everyone forgets the "outer boroughs" - Queens, Brooklyn, The Bronx and Staten Island). Set a dirty bomb of in Times Square, and the folks in say, Riverdale, or Howard Beach will be more affected by the news media, or the fact that a firend or loved one works in the Times Square area, than any direct affect
brightnorm
Flashaholic
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 7,160
Would you buy a used nuke from this Man? (Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Queda's #2 man).
Note the hand position; is he perhaps sending us an obscene "message"? I can joke about this because I (and several million others) live in the center of an Al Queda bullseye. Gallows humor perhaps.
Brightnorm
Note the hand position; is he perhaps sending us an obscene "message"? I can joke about this because I (and several million others) live in the center of an Al Queda bullseye. Gallows humor perhaps.
Brightnorm
Actually, dirty bombs are a lot worse than that:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm
quote:
[for a cobalt dirty bomb] an area of approximately one-thousand square kilometers, extending over three states, would be contaminated. Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years.
quote ends.
Nasty, nasty stuff. Not nearly as bad as a real nuke, but more than bad enough to be getting on with.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm
quote:
[for a cobalt dirty bomb] an area of approximately one-thousand square kilometers, extending over three states, would be contaminated. Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years.
quote ends.
Nasty, nasty stuff. Not nearly as bad as a real nuke, but more than bad enough to be getting on with.
