Enemy Nukes In the US?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That story has some flaws. The description of the suitcase nukes doesn’t sound right, plutonium is the material of choice for small nukes.

Smuggling anything across the mexican border is a good way to get caught.

I don’t think ms13 would want to help kill most of their customers.

I doubt the USSR would have taken the risk involved with smuggling nukes into the US.

I doubt that we would just start nuking muslim countries as a response to a nuclear attack. [/quote]

What do you think the response would be to multiple nukes going off in the US, if it was traced to radical Islamofacists?

22

[quote]hedo wrote:

What do you think the response would be to multiple nukes going off in the US, if it was traced to radical Islamofacists?

[/quote]

A sea of glass.

If these devices were already in the US, which the article claims, they would have been already detonated. They wouldn’t wait around.

23

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
hedo wrote:

What do you think the response would be to multiple nukes going off in the US, if it was traced to radical Islamofacists?

A sea of glass.

If these devices were already in the US, which the article claims, they would have been already detonated. They wouldn’t wait around.

[/quote]

I hope you are right. My feeling is they would have blown it by now also.

As to buried nukes. Who knows. They are
inherently unstable and require constant maitenance. I doubt if one form 1985 or earlier, if not serviced, would actually work. Also don’t think the Russians would have left them behind.

MS-13. If they can make a buck they are involved.

I have no doubt that if they did use one in the US, we will respond.

24

Nukes would be rather easy to sneak across our borders, especially if such a “high-level” gang as MS13 performed the operation.

I think it could be possible for them to have nukes in the states and merely be waiting for the perfect time and/or more nukes to be brought in for multiple, simultanious detonations for added effect.

I highly doubt we would retaliate against Mecca (I know we wouldn’t). We’d make way too many new enemies. How we would retaliate is a very interesting scenario. Probably just invade or bomb every country protecting terrorists.

It’s possible that the Soviets left their nukes here in the states, as we’ve only receently been getting rid of ours planted in Europe. It’s even more likely there still here due to the chaos following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I do agree with the notion that the article is politically motivated. However we really, really need to do something about that border. Could be a “scare people into action” type article.

25

[quote]hedo wrote:
What do you think the response would be to multiple nukes going off in the US, if it was traced to radical Islamofacists?
[/quote]

Not a full scale Nuclear war with the muslim world i assure you of that. The only proven and tested muslim country with both Nukes and long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to most parts of the world is Pakistan and they just happen to be nehigbours of India(who too have nukes and are enemies of pakistan, which is a plus for anyone attacking Pakistan), and sadly China(who have enough weapons to kill everyone on this planet twice), would you want to see a nuclear exchange with a country fully equiped to wipe out at the very least isreal off the map? Not to mention possibily provoking its neighbour China who could wipe our continent out?

The response you are looking for will result in the world most probably coming to an end, before the rapture etc ever happens.

Even if they nuke a city i dont expect the USA to engage in the final world war. Lets not forget a city has been nuked in the past and we didnt see the retaliation to it that you are expecting.

26

This is old news. Paul L Williams, the source for that worldnetdaily article, wrote another book on this topic. Here is a review/analysis:

http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/newsletter/BooksSept04.htm

Choice bits from the review:

"Williams […] clearly has little in the way of scientific training. There are numerous technical errors throughout the book, and he largely derives his conclusions from newspapers instead of primary source documents (indeed, I could find none of the latter in his bibliography).

… So is there little need to worry over ‘loose nukes’? Would that we were so lucky. Where I truly am concerned about nukes in the hands of radical groups follows from the sordid story of Dr. A. Q. Khan of Pakistan.[Dr Khan] really did try to get enriched uranium (a more likely fissionable material for terrorist use than plutonium) into the hands of al Qaeda. [If successful], my guess is that some of that material would have found its way to Chechnya, and the fighters there have no compunction about using it against Russia. […] the best evidence we have is that no useable fissionable material has made it out of Pakistan, by far the most likely source of key components of a nuclear weapon.

In the end, William’s book is unsettling, but at least as much for the terror that it illogically induces as for the real terror it describes."

So yeah, it’s scary stuff, but I’m not ready to put on my lead-lined nuke pants just yet.

27

[quote]samsmarts wrote:
hedo wrote:
What do you think the response would be to multiple nukes going off in the US, if it was traced to radical Islamofacists?

Not a full scale Nuclear war with the muslim world i assure you of that. The only proven and tested muslim country with both Nukes and long range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to most parts of the world is Pakistan and they just happen to be nehigbours of India(who too have nukes and are enemies of pakistan, which is a plus for anyone attacking Pakistan), and sadly China(who have enough weapons to kill everyone on this planet twice), would you want to see a nuclear exchange with a country fully equiped to wipe out at the very least isreal off the map? Not to mention possibily provoking its neighbour China who could wipe our continent out?

The response you are looking for will result in the world most probably coming to an end, before the rapture etc ever happens.

Even if they nuke a city i dont expect the USA to engage in the final world war. Lets not forget a city has been nuked in the past and we didnt see the retaliation to it that you are expecting.
[/quote]

Sam

We nuked two cities in WW2. Since the enemy had no capability to respond the retaliation via a similar attack was not possible.

China’s ICBM force,as of today, is a threat, but by no means capable of destoying the US. It will be able to one day but not yet. Fortunately they are not fanatic but pragmatic. The Chinese would not risk a day of lost sales to the US, let alone a city, or a hundred cities, for the Islamofacists.

The threat of nuclear exchange sucks. I was hopeful the world and I outgrew it, when the cold war ended. I am truly pissed off my children, and others children, face that danger.

28

[quote]hedo wrote:

The threat of nuclear exchange sucks. I was hopeful the world and I outgrew it, when the cold war ended. I am truly pissed off my children, and others children, face that danger.

[/quote]

Hedo,

This is one area on which you and I agree. Nobody’s kids should have to live under threat of nuclear death.

WMD

29

[quote]WMD wrote:
hedo wrote:

The threat of nuclear exchange sucks. I was hopeful the world and I outgrew it, when the cold war ended. I am truly pissed off my children, and others children, face that danger.

Hedo,

This is one area on which you and I agree. Nobody’s kids should have to live under threat of nuclear death.

WMD[/quote]

I hear you. It sucked then and it sucks now.

30

What have we learned here? First, the poster needs to read more legitimate news, and less BS. Secondly, some of you have to re-evaluate yourselves. Attacking Mecca in retaliation makes no sense, and shows that you guys view Islam as the enemy, and not the terrorists. Killing innocents in response to a terrorist attack makes YOU a terrorist. I am honestly disgusted.

31

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
What have we learned here? First, Jeff needs to read more legitimate news, and less BS. Secondly, some of you have to re-evaluate yourselves. Attacking Mecca in retaliation makes no sense, and shows that you guys view Islam as the enemy, and not the terrorists. Killing innocents in response to a terrorist attack makes YOU a terrorist. I am honestly disgusted.[/quote]

He is right. We should sing kumbayah. And then surrender. And then convert to some hellish Islamo-Communist combination.

The threat of destroying Mecca may be a good deterrent. Then again, just making the threat known might cause more problems than it prevents.

Actually doing it after an attack would accomplish very little.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
What have we learned here? First, Jeff needs to read more legitimate news, and less BS. Secondly, some of you have to re-evaluate yourselves. Attacking Mecca in retaliation makes no sense, and shows that you guys view Islam as the enemy, and not the terrorists. Killing innocents in response to a terrorist attack makes YOU a terrorist. I am honestly disgusted.

He is right. We should sing kumbayah. And then surrender. And then convert to some hellish Islamo-Communist combination.

The threat of destroying Mecca may be a good deterrent. Then again, just making the threat known might cause more problems than it prevents.

Actually doing it after an attack would accomplish very little.[/quote]

I made the original comment. The story mentioned that somwhere like 20 or 30 nukes could be detonated in the US. My opinion is that the US would respond overwhelmingly. I don’t see that any target would be off the list after such a massive attack. That’s the deterrent, and it’s all theoretical guesses at this point.

33

But bombing Mecca would turn every living muslim into an enemy of the states. Every muslim in your neighbourhood will be suicide bombing at your hospitals, childrens school etc.

While the topic we are discussing here is very very very very far fetched, it is interesting to figure out what kind of retaliation should the US have planned if indeed another very large scale attack like 9/11 ever occurs.

34

[quote]samsmarts wrote:
But bombing Mecca would turn every living muslim into an enemy of the states. Every muslim in your neighbourhood will be suicide bombing at your hospitals, childrens school etc.

While the topic we are discussing here is very very very very far fetched, it is interesting to figure out what kind of retaliation should the US have planned if indeed another very large scale attack like 9/11 ever occurs.
[/quote]

What is wrong with you people? Yes, every muslim in the world is going to be pissed off. But suicide bombings? WTF, yeah, muslims are just itching to blow themselves up. They are crazy motherfuckers. Seriously…

And yeah, every muslim is going to respond by bombing hospitals and schools.

35

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

He is right. We should sing kumbayah. And then surrender. And then convert to some hellish Islamo-Communist combination.

The threat of destroying Mecca may be a good deterrent. Then again, just making the threat known might cause more problems than it prevents.
Actually doing it after an attack would accomplish very little.[/quote]

Forget morality, huh? If you are willing to use terroristic measures, you have no right to bitch when people use the same methods against you.

There are ways to do things without killing thousands of innocents, and a reprisal, or even the threat of it, makes Islam the enemy, and not terrorist groups. In that scenario, the average muslim has nothing to lose by becoming hostile towards the US, and everything to gain. Not only that, but the terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their “cause”, what makes you think they wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice other people’s lives? It is a useless deterrent, and a terroristic threat.

You are making it perfectly clear that you view Islam as the enemy.

36

This is a brief article from Harold Hitchinson posted on Strategypage.com. He reviews probable strategies to a WMD attack.

NBC: What if a Terrorist Attack Fails?

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL AND WEAPONS

July 14, 2005: What happens when a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction ?fails?? ?Failure? in this case is fraught with a number of variables that can determine the result. As the 1995 Tokyo subway attack by Aum Shinrikyo terrorists (using sarin nerve gas) shows, chemical weapons can be produced by a group that gathers together enough talent, money and determination.

If such an attack occurred in the United States, the investigation will probably be carried out by the FBI, with assistance from other law enforcement agencies. If the attack is from a group that has used homemade chemical or biological agents, the investigation and prosecution will be left to law enforcement, much as Japan did in the wake of the subway attacks. Several of the perpetrators were sentenced to death. This is partly because the investigation showed that Aum Shinrikyo had been working on biological weapons like botulism and anthrax before it switched to the use of sarin nerve gas. These groups also would be trying to use the black market to acquire weapons (Aum Shinrikyo was even looking into acquiring a nuclear warhead).

It is imperative to keep in mind that this was what one group could do. Aum Shinrikyo was a large group (as many as 40,000 people worldwide, 9,000 of which were in Japan, but it also had numerous members in Russia and had even opened an office in New York), and was worth as much as $150 million, and even today maintains a profitable computer business. This was an atypical organization because of the way it operated largely in the open. Most of the time, terrorist cells will keep a much lower profile, but the ingenuity and depravity of terrorist groups should not be underestimated. Remember, some of these weapons are easy to manufacture.

A failed terrorist attack by another country, or by a terrorist group using weapons provided by a state sponsor, that does not result in mass casualties, will be handled differently. It will not matter whether the attack was stopped, whether no fatalities occur, or if there are only a small number of fatalities. Should the source be traced, American policy is clear: They will draw an American response in kind. The Americans only have one form of WMD: nuclear weapons. The only difference here would be in the scale of the response. There would still be a response in kind, though. Maintenance of deterrence alone would demand that. The size of the response would depend on who is President. It would also depend on how the state sponsor of the terrorists acted. Quick compliance after the initial retaliation (probably unconditional surrender) would limit the extent of the American response.

Much of this is all-too-thinkable in the wake of the Tokyo subway attack and the attacks of 9/11. The Tokyo subway attack was one such ?fizzle? ? and it still resulted in 12 dead and over 5,000 injured, with a high number of the injured still suffering symptoms (mostly eye strain and post-traumatic stress disorder). Decontamination of the location hit would be time-consuming (some biological and chemical agents cane be very persistent ? anthrax can last for a while on items like clothing).

When weapons of mass destruction are involved, the stakes get high, and an attack that ?fizzles? can still becomes a major crisis. ? Harold C. Hutchison

37

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

He is right. We should sing kumbayah. And then surrender. And then convert to some hellish Islamo-Communist combination.

The threat of destroying Mecca may be a good deterrent. Then again, just making the threat known might cause more problems than it prevents.
Actually doing it after an attack would accomplish very little.

Forget morality, huh? If you are willing to use terroristic measures, you have no right to bitch when people use the same methods against you.

There are ways to do things without killing thousands of innocents, and a reprisal, or even the threat of it, makes Islam the enemy, and not terrorist groups. In that scenario, the average muslim has nothing to lose by becoming hostile towards the US, and everything to gain. Not only that, but the terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their “cause”, what makes you think they wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice other people’s lives? It is a useless deterrent, and a terroristic threat.

You are making it perfectly clear that you view Islam as the enemy.[/quote]

I actually agreed with you while poking a little fun at you.

If you would have bothered to read what I had written instead of jumping to conclusions, maybe you would have seen this.

38

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
samsmarts wrote:
But bombing Mecca would turn every living muslim into an enemy of the states. Every muslim in your neighbourhood will be suicide bombing at your hospitals, childrens school etc.

While the topic we are discussing here is very very very very far fetched, it is interesting to figure out what kind of retaliation should the US have planned if indeed another very large scale attack like 9/11 ever occurs.

What is wrong with you people? Yes, every muslim in the world is going to be pissed off. But suicide bombings? WTF, yeah, muslims are just itching to blow themselves up. They are crazy motherfuckers. Seriously…

And yeah, every muslim is going to respond by bombing hospitals and schools.[/quote]

“hadj, haj, hajj - the fifth pillar of Islam is a pilgrimage to Mecca during the month of Dhu al-Qadah; at least once in a lifetime a Muslim is expected to make a religious journey to Mecca and the Kaaba; “for a Muslim the hajj is the ultimate act of worship””

Isnt performing a pilgrimage to mecca neccesary for every muslim once in their life time? If there is no more mecaa where will they go?

If Mecca is half as important to the muslim world as literature suggests, bombing it means going to war with every muslim on this planet. And not expecting the muslims who live within the USA to bomb shit left and right, is as foolish and retarded as bombing Mecca in the first place(which I was opposed to from the moment Hedo mentioned it).

39

[quote]samsmarts wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
samsmarts wrote:
But bombing Mecca would turn every living muslim into an enemy of the states. Every muslim in your neighbourhood will be suicide bombing at your hospitals, childrens school etc.

While the topic we are discussing here is very very very very far fetched, it is interesting to figure out what kind of retaliation should the US have planned if indeed another very large scale attack like 9/11 ever occurs.

What is wrong with you people? Yes, every muslim in the world is going to be pissed off. But suicide bombings? WTF, yeah, muslims are just itching to blow themselves up. They are crazy motherfuckers. Seriously…

And yeah, every muslim is going to respond by bombing hospitals and schools.

“hadj, haj, hajj - the fifth pillar of Islam is a pilgrimage to Mecca during the month of Dhu al-Qadah; at least once in a lifetime a Muslim is expected to make a religious journey to Mecca and the Kaaba; “for a Muslim the hajj is the ultimate act of worship””

Isnt performing a pilgrimage to mecca neccesary for every muslim once in their life time? If there is no more mecaa where will they go?

If Mecca is half as important to the muslim world as literature suggests, bombing it means going to war with every muslim on this planet. And not expecting the muslims who live within the USA to bomb shit left and right, is as foolish and retarded as bombing Mecca in the first place(which I was opposed to from the moment Hedo mentioned it).[/quote]

Yes, it would seriously piss off every muslim in the world. But pissed off muslims don’t all bomb hospitals and schools. Personally, if anyone declared war on me, I’d be destroying railway systems, sabotaging factories, and disrupting production of war materials, not killing innocent people, and certainly not children, and the sick.

The idea of a retaliatory strike against mecca is retarded, and it is my opinion you’d have to be a complete moron to think that’s a good idea. But your perception of what the average muslim would do is just as retarded and offensive.You don’t seem to get it, muslims are not that different from christians. This is because muslims and christians have something in common. Can you figure out what that is?

(HINT: it has to do with what species they are)

40

In my country they have a saying about the sound of one hand clapping.

You two are arguing with yourself at this point.