| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Terror Networks | |
| CIA says al Qaeda ready to use nukes | |
| 2003-06-03 | |
| says Bill Gertz at the Washington Times. EFL. Al Qaeda terrorists and related groups are set to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in deadly strikes, according to a new CIA report. "Al Qaeda's goal is the use of [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons] to cause mass casualties," the CIA stated in an internal report produced last month. "However, most attacks by the group — and especially by associated extremists — probably will be small-scale, incorporating relatively crude delivery means and easily produced or obtained chemicals, toxins or radiological substances," the report said. Since they've had trouble mounting big attacks lately. Islamist extremists linked to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to choose from for chemical, biological and radiological or nuclear (CBRN) attacks," said the four-page report titled "Terrorist CBRN: Materials and Effects." The unclassified report was produced by the CIA's intelligence directorate, and a copy of it was obtained by The Washington Times. The report identifies several deadly toxins and chemicals that al Qaeda could use to conduct the attacks, including nerve gases, germ and toxin weapons anthrax and ricin, and radiological dispersal devices, also known as "dirty bombs." In the latest report, the CIA said terrorist success would depend on planners' technical expertise. However, one likely goal of any attempted attack would be "panic and disruption," the agency stated. Several groups of al Qaeda tried to conduct "poison plot" attacks in Europe using chemicals and toxins in assassinations and small-scale attacks, the CIA said. "These agents could cause hundreds of casualties and widespread panic if used in multiple, simultaneous attacks," the report said. Also, al Qaeda is developing bombs with radioactive material from industrial or medical facilities, and an al Qaeda document obtained in Afghanistan revealed that the group had sketched out a crude device capable of causing a nuclear blast, the report said. "Osama bin Laden's operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption and terror," the report stated. Al Qaeda's plans for chemical arms were revealed in a document obtained in summer 2002 that "indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin and VX," the report said.
A homemade nuclear bomb would be one of two types: either an implosion device that uses conventional explosives to create a nuclear blast, or a "gun-assembled" device. Making a nuclear bomb would require that terrorists first obtain fissile material such as enriched uranium or plutonium as fuel for creating a nuclear blast. "Use of a [radiological dispersal device] by terrorists could result in health, environmental and economic effects as well as political and social effects," the report said. "It will cause fear, injury, and possibly lead to levels of contamination requiring costly and time-consuming cleanup efforts." Among the materials that are available to terrorists for this type of bomb are cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60 — materials used in hospitals, universities, factories, construction companies and laboratories. The CIA report contains photographs of a training video obtained in Afghanistan from an al Qaeda training camp showing chemical agents being tested on dogs. Yet another good reason why cleaning them out of Afghanistan was a good idea. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Doesn't have to be one of the fire-retardant planes. Lots of others are lightly or un-guarded. Think of a UPS or Fedex plane - both have their own fleets - filled with overnight mail being delivered to the Capitol. Wonder whatever happened to that rattletrap 727 that was repo'd from Angola...? |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-06-03 13:50:10 |
| #13 If you had the time you could certainly replace the fire retardant with something nasty. Either explosive or deadly, to dump out. Sort of like the corp duster stories that circled around right after Sept 11. People might not even be alarmed if there was a fire and they'd seen that type of plane fly over all the time. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-06-03 13:16:12 |
| #12 gasoline tanker - you mean a truck - i thought above you were talking about planes. IIUC gasoline and chemicals are not normally transported by plane. Not to say that the issue of lightly guarded small planes isnt an issue. I would think Al qaeeda would explore all these options - the attacks more likely to succeed as well as difficult ones that could create more damage. thats why we have to defend against them all, as well as take the war to them. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 11:20:39 |
| #11 Re: ColoradoConservative's posting. The more dangerous threat would be a Gulfstream G5 business jet traveling at 500 mph. A jet of that size traveling at that speed would probably go right through one building, and hit any ajoining building. Denver has two business airports with Gulfstreams within minutes of downtown. We hope they have adequate security to deal with any threat. |
| Posted by: VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) 2003-06-03 11:07:54 |
| #10 Re: VRWC's posting. I fully realize that the fire-retardant slurry would not create a conflagration, ironically it would have a mitigating effect on any fire caused. The point is that these planes are located at regional airports close to major city centers in many cases and the effect would simply be the horror of the plane-building impact. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 11:02:05 |
| #9 Chuck wrote: WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists,... Al Qaeda aren't cult-type terrorists? You mean all of this stuff about the US being a Great Satan and reestablishing the Caliphate aren't true. Boy, am I relieved. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-03 10:58:29 |
| #8 Of course a plane loaded with fire retardent just doesn't have the explosive power of one filled with jet fuel. The kinetic energy of the impact would provide the only damage, since everything else would be covered in iron oxide laced water. |
| Posted by: VRWC Colorado Chapter (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) 2003-06-03 10:54:10 |
| #7 Regarding Chuck's last comment. During our wildfire season last year, we had several of this huge lumbering transport planes in the state loading up with fire-retardant slurry at regional airports. I always thought how very vulnerable it would be for terrorists to overpower one of these planes at the lightly-guarded regional airports and fly maybe 10 minutes into downtown Denver. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-06-03 10:47:26 |
| #6 liberalhawk - I didn't say a passenger plane. And, it could be an LP gas tanker, or a gasoline tanker, or a tanker of methyl ethyl bad-stuff. In twenty minutes, tops, I could improvise a serious incident with what is all around me in the city. And if I planned as well as al Qaeda usually does, it could be a big incident. The tools of terrorism are all around us, and cannot be totally defensed. To assume that they would choose an expensive, risky, high tech option is being foolish. The CIA merely wants to justify itself, rather than produce information of any actual benefit. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-06-03 10:41:07 |
| #5 chuck - because presumably its a lot harder to fly a plane into a building these days. Leaving aside govt and airline security steps, its widely noted that passengers are not likely to tolerate a hijacking, when they can expect it will end in death for all aboard. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-06-03 09:28:03 |
| #4 The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. |
| Posted by: ----------<<<<- 2003-06-03 09:11:35 |
| #3 This may have added a few new details, but that Al Q would have "used them if they had them" was something we already knew. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-06-03 07:42:34 |
| #2 I've said it before. Why would any terrorist use WMD, whose creation, transport and handling are dangerous to the terrorist before they reach their target when they can just fly a plane into a building? Low tech, inexpensive weapons are the hallmark of al Qaeda. WMD are far more likely to be used in a state sponsored act, or by cult type terrorists, if at all. The dog video was shown on American television teo years ago. CIA is rehashing old info. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-06-03 07:01:57 |
| #1 Making a nuclear bomb would require that terrorists first obtain fissile material such as enriched uranium or plutonium as fuel for creating a nuclear blast. Putin and company have probably sold Iran enough material to make several weapons. Or maybe they are getting their toys from the Nkors. It has been my long held belief that should al Qaeda go nuclear, the terrorist states that put them in that position will probably be reduced to glowing slag by the end of the day. |
| Posted by: Douglas De Bono 2003-06-03 06:36:57 |