| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Does al Qaeda have nukes? | |
| 2005-09-28 | |
I asked Williams if he could prove that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. âYes,â he said, âthere is undeniable proof that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. In December 2001, as U.S. troops combed the tunnels near an al Qaeda base in Kandahar, they discovered uranium-238 in a lead-lined canister. This was reported in every major U.S. newspaper, including The New York Times. In October 2001, an al Qaeda operative was arrested as he attempted to enter Israel through the checkpoint at Ramallah. The operative had a bomb strapped to his back that Mossad first believed was a radiological devise but later discovered, as verified by UPI, that it was a tactical nuke. Early in 2001, two British agents, as reported by BBC on Nov. 26, 2001, managed to infiltrate an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan by posing as recruits from a London mosque. The agents eventually were sent to Herat where they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Finally, Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majid of the A.Q. Khan Research Facility in Pakistan admitted upon interrogation that they provided assistance to al Qaeda in developing nuclear weapons and that at least one weapon was forward deployed from Karachi to the United States. You can check out this story by turning to A. Borchgrave, âAl Qaeda Nuclear Agenda Verified,â Washington Times, Dec. 10, 2001. There are numerous other instances in which proof has been provided but the above accounts should suffice to dispel all doubt.â Guys: what do you think would happen if al Qaeda nuked properly (not dirty nuke but hiroshima style) any of: New York, LA, Sydney, Melbourne, Washington, London, Berlin, Amsterdam etc in a co-ordinated attack? Would we declare war on Islam? Would we nuke Mecca to disprove the caliphate can ever exist? Would we take it and submit to the Caliphate or the reduced living standards? Would we have civil war in our own countries of left vs right if the government did nuke Saudi/Pakistan etc? Apologies for the previous wrong post | |
| Posted by:anon1 |
| #37 Never underestimate stupidity & expect the unexpected. |
| Posted by: Fun Dung Poo 2005-09-28 23:20 |
| #36 wxjames There would be a civil war in the US if the US gov did not respond to a nuking of a US city. It would be a short civil war/necktie party... followed by a massive response to the nukers of the city(s). |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-09-28 21:09 |
| #35 If and when a nuke goes off, the world will react with condemnation and demands of accountability. There will not be a counter strike unless a major nuke holder attacks another. The organization launching a nuke will become isolated and overrun and marched off to jail and a long useless trial. Reports of the damage and residual sickness will stretch into months of unnecessary carping. In the end, we will wish we never heard of nuclear weapons. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2005-09-28 19:12 |
| #34 AQ with Nukes sure..... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-09-28 19:11 |
| #33 If AQ had Nuke they would sent it long time ago. |
| Posted by: Ulating Elmineque9210 2005-09-28 17:48 |
| #32 James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it's soul. Y'know, I used to think that, and I melted down right here at Rantburg over it once or twice. But we survived the meat grinder invasions of both Western Europe and the Pacific without losing our souls as a nation, we survived the fire-bombings of German cities without losing our souls, and we survived dropping the first two working atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians without losing our souls. The thing about being a Jacksonian civilization is that we only go total ("balls out"?) when we agree that we are forced to the necessity. I've come to think that the only ones who might lose their souls over all-out war would be those who are fighting against Bush's intermediate steps now. And most of those would go chicken hawk, demanding inordinate response, anyway, then noisily regret what was done, afterward. Certainly, I've decided that if the Islamofascist idiots refuse to take the opportunity we now offer, they will have chosen the alternative by default. It isn't like they haven't had plenty of warning -- the EU's diplomats keep threatening Iran and before that Saddam Hussein with the big stick of American warfare if they don't/didn't work with the EU's soft power (whatever that is). |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-09-28 17:30 |
| #31 Here's how I see the reaction taking place: 1st; President sends a letter to the UN, and the heads of state of each and every nation available through our ambassadors. Those countries without US ambassadors will receive letters via third party nation's ambassadors. 2nd; President then goes on TV. Announces that each and every nation that refuses armed investigation for nuclear weapons, research or development programs by quick reaction forces will lose their capital citys and military bases within the next 24-hours. A list of the first three countries to be inspected includes North Korea and Iran. Any country that refuses or interferes with inspections will lose its capital city and military bases within 24-hours of this announcement. 3rd; President warns that any country found complicit in attack will lose its capital city and military bases. Additional strikes to be determined as necessary. 4th; Explain that actions have outcomes. That there will no assistance to those countries that either participated, aided or abetted the attack. Their countries will be ruined. They will have no electricity or oil. They will not be allowed to reorganize their military. If their countries have resources needed by the United States, those resources will be confiscated as reparations. Countries that interfere will lose their capital and their military. 5th; The only way any country can avoid nuclear retatiation is an immediate and complete laydown of all political and military resources. Without complete and unconditional surrender, nuclear forces will be used for retaliation. Thinking about the post-war, imagine Iran after 350 targets have been hit. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940 In a post MAD environment, the only deterrent is Complete Unilateral Destruction. Chew on that. |
| Posted by: OregonGuy 2005-09-28 14:49 |
| #30 There is only one reason Al Q would not have used nukes by now, if they had them. That would be if they thot that they got more powerful as they aged (maybe ever year you waited the megs went up by 10), kind of like wine getting better as it ages. Somehow I don't think they are that stupid. |
| Posted by: FeralCat 2005-09-28 14:41 |
| #29 ed, hitting us with hundreds of nukes would take one serious bit of coordination. Not being detected by a radiation sensor anywhere?? Not being picked up by any intelligence?? Sounds unlikely. 2 or 3 would be all they could hope for...enough to set in motion events that would change the world forever. Our response would be massive. Most of the Muslim world would be leveled. There would be no talk of new governments or rebuilding or sensitivity. Total elimination of Islamists would be the only acceptable response. |
| Posted by: intrinsicpilot 2005-09-28 14:02 |
| #28 My comments are not meant to challenge anyone's expertise, simply to stimulate discussion. That being said: While the guy they interviewed doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, I think he likes the whiskey too much myself, I think that the argument that Al Q doesn't have the technical capacity to keep a nuke up is off base. I realize that damn near weekly maintenance is needed to keep a backpack nuke up after a 20 year threshold, that doesn't mean that Al Q can't do it. After the fall of the soviet union more than 50,000 highly trained weapons specialists were suddenly without a job, So what did they do? Change their clothes and forget everything they knew about nukes and become radish farmers? Not bloody likely! They lavish in the radish fields about their plight. They know damn well their skills were valuable, and while many of them are probably normal family people with a conscious who would never go to work for a terrorist group, others are likely not so ethical. Hell, what about those honest people whose kids were starving, what do they do when one of their former colleagues approaches them with $10,000 cash and a new "technician job" that pays a lot more? What would any desperate person do, they would take the job, probably never even knowing for sure if they were working for a terrorist. The Al Q has cash and to spare, and Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran would no doubt throw in some cash and or support to help the cause. If backward ass Paki Wacki land can maintain a nuclear arsenal, then Al Q can. That's IMVHO, but that's the logical conclusion I come to. Al Q not only has as much money and support as some nation states, they also have the support of several nation states, nuclear and non nuclear who would no doubt be interested in a proxy group willing to hit the US and then take the brunt of the response. In my mind, that's the only way another country could ever participate in nuking the US without the fear of a guaranteed retaliatory strike. A lot of the nuke, bio, and chem work done for Russia was done in the former republics as well right. You could probably trade a donkey for a functioning nuke in several of those shitholes right after the fall. You could pay an out of work Soviet/Kazaki Nuke Team $1,000 bucks a week collectively and they'd be rich, and you want me to believe Al Q can't maintain or even build an improvised nuke, bullshit. I call bullshit on such assumptions. We as a nation should, and as a precaution, likely do, assume Al Q or another rogue enemy already has a nuke in their possesion. That's precisely why we spent and will spend billions "protecting" The former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. We are buying their old nuclear material, and subsidizing repairs to facilities and no doubt paying those out of work weapon's scientists to stay "out of work" as it were. So does Al Q have a nuke, maybe , maybe not. Could they, and would they? Plainly YES, as could anyone with enough cash. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-28 13:43 |
| #27 When we get hit, it won't be one nuke. Whether or not is a state actor (no state is so stupid to tell a terrorist client to light one nuke over NYC or DC), it will be with hundreds (e.g. every city > XX population) to achive a nation destroying effect. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-09-28 13:38 |
| #26 I think if the West did have a nuke hit anywhere, the West would "get it's War on." I don't *think* we would respond in a nuclear fashion, but we would go balls out in terms of conventional methods. We haven't seen WAR, real Total War since WW2. It will be horrifying and awesome and it will reshape the face and map of the Middle East and SouthEast Asia. And there won't be any nation building until afterwards. It will be after we've kicked their dicks in the dirt and stomped on their necks. That's just my take. However, it hinges greatly on *where* the nuke goes off. I hope we would still have the moral courage to commit if/when something like this would hit the US. But I would think even most leftists and Spain would realize the gravity of the situation and ride with us. |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2005-09-28 13:27 |
| #25 I don't think they have a nuke in this country, at least not yet. The day I formed this opinion was during Ronald Reagans Funeral in Washington. Almost every western world leader was there, together in one room. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Bush 41, Clinton, Carter, Ford, Most of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, Tony Blair, Thatcher, Prince Charles, Schroeder, Canadian PM Mulroney, and lots of other western leaders. Even Gorbachev. Last I looked AQ didn't like the Soviets either. If you don't explode one in Washington on that day you don't have one! |
| Posted by: intrinsicpilot 2005-09-28 12:49 |
| #24 Mark E; Thankyou, that belmont site was a cracking good read. "The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset. James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it's soul. The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish ... and they, too, have WMD." So the survival of large swathes of the Islamic world depend on Al Q NOT using nukes. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-09-28 12:31 |
| #23 Sometime ago I thought RB reported a tactical nuke intercepted in the Netherlands and possibly in South Africa. The 2-14-05 Time issue "The Merchant of Menace" about AQ Khan also said a rudimentary nuke could be made with an artillery tube. This really makes me nervous because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gen Meyers and Abizaid looked awfully grim in the Rose Garden this morning and implored Congress to meet with them regarding a change of tactics but refused questions. Just finishing the post on AQ in Israel really disturbs me, especially after Zarq's family's new found wealth. Closing in on them may force them to play their aces. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-09-28 12:26 |
| #22 liked the prior discussions HowardUK. Don't think they used a nuke in Bali, Lone Ranger, we'd know if they did with forensics, Aussie coppers went over and took samples. It wouldn't be a secret. But not so sure on logic of if Qaeda had'em they'd use 'em. Don't use = don't have. They've shown the ability to have a long-term goal and work towards it. Took them years to plot train and crack the 9/11 attacks. Not convinced they won't in future have nukes if they don't now: Pakistan has friendly ties. Pakistan has nukes. Unofficially some may go missing. |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-09-28 12:08 |
| #21 Biff Wellington said: There is another name for U-238, it is called "depleted uranium. Perhaps Al Quaida plans to have its own M1 Abrams and A10 Warthosgs so they need the depleted unranium. :-) |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-09-28 11:55 |
| #20 Ummm .... Paul Williams? He be a bit Kooky. |
| Posted by: Ebberenter Huperetle1983 2005-09-28 11:42 |
| #19 In fact U238 is even a poor ingredient for dirty nukes. It emits less radioactivity than most ground locations while shielding from that same ground radioactivity and from cosmical radiation. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-09-28 11:33 |
| #18 This guy shows up every couple of months. I think he's the Soviet/Yakusa Woodpecker Grid guy's idol. He showed him the way. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-09-28 10:28 |
| #17 There is another name for U-238, it is called "depleted uranium." If this clown thinks a nuke can be built with depleted uranium he is totally clueless. Why is anyone taking this obvious nonsense seriously? |
| Posted by: Biff Wellington 2005-09-28 10:18 |
| #16 Another interesting discussion on this subject... belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059 But I remember this quote: "The American people expect a disproportionate response." --GW Bush |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-09-28 09:51 |
| #15 I don't think they have any nukes. I firmly believe they'd have set one off by now if they did, in Europe at least if they couldn't reach the US. However... If a nuke goes off in this country and we don't retaliate in an obscene manner... let's just say I won't tolerate it. From leftist traitors, any politician, subversive media, cultist colonizers, etc. In that situation, it means me and my family can be murdered at will and my government that is supposed to protect me, and not the enemy, has refused to do so. Dire Revenge⢠ain't just for moon worshippers. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-09-28 09:17 |
| #14 http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1715.cfm |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2005-09-28 09:08 |
| #13 There are evidently some who argue that AQ has already employed a suitcase nuke - see It is an interesting read about the Bali blast, at any rate. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2005-09-28 09:08 |
| #12 2b -- I respectfully disagree. AQ murdered 3,000 people and in response the left has mired itself deeper and deeper into the world of sedition and treason. A stronger attack would provoke a stronger reaction from them. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-28 08:14 |
| #11 Prior discusions |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-09-28 07:57 |
| #10 I tried to google this, and all the articles I could find on the AQ backpack nuke at the Ramallah checkpoint circle back to Williams and Debka. The U-238 find was widely reported at the time, but the reports noted that it was the weak form of uranium, only suitable for dirty bombs, not nukes. There was a long discussion quite some time ago here at Rantburg, with all the missile, explosive and nuke experts weighing in. (Me, I just read the posts and tried to grasp the details) The conclusion was that nuclear bombs/missiles are tricky things that must be maintained meticulously up until the time of use, something none here believed AQ technicians were capable of. And, to me the clincher, if AQ had a nuke of any sort, they would have used it immediately to the greater glory of Allah. Not used = don't have. Q.E.D. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-09-28 07:37 |
| #9 Rex- Respectfully, I disagree with you. No matter who is in the White House, the keys will turn and there will be a nuclear response somewhere - look for it to be Iran. The question is the extent of the response. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-09-28 07:11 |
| #8 If Al Crappa had one nuke they would IMO hold it back as a blackmail card. Because once you use it that's it. Personally I don't think they do but that's my opinion. But if they had multiple nukes they would of used them by now. The only question is where. Personally I think on 9/12/2001 GWB should of ordered the warheads removed from two Trident missiles and replaced with the test packages used for when the missiles have to be certified. Target Mecca, Medina, Qom, Tehran and a few other places. Let the Russians, Chinese, French and others know what is going on and fire the missiles. When the action is annouced simply say the bullshit stops now. We have had it with the whole Islamic world's juvenile behavior. But if they insist on continuing the way they are the next time there is an incident the warheads will not be blanks |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-09-28 07:04 |
| #7 Link not working, try here? (Warning: overactive imagination required) |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-09-28 05:50 |
| #6 If AQ had a nuke then there'd be a crater somewhere in the west by now... just like Gromky says. Personally, I don't ever remember a Paleo with a tactical nuke being caught entering Israel from the West Bank?! |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-09-28 05:41 |
| #5 No. Hillary = Bill = both care about themselves too much to risk being glow-worm fodder. Hillary wants 8 years of Bill-style success and prosperity - you can tell since alternatist and bohemian "Reality Shows" are now = 1980's "MTV pop culture". The MSM > Prosperity and national wealth/abundance is for Democrats and Regulators, i.e Laissez Faire, sub i.e. SSSHHHHH, SOCIALISTS; while Problems, Defects and Failures are for Repubs and Conservatives. THE CLINTONS DO NOT WANT TO GOVERN OR PRESIDE OVER A DESTROYED OR ANARCHIC VIOLENCE/CIVIL WAR-INTENSIVE AMERICA - THEY WANT GOLDWATER, ROCKWELL, AND EISENHOWER'S, ETC. AMERICA, IN BY AND FOR THEMSELVES, EVEN AS THEY ARE KILLING AMERICA. Any new 9-11 or nuke terror is likely focused on the PC assassination of Dubya, his Admin. and the bulk of the [anti-/non-Clinton] Congress, be it GOP or Dems - remember, KERRY, GORE, and DEAN as POTUSES are there to make sure America and its trad Two-Party NPE fails, NOT win. NOLA > all about directly andor indirectly DISCREDITING THE USA's FEDERALIST SYSTEM and getting the Fed, AND ONLY THE FED, TO EXPAND AND EXPAND AND EXPAND OVER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE ACROSS THE LAND, BUT NOT THE WORLD. THE DEMOLEFTIES HAVE NO PROBS WITH ALLEGED FASCIST AMERICA WARRING AROUND THE WORLD, A'ATTACKIN AND A'INVADIN', AS LONG AS AN ANTI-SOVEREIGN COMMUNIST AMERICA UNDER OWG AND SWO-CWO IS THE FINAL OUTCOME! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-09-28 04:31 |
| #4 civil war? Left v/s right? I don't think so. If they want to unite not only the left and right in this country, but makes us best friends with France, Germany and most other countries in the world, a nuke would do it. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-09-28 03:49 |
| #3 If GOP controls teh White House at time of said nukeage....we implode into civil war. If the Dems control the White House..we'll make lots of glass parking lots. Why? No matter what the GOP does....it's a war crime - even when we have cities converted to radioactive dust. When the Dems are in control, well - Hillar could nuke Mecca and the MSM wouls swoon about what a courageous leader she is. That ground work was laid tonight. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-09-28 03:01 |
| #2 OK, well what if they (or any other islamist group) gets one and uses it? |
| Posted by: anon1 2005-09-28 02:47 |
| #1 Oh, come on. If AQ had a nuke, they would have used it by now. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-09-28 02:32 |