Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 11/16/2004 View Mon 11/15/2004 View Sun 11/14/2004 View Sat 11/13/2004 View Fri 11/12/2004 View Thu 11/11/2004 View Wed 11/10/2004
1
2004-11-16 Terror Networks & Islam
Jihadists Anticipate Imminent Nuclear Strike Against U.S.
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by headland 2004-11-16 2:21:03 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 This is what I told my WMD class last night:

If they've stolen a weapon, they still have to get it to the US in a functioning condition. These weapons require regular maintenance and somewhat delicate handling. A fifteen year old Soviet bomb shipped to Tiajuana in a crate probably won't meet either criteria. There are any number of point failure possibilities along the way.

The highest probability, should they be able to bring such a weapon into the country, is that the explosives detonate but fission does not occur or is incomplete. If it does not occur, you have a dirty bomb scenario. Incomplete fission results in a "fizzle", a dirty bomb with a bigger boom and some of the characteristics of a fission explosion.

Recall that Tim McVeigh had one point failure possibility, that his timer would not function. Nuke terrorists have a half dozen. I truly do not believe that terrorists will be able to cause a fission explosion in the United States.

History has shown us that terror attacks generally involve the cheapest and easiest method possible. I can think of a couple of very easy scenarios that would cause the devestation of a nuke attack without all the trouble involved for the terrs. From the perspective of future propaganda, I would expect that they would love to set off a fission bomb. Unless they stumble across one already in place in Central Park, I expect they will follow their past patterns and look for easier methods to bring terror to America.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 10:04:08 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 10:04:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Why is a dirty bomb slipped into container cargo not likely? No technical expertise here but it seems pretty easy to slip it into any one of the hundreds of thousands of standardized containers that leave asian ports for the US every day, and there's no way, with automated cargo unloading, that we could detect it short of bringing our economy to a halt.
Posted by lex 2004-11-16 10:14:02 AM||   2004-11-16 10:14:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I expect the likliest method is getting a container and putting a technically competent suicide team in it to babysit the package on its journey.

The problem is the cost, as Chuck points out, and the difficulty of getting the container loaded in a friendly port for transit on a safe ship to the US. But for something like this, I suspect they could get funding from any number of sources, including the Tides Foundation, probably.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-16 10:23:55 AM||   2004-11-16 10:23:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why do they want the response of 290 missing muslim cities?
Posted by 3dc 2004-11-16 10:24:44 AM||   2004-11-16 10:24:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 lex, it would be far easier to build a dirty bomb in the United States. All the materials are readily available. Why take the risk of discovery that shipping one in has, even though it might be small?

Dirty bombs are a terror weapon only. They are just a bomb that disburses some radioactive materials, and the foremost danger is from the bomb, not the radioactive materials. People hear "radioactive" and they freak.

My Powerpoint is here. Look at slides 26 onward.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 10:26:57 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 10:26:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 1.) Allan is protecting them.

2.) We haven't made it sufficiently clear that this is the response that will follow.

They thought we are too cowardly to do it. And that the MSM will protect them by protesting that we can't PROVE it was the Iranians. Falujah has made them think twice about their assumptions as their collapse in negotiations with the Europeans over uranium enrichment has shown. They read the election results in Tehran too.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-16 10:29:03 AM||   2004-11-16 10:29:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 You are all assuming with no basis that I can see that a terrorist would have to SHIP a nuke into the US (or elsewhere)

Terrorists are opportunists and improvisors. They make stuff with what they can get to hand.

There are still islamist sympathisers in the US, UK and Australia, not to mention Europe and the UK.

Dirty bomb should be easy to make, causes contamination, cancer and a big scare.

Or they are very fond of using our own weapons against us: what about crashing planes into nuke power plants? same effect as a dirty bomb with the possibility of a Chernobyl.
Posted by Anon1 2004-11-16 10:32:43 AM||   2004-11-16 10:32:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Mrs. Davis, et al: Let's face it. The decision to respond to a WMD attack with nuclear weaons is a political one, and it rests with one person, the President. While it is our stated policy to do so, I suggest that most of the Presidents since 1945 might not have done so. It's one thing to respond to a Soviet attack. It's quite another to respond to a terrorist one, or one by a quasi-national group. Think about the recent Presidents and make a guess about which ones would nuke Qom.

BTW, I believe the science is quite good that we can identify the source of any bomb materials. That's why we know where the Israelis got their fixings... Each facility produces a specific mix of isotopes that is very similar, but not exact. A fingerprint, if you will.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 10:38:56 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 10:38:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I don't think it's as easy as you guys think it is to actually transport radioactive matieral. I've heard numerous reports of doctors being pulled over because they had some medical radioactive material in their vehicle. It seems we have detectors all over the place.
Posted by Damn_Proud_American  2004-11-16 10:41:53 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com]  2004-11-16 10:41:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Chuck, I don't have power point, so I'll take your word as you seem to be well informed in this area. But it sure seemed to me that they would run less risk doing the work overseas than trying to assemble one here, even a dirty bomb. That would take time and involve talking to a lot of people to assemble all the materials. That seems like a lot of points of risk.

While, being the carpers and perfectionists we are, Homeland Security looks like a sieve; it must look a bit more formidable to them overseas. I am not sure how many of their sympathizers in place are sending e-mails back to the caliphate volunteering to put a bomb together. Frankly, I suspect that if they could do it, they would have done it. It get's less likely as time goes on, our defences improve and the aging sympathizers attrit due to being sucked into American culture.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-16 10:42:42 AM||   2004-11-16 10:42:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Mrs. Davis: I could build a dirty bomb in about two hours if I lived in a state where I could buy fireworks over the counter. A dirty bomb is a regular bomb with some sort of radioactive material on it. You have some of the makings in your own home if you have an ionizing smoke detector.

Ted Kuzinski had no problem making a bomb. Tim McVeigh had no problem. The mooks in the first WTC attack had no problem. Eric Rudolph had no problem. Heck, at my lecture last night I had a fellow who made pipe bombs for fun as a child. Lots of country boys make things that go boom all the time. Bombs are easy.

Surveyors might have radioactive materials. Every Home Depot has them. Hospitals, universities, construction companies. You don't need much. Recall that the goal is to terrorize people who are frightened to death of "evil" radioactivity. I could shut down Manhatten for $300. worth of materials. The goal of terrorist is terror, not necessarily damage and destruction.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 10:52:29 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 10:52:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 BTW, just for the record. I am a loyal and happy American. I do not advocate violence against the United States and I do not support in any manner those who do. Should I have the opportunity, I will defend my home and country with all my power. I have an interest in the weapons and methods that our enemies might use against us. Know your enemy is never a bad idea. And I no longer worry about Fulda Gap for that reason. Times change and so do our enemies.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 10:55:52 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 10:55:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Chuck...I can get you the materials wholesale. Say, $125.

My standard presentation closes an entire area for less than $12. The collateral damage caused by follow on accidents and a population trying to exit the area is rather high.
Posted by RN  2004-11-16 10:58:29 AM||   2004-11-16 10:58:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 RN, I haven't bought fireworks in a long while. And I was thinking of an impressive bang. Sell the sizzle, don't you know. Most of the funds were for the smoke detectors, which are running about $20 each up here.
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-11-16 11:04:11 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-11-16 11:04:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I think the Jihadi's best chance for a mass murder event would be a small arms attack on a crowded area, like a mall.

1) Weapons and ammo are easy to get.

2) Several attacks teams could disperse throughout the USA, do the attacks then disperse. Preferably in large urban areas. It would create a climate of fear the jihadi want.

3) The planning would be minimal and effective.

4) The inevitable reaction will be for leftists to call for the banning of weapons, essentuially bringing down our informal domestic defenses in response to a terorist attack; a win-win for the terrorists.
Posted by badanov  2004-11-16 11:09:49 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-11-16 11:09:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 I disagree that it would be easy. Let's say I suddenly decided that I wanted to build a bomb and blow something up. It's one thing to do it in concept, another thing to start accumulating the fertilizer, dirty bomb components, or TNT. I really don't think you could do something like that without attracting attention somewhere along the line.

People just don't wake up one morning and decide to blow up a FBI building and have the know how to do it.
Posted by 2b 2004-11-16 11:12:10 AM||   2004-11-16 11:12:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 A dirty bomb is not a WMD. It does not meet the criterion set out by Al Qaeda of being "more than painful."

It's also a myth that containers can easily slip through with a nuke on board.
Posted by open source 2004-11-16 11:14:03 AM||   2004-11-16 11:14:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 It's also a myth that containers can easily slip through with a nuke on board
How so?
Posted by lex 2004-11-16 11:19:57 AM||   2004-11-16 11:19:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 what would be amusing would be for the jihadis to get a bunch of radioactive stuff, put it in a container with a bunch of jihadis and when they get to port, the jihadis are sick of radiation poisoning and general cargo dirtiness.
Posted by mhw 2004-11-16 11:20:34 AM||   2004-11-16 11:20:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Let's see...

granulated chicken shit...purchased for transport from the USA to another country...any country.

THIS SECTION DELETED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST

...quite a bang I think!
Posted by RN  2004-11-16 11:23:28 AM||   2004-11-16 11:23:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 the rad detection system is one of our few successes - I agree it would be difficult to get one in, above a real, working (a big if) suitcase nuke in a car crashing the AZ or NM border fence. As has been noted before here - the maintenance issues alone makes that a problematic scenario for our future dead muj
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-16 11:29:14 AM||   2004-11-16 11:29:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Hey headland. Nice blog. You should stick around and comment here!
Posted by Seafarious  2004-11-16 11:30:35 AM||   2004-11-16 11:30:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 A nuke detonated in the US would *have* to be the dumbest thing they could possibly come up with. The response noted by 3dc would be (in my opinion) at the high end of retaliation, but retaliation there would be - Chuck your #8 comment intrigues me, do you honestly think that the President would *not* order a nuclear response? If that's the case, then a lot of DoD doctrine goes out the window doesn't it, quite apart from making America a lot more susceptible to further attacks.
BTW, I think your PowerPoint makes some very good points, not least about radioactivity and the highly overrated destructive and killing power of a dirty bomb.
Posted by Tony (UK)  2004-11-16 11:45:07 AM||   2004-11-16 11:45:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 When you say "slip through", Frank, I assume you mean out of the port. If I were them, I'd blow it up as soon as we reached the dock but before the ship was tied up. No time for rad systems to detec t anything. Blast in a city area, lot's of deaths, fallout.

I believe McVeigh especially had to go through a learning curve on building a bomb, particularly detonation. I doubt he could buy enough materials to go through that learning curve without attracting attention.

The kind of bomb you're talking about Chuck would have great MSM value the first time it was used. I'm not sure it would achieve any terr goals worth the risk for the evanescent reward.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-16 11:47:00 AM||   2004-11-16 11:47:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 You got the sceanrio Badanov.... Cheap to do and the assets are likely already in place. A HomeTown strike would be a national freakout. Mall of America, the Mayo Clinic, Mt. Rushmore, The Alamo. :(
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-16 1:06:43 PM||   2004-11-16 1:06:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 I think Chuck's on the right track.
You don't need a "REAL" dirty bomb to spread terror.

Heck, you could cause a helluva lot of confusion by exploding a bomb or two and immediately claim it was a dirty bomb.

The psych-impact is what's important.
Posted by Anon4021 2004-11-16 1:09:03 PM||   2004-11-16 1:09:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 The day the next attack takes place will be the day that I and the rest of the hold-out eligable male populace enlist. I used to think Airforce but now lean Marines.
Posted by J 2004-11-16 1:19:41 PM||   2004-11-16 1:19:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Badanov/Shipman, read Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger to see how such a scenario could possibly play out. Frightening stuff
Posted by IG-88 2004-11-16 2:19:51 PM||   2004-11-16 2:19:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 J,

I agree...I feel I missed an opportunity the first go round. I pray that another such opportunity does not present itself, but if it does, I won't miss it again.
Posted by mjh  2004-11-16 2:58:25 PM||   2004-11-16 2:58:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 i think i could find a place where you could buy a copy of Fulda Gap.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-11-16 3:05:41 PM||   2004-11-16 3:05:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The SSI game LH? I've got one in shrink wrap. :)
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-16 3:52:46 PM||   2004-11-16 3:52:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Rats, forget the Fulda Gap... it's SSI 5th Corp in the collection.


but somewhere around here....
Posted by Shipman 2004-11-16 3:53:47 PM||   2004-11-16 3:53:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Mrs D - IIUC - no container ship gets in San Diego Bay without a pre-inspection at the port it left, inspection at sea before entering, and a local harbormaster at the helm. Should be typical of most major ports
Posted by Frank G  2004-11-16 4:05:55 PM||   2004-11-16 4:05:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 I believe you are correct, Frank.

I assume that through whatever means necessary, (bribery, blackmail, the other usual methods) they can smuggle a sealed container onto a ship in a foreign port. I believe we don't have control of these foreign port inspections and I believe containers aren't randomly inspected by emptying them and inspecting the contents. I suppose they might be if we had some reason to believe there was dangerous contraband in the container. We might be able to prevail upon the local authorities to open a container up. The shipping company would scream about the delay, though. After it's on the ship, that'd be a bitch to do.

The U. S. inspection at sea is of the ship as I understand it; is the original crew in control and were they throughout the voyage, are papers in order, etc. and would not involve checking every container by any stretch. If you had the radioactive elements in a shielded containter until this inspection is complete I am making the assumption it could be removed, installed, and the bomb detonated before any action could be taken, even if the removal was detected. This calls for a crew-member who would be a co-conspirator/suicider, but those seem to be plentiful.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-16 5:06:04 PM||   2004-11-16 5:06:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Just watch 24.
Posted by Elmomoling Ulinemp3366 2004-11-16 5:08:41 PM||   2004-11-16 5:08:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Bin Laden said he wanted to bankrupt the US economy. The best way to do this is to set out false alarms through email, websites, and false info to newbies likely to be captured. If you can get the US on alert time and time again you will cause terror and cost lots of moneys with minimal effort or risk. You would be able to watch the security network in action to spot openings and in the long run you would erode the security network.

They will not try to hit the US, their assets can better be used elsewhere while they fake terror here (a move that doesn't provoke the US into attacking jihad friendly nations)
Posted by rjschwarz  2004-11-16 5:16:15 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-11-16 5:16:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Thanks for the compliment you paid my blog. I've been doing my day job, so I have just returned to this thread and am just now in the midst of reading the interesting points that readers are raising.

I would just note that this is the third article Bodansky has written for Defense & Foreign Affairs since OBL's surprise appearance on videotape in the week before the election. All three of Bodansky's pieces report on the buzz he is hearing about an anticipated cataclysmic terrorist attack on the U.S.
Posted by headland  2004-11-16 5:22:30 PM|| [http://headland]  2004-11-16 5:22:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 I meant my last remark to be addressed to you, Seafarious and your comment #22.
Posted by headland  2004-11-16 5:25:28 PM|| [http://headland.blogspot.com/]  2004-11-16 5:25:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 So, Denny's definitely going to be out of town on inauguration day.




Posted by anonymous2u 2004-11-16 6:28:00 PM||   2004-11-16 6:28:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 One nuke in the U.S. would do huge damage in one city and to the U.S. and world economies, but the terrorists would likely have only one or a few weapons, leaving the U.S. mostly intact. Psychologically, though, it's a suicide attack. "Allah’s wrath" of 9/11 got him U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even if we didn't literally go ballistic, a nuke attack here would ultimately result in a final crusade. Afghanistan and Iraq would end up as minor footnotes.

Moderate Muslims need to contemplate where all this could lead and start detaching from the fanatics in very obvious ways. OBL is a desperate man with a death wish, and he is bordering on taking all of Islam down with him. By no means is George Bush the most-hawkish president that this country can produce.
Posted by Tom 2004-11-16 8:49:42 PM||   2004-11-16 8:49:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 The Muslim states need to think about the fact that the US is quite capable of destroying every city they have, within about 3 hours of a nuclear detonation on american soil. And that's not even considering India, which also has nukes and their delivery systems, and is none to fond of muslims on the best of days. Too long a history with the "one true religion".

"But we didn't do it!" they might insist in Yemen and Iran, but it would be far to late for such niceties; their well-documented sub-rosa (and sometimes open) support of AQ and it's ilk would have condemned millions of them to immolation. The US would be in a state of fury that would pretty much guarantee the birds would leave their nests.
Posted by mojo  2004-11-16 9:18:35 PM||   2004-11-16 9:18:35 PM|| Front Page Top

14:20 Clavinter Angiling2549
10:01 sam
00:21 angryinIowa
00:21 ex-lib
00:11 Old Patriot
00:11 mojo
23:58 .com
23:55 2b
23:55 donkey shop
23:54 Old Patriot
23:54 mojo
23:43 Conanista
23:43 ex-lib
23:33 .com
23:25 Frank G
23:21 Doug De Bono
23:18 Alaska Paul
23:18 Tibor
23:17 Tibor
23:15 Tibor
23:15 First Iraq, Then France
23:14 Frank G
23:12 trailing wife
23:09 SoNow









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com