'Tangible proof' al-Qaida deploying nukes (Bombshell presentation)

WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/25/06 | WorldNetDaily.com

[sinkspur]

No suitcase nuke, they will use REAL nukes.

No they won't. But, you'll not be convinced by common sense, apparently.

[Tallguy]

It is time to reinstate MAD...mutually assured destruction...

Never play Chicken with someone who's suicidal.

[LurkingSince'98]

please shine some light on why Al-Queda, whose avowed intentions it is to destroy tthe US will not use real nukes given, loaned, subsidized by Russia, China, and any of the stans.

How do you know fro a fact?

What is the "common sense" arguments you are trying to make.
You said suitcase nukes not I.

Lurking'

[From One - Many]

so very true

[WardMClark]

SO WHAT? with the US economy devastated and the country in chaos.

You're quite right about their goals and their conditions for victory. Destroying the US economy and a significant portion of our energy infrastructure would effectively toss us back into the early nineteenth century.

Our foes are already there. They want things that way - more primitive, if possible.

If they are allowed to win, we're looking at a new Dark Age.

[sinkspur]

please shine some light on why Al-Queda, whose avowed intentions it is to destroy tthe US will not use real nukes given, loaned, subsidized by Russia, China, and any of the stans.

How big is a nuke? Is is even possible to move one without detection?

Read Richard Miniter's book if you want to know why your scenario is simply not realistic.

[From One - Many]

pardon me, but your tag line is interesting.

[sinkspur]

Michael Corleone.

[LurkingSince'98]

A nuke homemade (by a nation-state) with 100% plutonium can be fit in an attache case.

Sorry. I really am I wish it were not so.

Lurking'

[sinkspur]

A nuke homemade (by a nation-state) with 100% plutonium can be fit in an attache case.

Suitcase nukes again?

I'll leave you to your fantasies.

[Zrob]

"The response to this would be multiple air bursts (ie. one thousand times larger than the tac nukes) over Pakistan, North Korea and anyone else even suspected of supplying the materials to Al-Qaeda."

Sorry man, the response to this would be martial law in the US and calls from bush to "understand" and be more "compassionate" and realize "we are a nation of immigrants". Oh and by the way, your guns would also be conifiscated so you dont go out and "be hateful" against our mooslim bretheren.

[CougarGA7]

Unfortunately, MAD will not work in this case. The reason MAD worked during the cold war was there was an underlying desire to win. And winning meant surviving. So blowing each other to kingdom come was a valid deterrent.

These guys dont have that concern. Their goal is to destroy us, even at the cost of their own survival. They would not hesitate to attack us if they got nukes in the desired locations.

[Iscool]

Losing some big cities would not be the end of the US. It would however be the end of the middle east and any other country full of crackpot muslims. Game set and match to them? Hardly.

I believe we are too politically correct to randomly bomb the mid east...Al Qaida doesn't have a home...I suspect we would probably lick our wounds for a while and try to fugure out what to do...

The upside is; we might then deem it profitable to step up our border security...

[EvilOverlord]

It would however be the end of the middle east and any other country full of crackpot muslims.

You mean countries like France, England, Denmark, Sweden, etc., with millions of muslims that have taken over cities or parts of cities? There's no way we could eliminate ALL the muslims easily. Eventually, they will win, unless the rest of the world wakes up and drives them out.

[LurkingSince'98]

you are so wrong it is laughable.

Miniter was absolutely correct, which I acknowledged above that the "lost russian suitcase nukes" are all fizzles.

Plans which were found and documented in Afghanistan when they tossed an Al-queda safe house, showed they were on to it and that was four or five years ago.

The only thing holding them back was the pure plutonium.

Well, there are many countries (like Russia) which have literally tons of plutonium, much of which is unsecured, that would love to see the US's economy in chaos.

You need to think, think man if it is possible why would they not do it???

Lurking'

[Campion]

A nuke homemade (by a nation-state) with 100% plutonium can be fit in an attache case.

Not likely. The smallest nuclear weapon ever made by the US -- a high-tech device requiring advanced design techniques not available to first-generation nuclear states -- was about the size of a large softball. It had a yield around 10 tons of TNT; much less than the energy expended in lower Manhattan on 9/11. Here's the link.

The so-called "suitcase nukes" (TADM's = tactical atomic demolition munitions) weigh a couple of hundred pounds, and definitely don't fit in an attache case.

[dljordan]

"Three or four tactical nukes set off one day (one week, etc)at a time would effectively end the US as we know it."

If they could launch one about 200 miles up of sufficient power the EMP would do it. Alas Babylon!

[MizSterious]

With all due respect to both you and Miniter (whose books are good), I just have to say that in reality, we don't know WHAT is coming over our borders--northern OR southern. Suitcase, briefcase, truckload, who knows. It's not as though they're passing through luggage scans on their way into the country. They can get tractor trailer-loads of all kinds of contraband into this country--a nuke wouldn't be out of the question.

[dljordan]

""Suitcase nukes" are a myth propagated by conspiracy theorists."

There are nuclear demolition charges but they weigh almost 200 lbs. The suitcase nukes they speak of may be dirty bombs.