Posted on 07/13/2005 6:28:56 PM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON – It was little more than a rumor during the darkest days of the Cold War.
Did agents of the Soviet Union conceal nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction inside the U.S. and other western cities?
New evidence suggests they did – and that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorists network is determined to find them and use them with the help of bribed Russian spies or special forces soldiers who have maintained their secret locations for all these years.
According to a report by Gordon Thomas and David M. Dastych in the latest issue of the Polish news and opinion weekly Wprost, U.S. authorities searched in vain for the nuclear devices in New York City the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida attacks.
They had been tipped off about the possible existence of Russian "suitcase nukes" in the area by officials in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to the report.
No nuclear weapons were found Sept. 12, 2001, or thereafter. But, more recently, U.S. intelligence services have become concerned about efforts by terrorists to buy off former Soviet and current Russian agents with knowledge of the weapons.
The report also cites the work of Paul L. Williams, an investigative reporter, former FBI consultant and author of several books, including "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11," which claims al-Qaida sleeper agents have already stashed suitcase nukes in several major U.S. cities as well as Rappahannock, Va., where the U.S. government maintains an underground bunker as a command-and-control center for wartime or national emergency.
As WorldNetDaily reported earlier this week, Williams describes how al-Qaida has already purchased some post-Soviet mini-nukes and hired Russians to help them operate them. The report was first published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by WND's founder.
Williams predicted in his book a nuclear attack by al-Qaida would be launched before the end of 2005.
Several U.S. officials have alluded to the threat recently.
"It may be only a matter of time before al-Qaida or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons," said Porter Goss, director of central intelligence before a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Robert S. Mueller III, director of the FBI, said: "I am also very concerned with a growing body of sensitive reporting that continues to show al-Qaida's clear intention to obtain and ultimately use some form of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear or high-energy explosives material in its attacks against America."
In addition, Thomas and Dastych report Britain's MI5 has identified 32 spies of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service operating under full diplomatic cover from their London embassy. The spies reportedly have links to deep-cover KGB agents who, during the Cold War, hid scores of genetically engineered biological warfare weapons in Britain's countryside. MI5 believes the Russian spies are still actively concealing the locations of the germ vials.
Meanwhile, KGB spymaster Alexander Kouzminov confirms his agents planted the vials. He, too, believes Russian agents are still involved in guarding them.
"Huge efforts and money was spent in our work," he explained. "It would be foolish to believe our people were stood down just because Russia took part in biological weapons talks in Geneva."
Except for replacing tritium in enhanced-yield weapons, fission bombs are not high-maintenence.
The U.S. is fastidious about maintenence and modelling of the performance of old weapons, but if you don't really care if you get two or five kilotons out of a bombs, the old Soviet nukes might still be good for it.
In about 1960 or so I read a "War" comic (the kind my Mom did not like) about 2 or 3 American special forces types planting "mini nukes" in the USSR & PRC! And the POTUS telling the world about it (after the guys are heroically killed after completing there mission)
IMHO the reason the USSR, PRC or the USA never attempted direct planting of nukes on foreign soil was that discovery would lead directly to war at, perhaps, not the best time.
The perfection of SLBM's solved this issue.
The Russians did not have anything like "perfect" SLBMs, or even high confidence in their own strategic deterrent. It is therefore very likely they would use some kind of "assymterical" approach. If that was smuggled nukes and/or bioweapons - who knows. But it was probably something that took advantage of their ability to move about the U.S. with relative ease (there were/are big no-go zones for Russians, but having seen some of these maps I can't think of how this was enforced).
I just feel that the pragmatist's on all sides said that this is back there with plan Y. A threat more than an action.
If one takes a look at what these links turned up, then you will have a better idea of how dangerous the threat is.
The information is out there, a lot will be in our and other governments papers.
Interesting information in these searches:
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=sleeper%20cells%20in%20U.S.
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=why%20hasn%27t%20al%20Qaeda%20used%20WMD%20on%20the%20United%20States%3F
http://www.google.com/search?q=will+al+Qaeda+attack+the+United+States+with+WMD%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?q=will+al+Qaeda+use+WMD%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?q=did+al+Qaeda+hire+WMD+scientists%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?q=will+al+Qaeda+use+WMD%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?q=who+sold+al+Qaeda+WMD%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=who%20sold%20al%20Qaeda%20nuclear%20weapons%3F
http://www.google.com/search?q=does+al+Qaeda+have+nuclear+weapons%3F&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=do%20terrorists%20have%20nuclear%20weapons%3F
http://www.google.com/search?q=where+to+buy+nuclear+weapons+today&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=googlet
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=where%20to%20buy%20nuclear%20weapons%20
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=nuclear%20weapons%20black%20market
http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=missing%20nuclear%20%20weapons%20United%20States
Is he a world "nut" daily crackpot out to sell books, too?
Dr. Allison says a far more threatening sword of Damocles [than a mere "dirty" bomb] hangs over our heads: a potential terrorist attack with a nuclear bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/allison.html
Is this it?
Russian Nuclear bomb in Washington, DC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/737847/posts
A decaying nuke might not reach critical mass if attempted to detonate, but probably could be made into a great dirty bomb. Yikes!
Great way for Tom Tancredo to destroy the credibility he's built up over illegal immigration. I've heard this Williams on Savage and "Coast to Coast AM". He has only anecdotes and zero "proof". In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Zawahiri came out with a bogus claim that AQ had purchased "suitcase nukes" from Russian sources in a vain attempt to keep us from kicking their kiesters out of Afghanistan. Later, when we checked out the status of the AQ "nuke program" in the wake of the Taliban defeat, and even later still when A.Q. Khan was forced to spill his guts as the price for the sweetheart pardon Musharraf gave him, we learned that Bin Laden's nuclear arsenal was as fictitious as John Kerry's service in Cambodia. If Bin Laden had nukes he would have used them by now, to avenge the loss of his former base in Afghanistan. With Paul Williams, Savage and World Nuts Daily as your sources, you have serious credibility issues.
Russian Nuclear bomb in Washington, DC. ==
Heh heh:). Then probably bigger bomb is on third floor of american embassy in Moscow.
But american Embassy stands in center of Moscow city side by side with central goverment building.
Both buildings (central goverment residence and embasy) looks at each other windows. If you have been in Moscow you know it.
So american bomb in Moscow may kill whole russian goverment at once:).
As far as I know russian Embassy in Washington are located much far away from govermental buildings.
So whole story is stupid. No one will put nukes in foreign country. With out maintanance without control.
More over to give it to anyone.
Even leaders of USSR never did give none nukes to allies of Warsaw Pact. DOn't even mation no muslim country.
What they got only export (stripped) copies of old soviet weaponry. See Iraq.
Today russian policy stricter. Use of nukes for defense - to repel agressor ONLY.
"Did agents of the Soviet Union conceal nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction inside the U.S. and other western cities?
New evidence suggests they did –"
I imagine President Bush will be blamed by the 'Dims' because the borders were not secure during WWII.
World Net Daily does a book review and then calls it "breaking news".
Saving for in-depth reading... Thanks Ruth.
What makes you think that these assets have not been "upgraded" like every other Russian weapons system over the last 50 years?Like every sleeper cell has a qualified 'bomb tech' assigned to it to a) receive the 'upgrade' kit b) read the detailed instructions c) perform the procedure and d) do it correctly e) without undo 'exposure' to radiation.
there are many materials in a nuclear weapon, including metals, high explosives, polymers, and ceramics. The aging of any one of these materials could affect weapon performance, which is why scientists with a wide range of materials expertise are working to understand aging processes.Nuke shelf life...
Uranium and its alloys age in several ways. Like steel, pure uranium "rusts" when exposed to the oxygen in air. It is also corroded by hydrogen. Although nuclear warheads are sealed in airtight metal containers to reduce oxidation and corrosion, the high explosives, plastics, and other organic materials also in the container emit tiny amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, and water vapor that, over time, can cause problems.
Uranium alloys also change their crystal structures, or phases, over time, which also presents aging problems. Materials scientists manufacture a part to have a specific phase in order to optimize its strength, density, or corrosion resistance. However, the strain a part accumulates during fabrication and the temperature variations a weapon experiences in the field can, over time, change the phase, thereby degrading a part's properties.
Subjected to the considerable heat given off by a weapon's radioactive plutonium, for example, a uranium part--and all other weapon parts--can reach temperatures as high as 40°C (about 100°F). A weapon can also experience temperature extremes in its storage environment, such as a desert. Temperature-induced phase changes that degrade uranium's mechanical properties are a major concern.
"A dirty little secret [is] that a large proportion of them would probably malfunction if used [due to age]."
For over fifty years, the United States was constantly designing new nuclear weapons. As new materials and electronics became available, a new generation of smaller and more powerful nuclear bombs was developed, manufactured and then replaced older models. For a long time, American nuclear weapons were built with a shelf life of about fifteen years, and few of them stayed in service that long, before being replaced by newer designs. But the end of the Cold War brought an end to nuclear weapons development. Now, most American nukes are about twenty years old, and getting expensive to maintain. So a new generation of nukes is being designed, weapons with a longer shelf life, and easier and cheaper to maintain. The new nukes will also be more reliable. A dirty little secret of the nuclear weapons business was that a large proportion of them would probably malfunction if used. This, obviously, was never discussed. But with all the safety and arming mechanisms in a Cold War nuke, and the stresses the weapons underwent when fired off in a missile, or artillery shell, it was understood that a lot of them would be duds. But back then, we had over 20,000 of them, and duds could be tolerated. No more, as there will eventually only be a few thousand in service. Moreover, new technologies make it possible to create more reliable nukes. In any event, the current stockpile is not aging well, and will have to be replaced one way or another. ...here
I don't think it's possible in any case; there is a LOT more to getting/keeping a successful, compact 'nuke' going that could be transported without drawing suspician than the average layman thinks ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.