[Iron Eagle]

Actually, this is from a REAL source. This is not Internet chatter, "analysis", or rumor.

As I have stated on this thread earlier, I have superior confidence in my source, but I am not in the business of describing who, where, what level, etc. To do so would identify the source.

I only post it because I want some of our friends here to not be so anxious about a multiple, imminent nuclear strike. (Reading this page, combined with other "analysts" might scare the hell out of some people, needlessly.)

And by the way, we do not, as of last week, hold OBL. We did not capture him anywhere in January or before. (I can't vouch for the last 3 days)

Now, I know it would be great if I could tell you how I know, and from where my source comes. But that's the difference between having a good source, and purporting to have a good source. Besides, I have never been on this thread to create a hype about information I may or may not have. (I am here out of 1) curiosity, and 2) caution.)

People who have real-time, sensitive intelligence and information simply are not going to share it on the net. My info is different -- it is a denial of rumor. I am not purporting to "know" something. I have merely confirmed, to my satisfaction, that certain "unconfirmed" rumors are NOT accurate. (It's a bit ironic that I report what is obvious, and I am under siege. Yet others report what not only cannot be collaborated, but what cannot be possible given the time, circumstances, etc.)

Believe what you want -- that's the best part. I merely share what I can.

BTW -- my source did not rule-out the possibility that a device of some sort might be in the Country, but the source was quite emphatic in denying that 20-30 "suitcase" nukes were in Country. (Source does not deny presence of NEST teams searching for devices).

[Calpernia]

Sean's sources are real. So are my sources.

None of our info in reference to OBL or the Nukes have come from internet chatter.

[null and void]

Fair enough. I hope your source is accurate. I don't doubt his/her sincerity, nor yours.

[milkncookies]

Sure. OK. Whatever. You do realize, don't you, that you are starting to sound just like the people you have previously chided on this thread, on more than one occasion, for stating "information" from purportedly REAL, yet unidentified, sources. Yet you seem to expect us to believe you when you say that your sources are REAL.

Get REAL.

[Velveeta]

Believe what you want -- that's the best part. I merely share what I can.

Please keep sharing, it helps to present both sides of the issues.

That said, a personal friend of mine whom I've known for 25 years is in a postion to "know". He won't tell me a thing, not ONE thing. Jokingly, he tells me that he'd "have to kill me if he told me"....but his lips are sealed shut. I respect that.....immensely.

[Lady Heron]

People who have real-time, sensitive intelligence and information simply are not going to share it on the net.

So true! Those who have contacts in the know, and from them some knowledge, will be very careful about what they share because they do not want it traced back to family member or friend they learned the info from.

[Lewis2]

I've been lurking hereabouts for quite a while now, and this seemed like as good a place as any to jump in.

I would tend to agree with Iron Eagle's perspective, i.e., the probablility that terrorist have smuggled any significant number of nuclear bombs into the US is extremely low. So far.

The current existence of the oft mentioned "Ex-Soviet suitecase nukes" is in itself highly unlikely. For those of you interested in an extremely thoughtful, well-researched study on suitcase nukes, let me refer you to these excellent open-source papers at the Monterey Intitute of Interenational Studies:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040213.htm

As to if there are currently *any* nuclear weapons hidden within the US, I am rather less certain these days than I once was. Last year when NorthCom decided to include a small nuclear explosion in the planning for the recent United Defense 04 excercise scenario, there was a fair amount of eyeball roling. Some wags predicted that UD05 would probably include an alien landing, because the nuke idea was so improbable.

But they did it anyway, and since then the revelations about Mr. Khan's Atomic Walmmart have caused many people to completely re-assess the risk from smuggled nuclear weapons, and the UD04 scenario doesn't seem nearly as silly now as it did a year ago. Unfortunately, the idea has moved solidly from impossible to unlikely. So far. But the atomic genie is absolutely out of the bottle, and I suspect that the lengthy success of Mr. Khan's enterprise will go down as one of the greatest failures of intelligence and/or western political will in history.

So: Ex-soviet suitcase nukes? Probably nothing to worry about now, except perhaps as ready made dirty bombs. But IMHO, the existence (and possibly even presence) of 1-3 small nuclear bombs built with Pakistani or North Korean expertise and sold as "turn key" units to extremists just isn't as outlandish an idea now as it was a year ago. And believe me: 1 or 2 well-located bombs would be enough to destroy the US economy for a decade. Which is of course where our real international strength is.

I consider "dirty bombs" a much greater likelihood, and nearly as great a threat to the US/world economy. Mainly because the current conventional wisdom is that there is "no safe level" of exposure to radiation. Under that standard, even a small dirty bomb in an important area could make it unusable for many years. However in reality, there probably *is* a safe exposure level, i.e., low enough that constant exposure to it would still kill you, but it would take 200 years. But for now, no one is suggesting revisitng these zero-tolerance guidelines adopted during the No Nukes movements of the 70's and 80's. The political cost is too great, and low-tech people are simply too frightened of radiation of any kind. However if there is a Dirty Bomb set off, don't be surprised if the USG suddenly unveils new "standards" for safe exposure. They are the insurer of last resort, remember, and they (i.e., *you*) can't pay for the loss of, say, lower Manhattan and the health maintainance of a million people for 50 years. They would have no choice but to move the goal posts. And they would probably be right, bizarrely enough. Oh: and do the bad guys have the wherewithal to build and employ a dirty bomb? Take a look at this other table of data from the site mentioned above, showing all the reported instances where the Bad Guys have tried to aquire radionucleids:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/other/sjm_cht.htm

It's been a long day, and I'm beginning to ramble. Sorry about that. I guess I just don't want folks to get too worked up about a Nuke in every city. It just isn't very likely at this point. And as others have mentioned, if they had them, why haven't they used them? (Every January, I watch the State of the Union Address with my heart in my throat.) But so far, so good.... ;)

[JustPiper]

Well, I didn't believe we had him before , then I thought we may, now it's back to looking like we are being bs'd all the way aroung, so I don't even care