E-Mail: Attack on U.S. '90 Percent Ready'

Fox News ^ | 03/11/2004 | AP

[Peter J. Huss]

Couldn't they have just made a few phone calls? Just pure, unsupported speculaton. I don't think the Al Qiada leadership uses phones or the internet, because of the security risk. Even those 'tapes' and messages released by Al Jazera and the like could possibly be planted by their enemies (our side, that is) as counter intel. The only effective communications or 'trigger' event that are dead certain are terrorist attacks like the one in Madrid.

[wildbill]

"Black wind of death" --does anyone not believe this is a reference to either a dirty bomb or some kind of WMD such as gas or bio weapons?

I, for one, take them at their word. They want to kill us all or subjugate us into second class citizens.

However, don't worry, moderate Muslims say that only 10% of Islam supports that sort of radicalism. That's very comforting. Only 100,000,000 Muslims want to kill me.

[RaginRak]

"Our woman, Susan Lindauer was caught, so we have to find another democrat."
He's already in place- "pull my finger" John F'in Kerry

[Salvation]

This headline is being broadcast periodically on FoxNews. Must be reputable.

[RightWhale]

Where is the update to the Homeland Security Advisory System? Should we be in Condition Bert at least?

[af_vet_rr]

Probably the same thing that "90% ready" means when I say it to my boss... i.e., "I haven't even started, and what was I supposed to do anyway?"

Thanks, I needed the laugh, heh.

[Kenton]

If there is another large scale attack on the US it is my humble belief that the US will not show any restraint, including the use of multiple nukes in the MT range.

First ya gotta know where to drop 'em, and these critters are like a bunch of sand fleas.

I would imagine that another attack would make it very difficult for any US Muslims to continue living here, however...

[Peter J. Huss]

First ya gotta know where to drop 'em, Just like Iraq and Afganistan, we will attack the bozo's and wiseasses of the world, ask questions later.

[RightWhale]

That won't happen. If it were going to happen it would have happened the day after 911.

[Peter J. Huss]

I disagree. If we are hit with a nuke, all the restraints will be removed. I think we'd even do a "selective burn" if we are hit with something that causes a huge amount of casualties, even if it wasn't a WMD.

On the nosey! After 911, my brother and I spent more time watching the statements coming out of Moscow and Bejing than watch the repeating video clips on the TV. They used carefully couched words and basically pleaded with the US to show restraint and not go nuclear.

I think we had the excuse to use them on 911, starting with the battle at Tora Bora.

[tet68]

They have set the terms, "NO QUARTER!"
So it shall be.......

[HitmanLV]

No I disagree.

If a terrorist group detonates low yeield nuclear weapons in, say, NYC, DC, and Los Angeles, just as an example. The entire cities would not be destroyed, most likely - initial blast crater would be a few blocks, and fires would rage for a few blocks more radiating outward.

The cities would be terribly damagaed, and the impact would be felt citywide - gas pipes exploding, fire racing down subway tunnels, and not enough police and firemen to control the disaster.

Say 50,000+ dead in each city, several hundred thousand more burned or injured in each city.

OK, Einstein, who do you nuke in response? A major muslim city? A holy site? So kill millions of innocent people over the murder of our innocent people? Ruin one of their holy sites over what an admittedly small minority of their culture did? What does that accomplish?

The correct response is attack those directly responsible - using a nuke is like using a dozen grenades when a 9mm gun is better suited.

Nobody in the US leadership will kill 100,000s of innocent people, even after a terrorist WMD attack stateside.

"And you know it," patronizing subtext notwithstanding.

[Peter J. Huss]

That won't happen. If it were going to happen it would have happened the day after 911.

It won't happen the day after, just like a full scale nuclear attack between the US and the Soviets would have taken a month to play out.

I expect a week delay between a major attack on the US and our major response. Embasseys have to be evacuated. Ships have to be positioned. Supplies have to be moved.

One signal that we are about to do something BIG would be the movement and positioning of trains fully loaded with supplies and basic raw materials (chemicals, coal, fuel) being moved via rail to remote, rural locations. Ships and tankers would also be moved out of port. A lot of night time military air movements would be noticed and reported on various message boards like TB2K (members only!) and the like.

[ABE]

I remember from a long time ago that the threat of stuffing their remains in a pig stomach and burying them is the worst thing a Muslim could imagine and is a great deterrent. I believe it keeps them in limbo and away from heaven forever.

How about filling a few C-5s with some hogs and flying them over. We could even put Hillary masks on them.

If that doesn't scare the crap out of them nothing will.

[Peter J. Huss]

If a terrorist group detonates low yeield nuclear weapons in, say, NYC, DC, and Los Angeles, just as an example. The entire cities would not be destroyed, most likely - initial blast crater would be a few blocks, and fires would rage for a few blocks more radiating outward. True, the entire city would not be destroyed, but your estimation of a the effect of a 'low yeild' nuclear blast is off. The heat, blast and radiation would immediately kill immediately everyone within 3/4 a mile in every direction, even people in reinforced buildings. Nearly everyone exposed out of doors out to 3 miles would be killed or terribly burned within 10-15 seconds after the blast(people make fun of the 'Duck and Cover' films, but lowering your exposure immediately after a blast increases your chances for survival exponentially). 5 - 8 miles out, most buildings would be severly damaged. Flying glass and other objects would injure a large number. Radiation from fallout would start to effect people down wind within the hour.

[RightWhale]

It won't be done at all primarily because it would shove the entire world back economically at least hundreds of years, and that would include the West. The response might be total mobilization and massive military intervention in regions that have been on the edges, the marginal sort of non-supporters of terrorism who aren't exactly doing anything to eliminate terrorism. Make a list, it's probably close enough for planning purposes.

[MD_Willington_1976]

Reply: Ammunition and firearms 100% lubricated with pig-fat...

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

how far do you have to be before you don't die from radiation poisoning?

[Peter J. Huss]

Perhaps. Still, I think you underestimate the horror of these weapons and what they can do. How about the nightmare sinario: They hit NY. We respond and make Iran and North Korea the 51st and 52nd states. A year later, they hit DC and Chicago. We bomb the hell out of Syria. 6 months later LA, and on and on.

Remember, these were built over 50 years ago with 1930's and 1940's technology.

I collect nuclear / cold war stuff, including films of blasts and photos. Below is a photo of the smallest above ground blast I have a picture of. It's 'only' 4KT. It's the Hornet test from March 12th, 1955 (exactly 49 years ago today). The picture was taken from 13 miles away. At this distance, if you were looking at the blast without eye protection, you would have been blinded. The heat from the blast would also be felt to the point of it being uncomfortable:



The lines of smoke rising in a pattern were smoke rockets set off right before the blast to measure the distortion in the atmosphere and to give perspective to how large the blast was.

[Dead Corpse]

We have suffered terrorism for too long already. Time to stop it permanently.