Posted on 07/19/2004 7:30:11 PM PDT by thinkahead
Is al Qaeda Preparing a Nuclear Hit?
by J. R. Nyquist
Top U.S. officials are worried that al Qaeda is preparing a major assault before the November elections. The present level of concern was first voiced by the U.S. Attorney General, then by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and now by the acting Director of Central Intelligence. The warnings qualitatively differ from previous warnings. Two data points serve to explain this qualitative shift. The first data point is the claim that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons that are probably deployed on U.S. soil. The second data point is the fact that steps are being taken to cope with a major disruption of the November elections.
A new book by terrorism expert and former FBI consultant Paul Williams says that al Qaeda acquired 20 nuclear suitcase bombs from the Chechen mafia between 1996 and 2001. This agrees with similar statements made by Yossef Bodansky in his 1999 book, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War On America. In saying that al Qaeda poses a nuclear threat, Williams takes his analysis a step farther. He says that al Qaeda has almost assuredly smuggled suitcase bombs into the United States. He also says that these bombs are in the10 kiloton range, capable of inflicting millions of casualties. Williams believes that al Qaeda will use several of these devices in simultaneous attacks against urban targets by the end of 2005.
Is there any reason to credit this dreadful conclusion?
This week the country’s journalists were jolted by reports that security officials are looking into legal mechanisms for postponing the November elections in the event of a terror assault on the homeland. Conspiracy theorists and Bush-haters are already decrying what they call “the obvious power-grab.” But the story is not so simple, since the underlying threat is undeniably real. To be sure, Al Qaeda promised to bring death to America in the wake of 9/11 and death’s tardiness is evident. Many are therefore encouraged to denounce those who offer dire warnings. The July 19 issue of Newsweek offers a startling check to this view. American counter-terror officials have “alarming” intelligence, writes Michael Isikoff, “about a possible al Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall….” Government officials are anticipating an attack that may force the postponement of the November presidential elections.
Now let us think. Would explosions on subways, buses or trains, etc., force a closure of the polls? Spain was hit by train bombings on the eve of its recent elections, and the elections went forward without postponement. To disrupt America’s elections a terrorist would need more than a few conventional bombs. He would have to kill more than a few hundred people to disrupt America’s elections.
According to Isikoff, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that al Qaeda wants to “interfere with the [U.S.] elections.” Newsweek’s sources allege that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has been asked by the Department of Homeland Security to outline the legal steps required for election postponement
In a July 8 background briefing by the Department of Homeland Security, a senior official said that a major offensive was being planned by bin Laden’s group. “Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have issued several public statements last fall,” he explained, “threatening to carry out those attacks. And numerous al Qaeda spokespersons have, in fact, said that these plans are underway and are near completion.”
Al Qaeda’s stated goal is the destruction of the United States. This goal is peculiar in terms of its grandiosity and the frankness with which it has been broadcast. What are we to make of this? A small group cannot realistically hope to achieve such an objective on its own. Yet this is the stated objective. How on earth do they hope to advance their cause when it is so baldly overstated? After all, to propose unrealistic objectives is to court the disappointment of your own followers. If you say that you will soon destroy the United States you had better deliver a devastating attack or brace for a crippling loss of credibility and prestige. Be careful, as well, that your attack is not ineffectual since you will only raise the level of your adversary’s vigilance.
Clearly, it makes no sense that al Qaeda would declare an objective without the means to achieve that objective. Furthermore, Superpowers do not scare easily. A social system predicated on economic optimism isn’t going to surrender its most fundamental assumptions to an Islamic scarecrow hiding in a distant cave. And yet, American officials are worried. Now ask yourselves the next logical question: If the White House suspected that al Qaeda was ready with nuclear weapons on U.S. soil would the president warn the public?
In the first place, the government could not afford to warn the public. The warning itself would trigger an economic disaster and the government would be blamed. The government itself would be called on the carpet. The opposition party would turn the situation to political advantage. Therefore, a warning about nuclear strikes would be political suicide. The ruling power in this country cannot close the border because we depend on foreign trade. The government cannot arrest and deport illegal aliens because we depend on their labor. We cannot deport all Muslim aliens, since political correctness forbids such blatant profiling. The most effective security measures are impossible under the present political system. As it stands the U.S. would have to undergo an internal revolution before Washington could enact the policies most needed to defend against the suitcase nuclear threat. Simply put, the country is not ready to accept such measures. The country is not convinced that such measures are absolutely necessary. Therefore, the government cannot accept the reality of suitcase nuclear bombs sitting on U.S. soil! To admit of such a thing would be tantamount to admitting that our form of government must come to an end.
The basis of our nuclear defense for half a century has been “deterrence.” Unless you can pinpoint your enemy, unless you can locate him on a map, you cannot send a missile against him. You cannot retaliate. In the case of terrorists hiding in remote mountain caves, there may be no deterrence even if you threaten to locate them and nuke their cave. Since they do not care about their own lives, since they are determined to die for their cause, deterrence is ineffective.
Here is the dilemma of the United States in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
© 2004 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
July 14, 2004
I've been reading Nyquist off and on for years. He's been fairly precient. Especially in his pessimism towards the democratization of China and Russian. At least when everybody was saying that we're all friends now in the late 90's he knew better. When September 11th happened I wasn't that shocked becuase I had read so much in his columns about the damage that Clinton had caused to our national security. I was just waiting for something bad to happen.
There was a book written about Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project. Seems there was a professor then who would like to take two highly enriched pieces of U235 and push them close together to demonstrate to his students how they would start heating up.
He was killed when he pushed them too close together and they exploded, not a nuclear explosion, but they got hot enough they basically started to evaporate.
If it was plutonium, it could contaminate 1000 square miles.
I don't want to get specific, but...
in order to hope to even partly shut down the kilodeath potential of AQ-in-US cells via restricting access to weapons-potential technology, the gub'mint'd have to shut down every single hardware, agriculture, and auto-parts store in the country.
Funny, I just don't feel obliged to trade in so much real freedom for so little transparently illusory safety.
I think perhaps you misremember that passage.
The most effective way for terrorists to kill Americans would be hitting a domed stadium during a major sporting event. Considering the 9/11 attack was pretty much stolen from a Tom Clancy book, there is nothing to stop them from copying "The Sum of All Fears."
It is still very, very unlikely that they have any nuclear weapons and even less likely that any weapon they have would work.
Yes we can retaliate, watch us, Tehran, Damascus, and I wouldn't rule out others.
basically, after a couple of years the fuze gets soggy and you can't light it.
OK, hypothetically we are talking about 20 Russian sourced nukes exploding in US cities.
I doubt that they will shoot their whole wad at once. They will go for maximum chaos. Blow one… make impossible demands. Blow another... make more demands.
We simply need something like the Russian "doomsday machine"
If the US is nuked, it starts a chain of events the leads to the extinction of the human race... Say we name a list of twenty possible retaliatory targets. Mecca, Pyongyang, Damascus, Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, Paris, Delhi, Jerusalem, Pretoria... on down the line
Simply put, we put all the words nuclear powers on a "hit list" Every explosion on our soil results in the random selection of an important city and it is obliterated.
...Every nuclear and terrorist nation "feels our pain"
A mass launch by any one (or all) nation(s) would be responded to "in kind."
Back to deterrence.
True, but point of order: It's extremely unlikely that al Qaeda will lay its slimy hands on any significant quantity of enriched plutonium. Dirty bombs will almost certainly be made from radioactive isotopes of elements of iodine, thallium and the like. These are used in industry and medicine, and will likely be stolen from legitimate users or bought on the black market.
One piece of good news is that these kinds of sources generally have very limited half-lives, often measured in dozens of hours. That means it would be nearly impossible to obtain enough radioactive material quickly enough to make many bombs to set off all at once.
If Islamic extremists get their hands on a supply of plutonium (or a cyclotron)... well, then we're all pretty much hosed.
the nuke thing doesn't sound right.
I actually expect a coordinated biochem attack...
How many Americans have to die before political correctness is irradicated?
Simple, sinister and effective BUMP to you...!!
I read some of the stuff that has been circulated on the viability of these devices (or not)....your answer sounds as authorititave, reasonable and concise as any I have heard.
Thanks.....
Time to put Mecca and Medina on the table. In other words ask: "What would Mohammed do? They'll understand, I'm sure.
One final thought: anybody vowing to diet, quit smoking, get sober, quit gambling, stop chasing women or procrastinating may want to postpone it a few months, you know, 'til after the election.
I wish I didn't believe that the Islamofascists wern't going to set off nukes in NYC and DC, but I do. I think push always comes to shove.
I think Islam and the left is at war with Western civilization and want us all and me especially D-E-A-D.
If the Islamo's don't kill us, the leftist Hollowood creeps and traitors will.
You just summed it up here. The only comment that I could possibly add is: The Hollywood creeps and LIBERALS.
The government and American public blew off terrorism before 9/11 and they seem to be blowing it off again. It's so unfortunate that it may take 30 or 300,000 dead citizens before the US truly believes that these guys are serious.
Because the tritium it takes to light them goes "stale".
True, but that could all change in an instant if there were a WMD attack.
Interview Friday, Nov. 21, 2003:
Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
"Americans will understand and support any steps the President wants to take..."
Do you include liberals in your statement? I think they would still try to sabotage Bush in the event of an attack. They are unable to think with logic, only emotion and hate.
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.