This writer is clueless about our enemy. The deterrence target is clearly defined.
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
Utterly worthless.
They're a bunch of amateurs playing pretend terror analyst. Have demonstrated repeatedly they don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They serve the "terror scare hobbyist" by providing them with the desired scare-a-day.
The immense pleasure people take in saying "I told you so" can easily twist over time to basically rooting for bad stuff you predict to happen.
The deterrent policy stated has always been our policy of nuclear deterrence...although some liberal may have changed it recently to "Allow oneself to be totally destroyed before shooting back." [I think they did]
Nothing new here, nothing shocking.
MAD.
This writer is clueless about our enemy. The deterrence target is clearly defined.
But what about Hollywood?
Call me, I want to be your driver and spotter.
Have all the renegage states with functioning reactors (such as North Korea) suddenly "gone legit"?
Is there anything to prevent them from providing these materials to terrorists?
I didn't think so.
Well the Constitution has already largely been discarded in favor of judicial fiat, illegal legislation, ever more invasive useless laws on thing like riding ATVs and smoking and completely ignoring real threats like Latino invasion and gangs.
As much as I love the Constitution our current broken system only calls it up as a sort of talisman, so military rule would not be a huge change in that regard.
yes thats great.
you should be quiet now, the grown-ups are talking. shhh...
Yup. And, like crockwork, the "usual suspects" are in-thread, playing their FUD games, preventing that not only has NONE of it been documented, but, insisting that it is categorically impossible.
If pressed, they will of course roll out a series of links that are off-topic, and prove nothing, and don't even support their lies -- but, they will keep promulgating their lies anyway -- like crockwork -- and, many will listen to the lies, and accept them, because a comforting lie will be more "listenable" to some folks than an uncomfortable truth.
And, if pressed really hard, they will call in their reinforcements, try to initiate a series of flamewars -- if necessary, settling for a series of single-sided "flame wars", so that the can also stir the shiite w/the mod squad, so that they can score a goal.
"Scoring a goal" in one of these threads means either getting it kicked to "the backroom", where no one will see the uncomfortable facts, or, getting the thread deleted in its entirety.
If they're really lucky, they'll get some longtime posters suspended too.
It really is amazing to watch 'em in action. It's almost as if a squad of seminar posters was in the hire of some outfit that had a vested interest in "steering opinion" or "forming consensus."
That there are such operations conducted on the Internet, and, that this forum, being about as high-profile as they come, would seem to be as likely a target (for such operations) as any, means nothing. I'm sure it's all just a big coincidence. A serial coincidence, that occurs like crockwork.
Oh I'm quite sure that there would be a great hue and cry by interests exterior to this nation...
That would be the whole point.
Something sorta like having nukes smuggled into your country I would imagine.
Interesting conjecture, except you forget a few details.
First, "maximum chaos" would happen if they did set them all off at once. Second, if they set them all off at once, they don't have to worry about stepped-up policing efforts discovering any of their other weapons before they can set them off.
And, even apart from those two factors, there's the biggie: coordinated multiple/simultaneous attacks are AlQ's trademarked MO. It's what they do.
Why's that? After all, Israel is "the little satan", and we on the other hand are "the great satan."
Do your homework!
You offer what?¿ to support that opinion?
And if they did, exactly what are we suppose to do?
Well, if it was real, and if one could, I'd get hell out of the major population centers..Just a wild guess though....
Now I wonder why that is? Could it be because the liberal rats have been calling into question the war on terror day in and day out saying the President lied about it all? Could the fact that W is called the terrorist, and in fact is accused in some circles of sending the planes into the buildings himself have something to do with this?
The left has blood on their hands already, and if this happens, they will be the aiders and abettors of it.
The night of the weak kneesThe night of the weak knees
Christopher Hitchens
Wednesday December 5, 2001
The GuardianFour weekends ago, I really did receive two Friday-night telephone calls from well-positioned Washingtonians. "Leave now," they told me. "There's a tactical nuke on the loose, and it's headed for DC." One of these callers was in a position to know, and the other was in a position where he was actually paid to know. Calls were being placed to an immediate circle of friends to which, in theory, I was flattered to belong. Those who were calling were also leaving - while not informing the rest of the citizens. Why, then, did I resolve to stay? It wasn't just British pluck, strong as that naturally is. I thought, first, that it was unlikely that al-Qaida, if it had the bomb, would have conducted a petty dress rehearsal with United Airlines. I thought, second, that the detonation of a "use it or lose it" freelance nuke could not be predicted for any given weekend. And I thought, third, that I would feel a colossal cretin if I fled and then came slithering back on Monday morning (especially if the nuclear holocaust was timed for Monday's rush hour after all). In the end, I did take the family on a pre-arranged trip to Gettysburg, leaving late and returning early.
Officially, nobody now remembers this night of the weak knees. It rated a brief and embarrassed mention in Hugh Sidey's Time column, and that was it. But I shall not forget how some of those in supposed authority decided that the end had come, and made it a point to keep it to themselves and their immediate friends, perhaps to stop the crowding of the roads. That's how it will be on the day of Armageddon, and that's why the citizen should always plan to outlive the state, rather than the other way round.
Oh come on. They seem pretty confident, or believe Israel is just a puppet of the United States....They don't want the puppet, they want the puppeteer.....911 kind of indicated that....
*LOL!*
You're a funny guy!
just a wild guess, eh. (Smart-alec me thinks;) Got every cow-trail out of Houston mapped. Like it would do any good. Can you imagine the chaos?
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.