Unthinkable? (terrorists nuking cities)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | November 21st, 2004 | Charles Burrress

[Mount Athos]

Imagine a relatively small nuclear bomb of 10 kilotons exploding in San Francisco's Union Square. "Everything to the Museum of Modern Art would vaporize," writes Harvard security analyst Graham Allison in his chilling new book, "Nuclear Terrorism." "Everything from the Transamerica building to Nob Hill would be sites of massive destruction; everything within the perimeter of Coit Tower and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge would go up in flames." No survivors would be found amid nearly 100 square blocks, and buildings in about 400 square blocks would be totally destroyed or left looking like the Oklahoma City federal building after it was crushed by a truck bomb. To alert Americans to the intimate extent of the peril, Allison's book is linked to an Internet "Blast Map" showing the radius of destruction for such a nuclear device anywhere in the United States. It can be viewed by ZIP code at www.nuclearterror.org. Allison and other experts agree that the most likely form of nuclear terrorism is a "dirty bomb," where radioactive material is scattered by a conventional explosive or perhaps an attack on a nuclear reactor. But some analysts are worried more by the less likely but far more catastrophic detonation of a terrorist nuclear bomb. "The gravest danger, however, and the one requiring the most urgent attention, is the possibility that terrorists could obtain highly enriched uranium or plutonium for use in an improvised nuclear device," according to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, and former Sen. Sam Nunn, now head of the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative.

[The Loan Arranger]

There are supposedly about 100 "suitcase nukes" (small nuclear weapons in a large container--just barely able to be carried by someone) missing from the former Soviet stockpile. I would tend to think that al Queda must have some of them by now, why else would Osama bin Laden go asking for religious "permission" to use nuclear weapons from a Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia? Houston, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington DC or NYC would be the most likely targets, IMHO.

[fat city]

No, this is ironic:

"Everything to the Museum of Modern Art would vaporize,"

[76834]

Hmmm.......
Would that be such a bad thing??

[Dallas59]

San Fransisco is probably the safest place to be. Alot of AQ supporters there.

[Steel Wolf]

It would probably be in Bin Laden's top three list. His aim is to provoke war with us, under the sadly mistaken assumption that the Arab world will rise up, and some Deux Ex Allah will save them at the last minute.

Hitting the most decadent Americans, the ones who don't want to fight, would be right up his alley. It's stupid, but no more so than the rest of Al Qaida's plan.

[meatloaf]

I'd say New York and Washington would be on the top of the list.

[76834]

I'd say New York and Washington would be on the top of the list.

Agree, and add Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.
Whats amazing to me is the prime targets seem to be the most opposed to the war on terrorism.
Kinda like calling fire down on your own position.......

[ROTB]

>Hitting the most decadent Americans, the ones who don't want
>to fight, would be right up his alley. It's stupid, but no
>more so than the rest of Al Qaida's plan.

Didn't OBL say in his pre-election broadcast that states that vote Kerry would be spared? If truthful, this would put South Dakota, (a.k.a. #7 coalition partner) at the top of the hit list.

[McGavin999]

To be honest with you, I don't think they are going to strike a US city with a nuclear device. I think they will try to take out a european city.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Likeliest terrorist targets have to be NYC and Washington, DC. NYC to destroy capitalism (banking, equity markets) and Washington (decapitate democracy). From a strategic value perspective, SF would be low on their list.

[GeronL]

I love that scenario.... I am so liking that scenario... brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it

[Steel Wolf]

Tactically he may need a time out. Electing Kerry would have given him some time to regroup and reconsolidate his forces. But if you think that would have ended the war, you're mistaken.

The long term goals remain the same: The destruction of the West through the rise of Islamic resistance.

[GeronL]

they will still vote the "peace & freedom" party, that is, the dems.

Actually there is a third party named the Peace & Freedom party

[mhx]

Osamy boy promised that he wouldn't attack any of the states that voted for John Kerry.

[Southack]

"There are supposedly about 100 "suitcase nukes" (small nuclear weapons in a large container--just barely able to be carried by someone) missing from the former Soviet stockpile."

No, there aren't.

The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.

The less shielding that you have, the sooner that your electronics and conventional explosives deteriorate from the radiation. Suitcase nukes by their very nature are small.

The less fissionable material that you have, the faster you generally need your atomic trigger isotopes to emit neutrons. The faster you emit neutrons, the shorter your half-life. The shorter your half-life, the less time that you have before the nuke simply fizzles instead of booms.

This is simple physics. Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).

So a "suitcase nuke" from 1991 (i.e. the end of the Soviet Union) is likely little more than a rusted, shattered, fragmented collection of wiring and explosives today.

[Anti-Christ is Hillary]

Another book to read is "Osamas Revenge: THE NEXT 9/11 : What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You." By Paul Willams. If I remember right Mr. Williams is ex-C.I.A.

He chronicles in his book that Osama wants to detonate 7 nukes simultaneously in different cities across America. San Francisco, LA, Chicago, New York, Washington D.C., Houston and I think Seattle. He also thinks that they are planning to strike before the end of 2005.

[durasell]

You know, if 9/11 didn't happen, I could almost excuse the callousness of joking about killing tens of thousands of Americans. But as someone who cleaned debrise from their front steps and breathed it in for weeks, I don't think you guys have much of an excuse for such idiot comments.

[LibWhacker]

What if they gave a nuclear war and liberals were vaporized?

[nathanbedford]

Alarm over the prospect of a city being devastated by a terrorist nuclear bomb was sounded soon after Sept. 11, but has grown noticeably louder in recent weeks and months

It has become fashionable on these FR threads to trivialize or satirize these ominous warnings when they have appeared lately. This may be legitimate as a reaction to a new wave of leftist alarmism running in coordination with the publication of Imperial Hubris and the wide exposure given its author who echoes these warnings. Or, and I hope this is not the case, it might just be that the supporters of Israel somehow connect these scenarios with a possible abandonment of Israel and thus must dismiss the whole discussion. See, Uncertain Trumpet: Imperial Hubris is an alarming book. National Review ^ | Sept. 27, 2004 | David Frum, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281603/posts

Those of us who have been posting these concerns for over a year about the possibility of a WMD strike want the danger evaluated on its own merits without reference to collateral political issues.

The whole of our democracy, our economic life and our culture are at stake.

[GeronL]

lol. The article might change a few minds in SF, but I doubt it.