"If you don't withdraw today you will inevitably withdraw tomorrow, but only after tens of thousands are killed and injured."
Today *is* "tomorrow". (literally and figuratively)
I wonder if there is a similar play on words in the Arabic version of the threat.
It is past midnight right now in Japan (early Saturday morning). The bell will start to ring in Hiroshima in a little over five hours. Late rush hour in the east and just before on the west.
Unless they go after a major public gathering, there are less available targets on a weekend that a weekday. And if the rhetoric is to be believed (going back to references of "tens of thousands" dead in the tapes of late 2004), it *has* to be WMD. They would have great difficulty surpassing 9/11 (almost 3000 dead) conventionally.
This current threat period starts *today* (not tomorrow) and goes to the *fourth* (they like four) 9/11 anniversary with 5-10 target dates in between.
I need to amend something I posted yesterday.
I've been struck by the specific ranges given by both UBL last fall and Zawahiri a couple days ago (both specifically threatened "tens of thousands") and how, combined with accounts that the 9/11 attack was also "calibrated", you could make the argument that they are aiming for this specific casualty range. While it probably requires WMD, this specific range (if truly their goal) would narrow down the possibilities somewhat.
There are more targets on weekdays than weekends or weeknights, so it is natural to assume that if they manage to pull the trigger on WMD, they will go for broke and seek to maximize casualties. Otherwise, what is the point? But if you accept the first argument (that the specific focus on a casualty range by both UBL and Zawahiri indicate not just a minimum count they are trying to achieve, but they also may have a ceiling as to what they perceive as "overkill risk"), then the second argument (more likely on weekdays than weeknights or weekends) is undercut. This is where I went wrong yesterday.
While they can achieve their objectives on a weekday, it is also entirely feasible to achieve this specific casualty range on a weeknight or a weekend. (if you assume their goal is a range and not simple maximization) The target would be different on a weekend or weeknight, but their stated goal is still achievable.
I still think the 8/5 to 9/11 timeframe is high (or highest) risk, but I was off-base on the target(s). It is just as likely to be one or more major sports events, religious services, concerts, or large shopping malls on a weeknight or weekend as it is likely to be major office buildings, convention centers, or large schools/universities on a weekday.
The method to achieve this range is probably WMD. A small nuclear device could be used if they change their pattern and go for a singular rather than a multiple attack. But even if the multiple nuclear targets were realistic (and for operational and security reasons, they would have a hard time pulling off 3-4, let alone 30-40), if it worked, the casualties would almost certainly exceed 100,000 unless they popped them in the middle of the night. And again, what would be the point of that?
Chemical could hit the range (if they got it to work) but that might be hard to do. Radiological would probably not. High explosive might (a la 9/11), but that would be difficult. Biological could not be calibrated easily, and it (in this specific instance) would have to be non-transmissible (anthrax, ricin).
So the likely methods to get to 10,000-99,999 casualties are:
1) multiple chem
2) non-transmissible bio
3) single small nuke
I may still "revise and extend my remarks" as I continue to mull this one over.