Posted on 04/25/2006 6:50:43 AM PDT by demkicker
A terrorism symposium featuring leading experts will begin with presentation of "tangible proof" al-Qaida not only has developed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons but also has begun to deploy them for use in its jihad against the United States and Israel.
Paul L. Williams, author of "The Al Connection" and "The Dunces of Doomsday," will present his findings at the National Press Club in Washington at the conclusion of a public debate with Wall Street Journal correspondent Richard Miniter on al-Qaida's nuclear weaponry.
The debate, Friday at 10 a.m., will be moderated by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The public is invited to attend.
The organizers say the event is timely, "with increased anxiety over demands for a pullout from Iraq, the nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea, the failure of our government to secure the borders and our country's fledgling, incomprehensive effort at homeland security."
Epstein believes the majority of Americans disapprove of both the "cut-and-run policy" proposed by many leading Democrats and the "compassionate conservative" approach of the Bush administration, favoring instead a "firm and decisive military action with no apologies to Russia, China, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia or the United Nations."
"I am convinced that the threat we are currently facing from radical Islam greatly surpasses that which was posed by the Third Reich," Epstein said.
Anyone interested in attending, Epstein added, should contact America's Truth Forum at its website or by calling 866-709-3474.
The event offers the following speakers (continued):
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Maintaining any nuclear weapon components for "a year or so" requires considerable infrastructure. Assembling a nuclear weapon onsite requires a fair amount of specialized equipment.
Have you not read the unclassified threat assessments, even those here on freerepublic?
Well, I've read threat assessments from people who actually have an idea of how these things work. Unfortunately, those folks don't post on Free Republic.
Hope CSPAN is covering this...
Hey, Potlatch... hope everything is well with you.
Tangible proof being tauted by WorldNUTDaily?
I think I'll stay away from it LOL
However, I can't believe they would hit us before they hit Israel...I suspect they won't do anything to hinder their chance to get the Jews...
Of course, that could be tomorrow...
Think of the Spaniard from The Princess Bride.
"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
yeah but knowing that we know what they know that we know....
LOL
Yup. I have no plans to go anywhere near DC for the rest of my life. That also includes, New York, Chicago, LA...
Thanks for the ping. This should be an interesting symposium.
"Oh, you mean Al-Qaeda has the infrastructure in place to maintain nuclear weapons in operational condition for years and years?"
What would that entail for a 2-year period? Is a nuclear weapon only good for a very short time? How long?
The USSR is unable to account for hundreds of "satchel" nukes. Are they impotent?
WRONG!!!
If it uses a deuterium-tritium "zipper" for a neutron source, it's good for about three months. If it uses a polonium neutron source, it's only good for 14 days.
(Note: tritium costs about $50,000 a gram. Polonium is likewise extremely expensive.)
If it uses tritium boosting, the tritium has to be changed out every few months, or it will decay to helium, which will absorb a great deal of neutrons. (Some of our 1950s nuclear weapons tests "fizzled," i.e., did not generate a nuclear yield, because of helium contamination.)
Going on, firing set batteries and capacitors need to be changed out every six months or so; the explosives need to be inspected and replaced every six to nine months (they are wrapped around a lump of plutonium that generates constant heat; eventually, volatile compounds will evaporate out of the explosives, causing either the explosives to not detonate properly or to lose their shape around the pit; either condition means that the spherical implosion wave (necessary to bring the plutonium to supercriticality) will not be formed properly.
Wiring and detonators need to be checked annually for signs of wear or corrosion and replaced as necessary.
Finally, the plutonium itself needs to go back to a nuclear weapons fabrication facility every ten years due to americium buildup from decaying plutonium.
The USSR is unable to account for hundreds of "satchel" nukes. Are they impotent?
Unless they've been remanufactured from the core out, yes. See above.
We are not obligated to face DC everyday & pray to the Washington Monument, so I think your analogy may not follow. I was trying to apply a little Sun Tzu to the situation (seizing something dear to your enemy...and all that stuff). You may very well be right, I was just throwing the my idea out for comment.
Food for thought: The Soviets may not have had as many "Suitcase Nukes" as THEY thought. In arms control negotiations the US, through its 'National Technical Means', had a better idea of the numbers of certain types of weapons the Soviets had deployed than the Soviet Military did. It seems that factory managers & technicians regularly sandbagged their superiors in order to make it look like they made their production quotas, or their units were at a higher state of readiness than actually was the case.
Since suitcase nukes are by definition too small to be seen from a spy satellite, it is possible the Soviets thought they had a lot more of them than they actually did. When the clerks attempted to reconcile what they had on the shelves at the end of the Cold War there was a lot of discrepencies.
"Homeland Security has been a joke, Bush, the congress, and the senate should face charges of criminal neglect over our borders, the Homeland Security Plan, it's inadequacies, it's implementation, and enforcement."
Lady, you need to chill out. You'll have a stroke thinking like that.
To the rest of you nuclear doomsdayers, please don't get carried away with your worst-case scenarios. Sure, anything is possible and it never hurts to look at the worst case analysis. But, if you are really worried about the cave dwellers maintaining a nuclear weapons program then you are not enjoying life as you should. Some of the things said on this thread are so far-out and ridiculous that it's embarrasing. China and Russia don't want to invade the USA, they can't even handle their own countries, You think they have a chance in hell of imposing their will on the American people? 3 or 4 nukes detonated at the same time in cities across the USA would not destroy our country. Sure, it would end the world as we know it, but unless the attackers have a few million troops on our soil, they have no chance of capitalizing on their attack. We would regain our footing just like NYC did post 9-11.
My take on this is that the threat of a nuclear strike is actually better than the strike itself for the terrorists. People worry, cast blame at our President, fan the flames of fear and generally make the terrorists out to be really important dudes. Hope you enjoy playing into their hand.
"Unless they've been remanufactured from the core out, yes. See above.
"
Well my BS-Physics is 38 years old and I have forgotten most of my nuclear physics 'stuff' I bow to your current knowledge.
Thanks
Bumpity bump!
Well, blam, since you're from Alabama, I wasn't referring to you.
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.