Concur. This just brightens my day :(
The response to this would be multiple air bursts (ie. one thousand times larger than the tac nukes) over Pakistan, North Korea and anyone else even suspected of supplying the materials to Al-Qaeda. It would be the end of the world as we know it. The death toll would be over one hundred million.
It is time to reinstate MAD...mutually assured destruction...
"Three or four tactical nukes set off one day (one week, etc)at a time would effectively end the US as we know it."
If they could launch one about 200 miles up of sufficient power the EMP would do it. Alas Babylon!
Where does one store and maintain one nuclear weapon, much less ten? Plus, it's a lot harder for a patron state to dish off these nukes because the isotope trail will lead back to their front door and likely result in massive, decisive retaliation from the U.S.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that one device is detonated in... say... someplace on the Eastern Seaboard. That would be enough to grind the country to a halt, because, frankly, major cities would probably begin emptying in a panic since no one would REALLY know how many they have. At that point, AQ could begin sending ultimatums to the WH and set a timeline for the next detonation.
But I don't think they have these weapons, and even if they could, no one wants to be answerable to the U.S. for supplying AQ with WMD, the morning after.
"you are wrong,
they had the ability to hijack an airplane years ago, but they waited and planned, I believe documented five years or more to carry it out at the right time, so they could hijack multiple planes and drash into multiple targets simultaneously.
One small tactical nuke in one major city, big problem; but the US would survive.
Three or four tactical nukes set off one day (one week, etc)at a time would effectively end the US as we know it.
Never underestimate the enemy.
Lurking'"
You are correct. Based on AQ's past attacks, they have consistently chosen 3 or 4 targets with every attack for a 'spectacular'. They detonate them all at once, therefore I doubt they would do one a day or week and give us time to prepare. What we can do now is a couple of things:
1) Have stronger civilian defense emergency plans to provide food and shelter for our population so we can survive as a country while we destroy those responsible. Russia built underground cities during the cold war. Not saying we should do the same but look at our horrific suffering from Katrina by not having the basics of food, water and transportation ready for this huge WHEN and not IF. The CIA has been saying for years a nuclear attack is a WHEN and not an IF. Having the means to survive and extract a heavy revenge is a deterrant in of itself.
2) Secure the damn borders so IF they have a couple of nukes already here it doesn't turn into seven, ten etc.
3)Establish a civilian police force as volunteers to help restore and keep order. Our military, FEMA and local police forces will be overwhelmed.
OK, they wait, and they wait, and they wait...
...and the bombs fizzle because their components have decayed.
"Three or four tactical nukes set off one day (one week, etc)at a time would effectively end the US as we know it.
Never underestimate the enemy."
And ten in the ten industrial cities would cause world chaos. The US would be forced to nuke every islam country to green glass.
The first airplane hijacked to Cuba was in 1958. I don't think 9/11 was a significant technological advance.
""Al Qaeda's Suitcase Nukes: A Monumental Debate at the National Press Club, Sponsored by America's Truth Forum""
The hyerbole in this one sentence is overwhelming
Speaking as one whose sole job was nuclear war for years, I say.......bullshit, son. Utter, complete bullshit.
3-4.. so they'd blow dc, nyc, la, maybe chicago or boston? ok, sure, we'd loose alot of stuff, but we'd be rid of 30million dems too.
"One small tactical nuke in one major city, big problem; but the US would survive."
Not as a Republic.