Posted on 07/06/2007 4:23:33 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Attack likely to exploit existing network of cross-border human, drug traffickers.
A nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. is better than an even bet in the next 10 years, says a former assistant secretary of defense and author of a book on the subject.
"Based on current trends, a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is more likely than not in the decade ahead," says Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and author of "Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe."
Allison, who has testified before Congress on the subject, says the illicit economy for narcotics and illegal alien trafficking "has built up a vast infrastructure that terrorists could exploit" in delivering a nuclear weapon to its target in the U.S.
Al-Qaida, which has threatened to launch an "American Hiroshima" attack on the U.S., remains Allison's No. 1 suspect to pull off such a mission.
"Former CIA Director George J. Tenet wrote in his memoirs that al-Qaida's leadership has remained 'singularly focused on acquiring WMD' – weapons of mass destruction – and willing to 'pay whatever it would cost to get their hands on fissile material,'" Allison wrote in an opinion piece appearing in the Baltimore Sun prior to Independence Day.
Allison says there are several viable options open to terrorists determined to secure nuclear weapons.
"They could acquire an existing bomb from one of the nuclear weapons states or construct an elementary nuclear device from highly enriched uranium made by a state," he wrote. "Theft of a warhead or material would not be easy, but attempted thefts in Russia and elsewhere are not uncommon."
Allison says terrorists are capable of building their own nuclear weapons if they can simply secure the fissile material.
"Once a terrorist group acquires about 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium, it could conceivably use publicly available documents and items commercially obtainable in any technologically advanced country to construct a bomb such as the one dropped on Hiroshima," he states.
The threat is imminent, says Allison.
"If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working condition, they could explode it today," he explains. "If the weapon had a lock, detonation would be delayed for several days. If terrorists acquired 100 pounds of highly enriched uranium, they could have a working elementary nuclear bomb in less than a year."
WND first broke the story of Osama bin Laden's plans for a nuclear terrorist attack on multiple cities in the U.S.
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the 9/11 commission have all concluded a nuclear terrorist attack is not only the nation's No. 1 nightmare but also something of an inevitability at some time in the future.
Earlier this year, WND reported how the most extensive study of the effects of nuclear detonations in four major U.S. cities paints a grim picture of millions of deaths, overwhelmed hospitals and loss of command-and-control capability by government.
But the three-year study by researchers at the Center for Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia says a concerted effort to teach civilians what to do in the event of a nuclear attack is the best – perhaps only – thing that could save an untold number of lives that will otherwise be needlessly lost.
"If a nuclear detonation were to occur in a downtown area, the picture would be bleak there," said Cham Dallas, director of the program and professor in the college of pharmacy. "But in urban areas farther from the detonation, there actually is quite a bit that we can do. In certain areas, it may be possible to turn the death rate from 90 percent in some burn populations to probably 20 or 30 percent – and those are very big differences – simply by being prepared well in advance."
What US city will die?
I think it’s more likely they manage a small “dirty bomb.”..look..you get some radioactive material, wrap it around a pipe bomb, and set it off underground in the Times Square subway station, or maybe in the Grand Central Station main concourse..it would totally shut them down for mon ths at least..the disruption, chaos, and economic costs would be huge..
How many former Soviet states still have Soviet-era nukes with them? To smuggle one such device and revive them might be a path they might take.
them = it.
My bad.
“What US city will die?”
I’m betting on Manhattan. The muzzies seem to be fixated on destroying New York. I can’t see any reason they would change their minds. However, in a multiple target strike, I’d put the list at New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas. They wouldn’t hit Detroit. Too many muzzies live there. Lackawanna is safe. It’s almost a muzzie city now. If we can learn anything from the 9/11, UK and Spanish strikes, they seem to limit their hits to 2 or 3 targets max.
It will almost certainly be a city with a large Jewish population.
Yankee Stadium would be an acceptable loss....
Thanks for posting this. Now I won’t be so quick to make a deposit in my 401K.
NYC (financial power of the U.S.), Washington (political power of the U.S.). But they'd really scare the sheeple if they blew up Hollywood.
They’d probably blow up the OLD one...
If the device uses smuggled material, it will probably be used close to the border crossing, to reduce the chance of detection and interception en route to the target city.
So if it was the Mexican border, look for Dallas or LA or Phoenix etc.
OTOH, if it’s smuggled in by sea, they’ll probably use it right there in that port city, again to reduce the chance of intercept en route to an interior city. Seattle, Long Beach/LA, NY, etc.
I do not think so. Once it's here, it's here, and only a rental truck away from what they really want. NYC. Look at how far-flung our Illegal "Guests" are!
They want to disrupt the economy, stock markets and banking and they like the high population density..plus there are Joos there. They have this Thing for NYC.
After all, half of Washington DC is on their side. They could do more damage by leaving that city alone.
Other targets would of course be mass murder, but would not have the infrastructure damage.
When this does happen, the fate of Muslims in America will no longer be in the hands of the Government: The People trusted the Government to do its primary job of defending its population. They will no longer be consulted and will be dismissed as irrelevant.
My vote is Houston. Close to the border so they wouldn’t risk as much by trucking one over here. Very densely populated downtown during the workday. Prevailing winds would shower huge populated areas with radiation. There would be no escape on the roadways, as they can’t even handle daily traffic normally.
Agreed. I think it might have something to do with Osama and his date Ayman taking in "Starlight Express" on Broadway when they were there.
That would be enough for anyone to want to level the city.
But I suspect that, in their "wisdom" (LOL), they'll simply suspend what remains of the Constitution, reintensify their searches of wheelchair bound 80 year-olds at the airports and declare martial law.
A frightening number of them have been salivating for an excuse to do that for decades.
Houston would be a terrible choice for the “most bang for the terrorist buck”. There are 2 or 3 main work areas in Houston, not just downtown.
A Muslim nuclear attack on this country should be an open invitation to target their “holy” sites.
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.