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."
“Why Vegas? Why not San Francisco, center of all things hedonistic that the Muzzies hate?”
Vegas because they’ve already said that it is full of sin.
These are nutbar muzzies we’re talking about not same people.
My understanding (and I admit that my understanding may be wrong and/or incomplete) is that only Russia had all the facilities on its own soil to go from mining the ore through enrichment through bomb manufacture through delivery system manufacture. Ukraine had a stockpile of bombs, but no way to completely manufacture new ones from start to finish, and since they weren’t likely to get technical assistance from either Russia or the United States to fill in the gaps they decided NOT to spend the money necessary to become a Nuclear Weapons Weapons power, since it would be so expensive.
So the Ukrainians turned their nukes over to the Russians. And since it was in the Russians' and the Americans' interest to make sure that all the weapons were turned over, I expect this was verified by both nuclear powers together and separately to their own satisfaction.
Maybe the Ukrainians figured out a way to fool both, but I'm inclined to be a skeptic. If you are not so skeptical, well that's your right.
ping
LA was safe until a nuke got by Jack Bauer last season. I suggest Al Quida would take out a big soft target like Bentonville Arkansas with Walmart’s HQ and the true economic center of the US.
great graphic!
Easy. We would have to fight dirty with them. We would retaliate but disclaim any connection to it.
Don’t know who your friend works for, but my BIL runs a company that moves barges on the Tennessee River, and they have HIGH security. There are tons of explosive materials moving up and down those rivers every day.
Homeland Security is heavily involved in this traffic, as there are two nuclear plants on that river. Believe me, I have thought about the scenerio you mentioned, and it would be a disaster.
I think things might be different if we made it very clear that any nuke strike in the US would result in the “disappearance” of the big black box in Mecca.
I volunteer to push the button!
Mecca.
Do you think that the US public would stand for such a reaction after just having been nuked? Wouldn’t they want their government to take overt action against the enemy vice disclaiming any connection to whatever happened?
If the politicians didn’t act, there wouldn’t be a live MUslim in America within 7 days.
Mecca California?
I think Chinese economic expansion has been part and parcel of a Chinese Homeland Defence program for years.
China is paranoid (as were the Soviets). For whatever reason they think that their neighbors are threats (maybe they remember the 1930’s?). Anyway, one of the best ways to secure your position is to make it economically unviable to attack you. One of the surest ways to invite attack is to disrupt the economy of a powerful country. China is going from third world hellhole to major economic power primarily as a defensive measure.
As for the “economy as defence” plan, why do you think we haven’t kicked Saudi Arabia’s butt? Or at least put them on alert that we will, like we did with Quadaffi? When many of the terrorist in the world claim to be Saudi, when the #1 terrorist in the world is Saudi, why do we treat them so nice?
Which is exactly why I was trying to imply that nothing will be done to curb China's lust for power. Hell, the whole world de-recognised Taiwan as a nation only to replace it with China. And this was decades before the Saudis were really mollycoddled.
You announce a policy that Mecca and all Islamic Holy sites and US Mosques easily within reach will be raized should any Atomic weapon be unleashed...no negotiations, no compromises. You just announce that it doesn’t matter regarding which group might have been responsible...you hold the RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY responsible for the destruction and act accordingly!
I think it will be more than one. Between 4 -8 would be my guess.
I agree, I doubt the US would undertake a full scale nuclear attack on terrorist states even if there were a multiple city nuclear strike here.
And create a billion plus enemies immediately upon announcing the policy. And they will launch attacks on the “infidels” throughout the Islamic world and plan attacks against Christian churches like the Vatican and churches around the world and without atomic weapons. Making this a religious war plays right into the hands of relatively small band of militant Islamic extremists by radicalizing the entire religion and its adherents. Dumb move.
They already are our enemies, their whole religious structure is anti Democratic and anti western...you think if America is severely Damaged these billion or so souls will rush to send us aid...no they’ll Dance in the streets!
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.