Smugglers Had Design For Advanced Warhead(AQ Khan; miniaturized nuke for N. Korea?)

WP ^ | 06/15/08 | Joby Warrick

[Popman]

It has a rather disturbing implication.

If might be a serious and disturbing implication under the EVIL maniacal Bush, I mean, McCain administration, but under an Obama administration, the messiah, lightworker, specially attuned being that he is, Obama will work his magic on NK, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezzbollah and all will be right in the world, right as rain.

Fear not, Obama will save the world.

[slowhandluke]

All this implies a high degree of unreliability for the first use of any device built by those receiving the blueprints. An unsuccessful triggering will result in a “dirty bomb” that contaminates a relatively small area with the particulate residue of the physics package.

Is Wall Street a relatively small area? The physical damage might be small, but the propaganda and extortion value would be immense.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
Is Wall Street a relatively small area? The physical damage might be small, but the propaganda and extortion value would be immense.
<<

The difference in blast radius is beyond compare: the difference between kilotons and a few pounds. The upwind contamination would be limited to hundreds of yards, the downwind particulate plume to a few miles. No fireball, very little broken glass.

The Arab culture puts a lot of weight on pride and saving face. I don't know what will happen, on balance, should a jihadist device fail. In the case of Israel, it will trigger the same massive air-burst response, so they get all the downside without the intended upside. In the case of the 9/11 strike on the US, the jihadists in Afghanistan may have cheered for a few weeks, but they were not happy when our donkey-riding specops guys were calling in B52 packages on their caves, or when we clustered their open formations and killed them by the hundreds and thousands in an instant.

[AnimalLover]

bttt

[AnimalLover]

bttt

[slowhandluke]

The upwind contamination would be limited to hundreds of yards, the downwind particulate plume to a few miles.

So, all they have to do is claim that the few miles of Wall Street contaminated and unusable for the next few years is all that they wanted to do. It would be a display of their 'compassion' that they harmed only the big-shots on Wall Street. I think they would also be smarter than to claim responsibility in a way that could be tied to a particular person, area or country, to avoid giving us a target. They know we won't attach the whole Muslim world.

And, should the bomb work better than expected, they can claim that was what was intended all along.

These folks are not totally dumb. One thing they've done before (think 1st Twin Tower bombing), is have the group who did the bombing be a USA-based group. Then, who do we attack in response?

It could be that whatever group does this won't be able to not take responsibility for this, and we have a target. They've mentioned before that they are willing to risk a whole country or two in the effort to take down the USA. Do you think we can do another Iraq without the total surrender crowd here going for total surrender on our part?

Unless the head of Pakistan or Iran claims responsibility for a nuke attack (not going to happen), who'd we bomb? And what would the response from the rest of the world be?

Any nuclear device in the hands of the terrorists is clear existential problem to us. A dud that only contaminates a few miles of Manhattan is maybe a better terror weapon than one that wipes it out. It's the anticipation of the next one working that will get the left crying out for immediate surrender.