WHAT IF THE TERRORISTS GO NUCLEAR?

As the United States proceeds with its war on terrorism, one of the darkest clouds hanging over the campaign is the question of whether the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 horrors could strike again, this time with nuclear weapons.
It seems doubtful that U.S. intelligence can definitively answer this question. Absent perfect foresight, one can nonetheless outline some of the plausible threats and identify the range of U.S. responses that could reduce the exposure of citizens and troops to nuclear attack.

Threat Scenarios

The most accessible nuclear device for any terrorist would be a radiological dispersion bomb. This so-called 'dirty bomb' would consist of waste by-products from nuclear reactors wrapped in conventional explosives, which upon detonation would spew deadly radioactive particles into the environment. This is an expedient weapon, in that radioactive waste material is relatively easy to obtain. Radioactive waste is widely found throughout the world, and in general is not as well guarded as actual nuclear weapons.

In the United States, radioactive waste is located at more than 70 commercial nuclear power sites. Enormous quantities also exist overseas — in Europe and Japan in particular. Tons of wastes are transported long distances, including between continents (Japan to Europe and back).

In Russia, security for nuclear waste is especially poor, and the potential for diversion and actual use by Islamic radicals has been shown to be very real indeed. In 1996, Islamic rebels from the break-away province of Chechnya planted such a device in Moscow's Izmailovo park to demonstrate Russia's vulnerability. This dirty bomb consisted of a deadly brew of dynamite and one of the highly radioactive by-products of nuclear fission — Cesium 137.

Such gamma-ray emitting bombs would not kill quite as many people as died on Sept. 11. A worst-case calculation for an explosion in downtown Manhattan during noontime: more than 2,000 deaths and many thousands more suffering from radiation poisoning. Treatment of those exposed would be greatly hampered by inadequate medical facilities and training. The United States has only a single hospital emergency room dedicated to treating patients exposed to radiation hazards, at Oak Ridge, Tenn.

A credible threat to explode such a bomb in a U.S. city could have a powerful impact on the conduct of U.S. foreign and military policy, and could possibly have a paralyzing effect. Not only would the potential loss of life be significant, but also the prospect of mass evacuation of dense urban centers would loom large in the minds of policy-makers.

A terrorist attack on a commercial nuclear power plant with a commercial jet or heavy munitions could have a similar affect to a radiological bomb. If such an attack were to cause either a meltdown of the reactor core (similar to the Chernobyl disaster), or a dispersal of the spent fuel waste on the site, extensive casualties could be expected. In such an instance, the power plant would be the source of the radiological contamination, and the plane or armament would be the explosive mechanism for spreading lethal radiation over large areas.

The threat from radiological dispersion dims in comparison to the possibility that terrorists could build or obtain an actual atomic bomb. An explosion of even low yield could kill hundreds of thousands of people. A relatively small bomb, say 15-kilotons, detonated in Manhattan could immediately kill upwards of 100,000 inhabitants, followed by a comparable number of deaths in the lingering aftermath.

Fortunately, bomb-grade nuclear fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) is relatively heavily guarded in most, if not all, nuclear weapon states.

Nonetheless, the possibility of diversion remains. Massive quantities of fissile material exist around the world. Sophisticated terrorists could fairly readily design and fabricate a workable atomic bomb once they manage to acquire the precious deadly ingredients (the Hiroshima bomb which used a simple gun-barrel design is the prime example).

A primary source of diverted weapons or material could be Russia. No Russian bombs have been officially reported missing, and Russian authorities maintain that no nuclear material has been lost. Rather, the outstanding question is whether a bomb, or fissile material in sufficient quantity to make one, has disappeared without Moscow's knowledge. While few outside observers dispute this, none are privy to the raw data that could validate or refute the Russian claim.

One concern long has been the allegations voiced by the former chairman of Russia's Security Council, Gen. Alexander Lebed. After conducting an exhaustive inventory of Russian nuclear weapons in the 1990s, he found that 50 or more "suitcase" nuclear bombs had vanished from the Russian arsenal.

The prevailing judgment among Western experts is that Russia may have lost track of the paper trail for any number of bombs, but that the bombs themselves probably have been dismantled or tucked away in storage, rather than having been stolen. The infamous Russian accounting system using hand receipts stored in shoe boxes provides ample grist for this theory.

While there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Russian military and civilian leaders who have shouldered the custodial duties for Russian nuclear weapons, it is nonetheless possible that Russian nuclear security has been compromised from the inside without detection.

As noted, such a bomb could be transported to the United States inside one of the countless containers arriving at American ports every day. This avenue seems especially easy to arrange by bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which has extensive business connections around the world. Such a container could accommodate a good-sized atomic bomb, which could be unloaded and carted off in a small truck or van to any destination in the lower 48 states. Indeed, once unloaded from a ship, one of Russia's 'missing' suitcase bombs, which are thought to weigh some 60 pounds and measure the size of a small refrigerator, practically could be carried as a back-pack by a strong person.

Disconcertingly, it is conceivable that Russia may have built even smaller bombs, comparable to the truly attaché-class atomic bomb secretly built by the United States in the late 1970s. This U.S. bomb design was so compact and lightweight that it could have been covertly transported as innocent hand-luggage by any reasonably strong individual. In fact, a replica — with proxy nuclear material and conventional explosives in place of the real stuff — was disguised as a briefcase, and actually hand-carried on commercial airline flights from California to Washington in the early 1980s.

Another potential source of diversion is the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, estimated to number around 30-50 atomic bombs with explosive yields ranging from 1 to 15 kilotons. The weapons are probably assembled at Wah (50 miles from Afghanistan), and are stored primarily at Sargodha near a missile complex close to the border with India and only about 250 miles from Afghanistan. Pakistan's military government is walking a tightrope between pressure from the Bush administration on one side and anti-American Islamic militants on the other. Growing street opposition from the latter could certainly de-stabilize or even topple the regime, and in the midst of such dissolution, the weakening of nuclear security would inevitably occur. The ranks of government and military personnel are also fairly riddled with sympathizers of the radical Islamic faction, posing a distinct risk of insiders colluding to spirit away a bomb or two for bin Laden or other terrorists. In any case, control over Pakistan's arsenal could all too readily buckle in a serious crisis inside the country. Pakistani weapons are believed to lack sophisticated locks and other safeguards to prevent their unauthorized use. Loose nukes in the region would have unpredictable consequences, almost all of which would militate against the U.S. cause, not to mention the safety of U.S. forces dispatched there.

>What would be potential responses from the United States?

Look at the way the US is floundering around now trying to pinpoint who the hell (specifically) was behind the 911 attack. Look at how they're trying to obtain "proof" (it's war, thousands of Americans are already dead, and the Feds are playing Matlock).

Suppose terrorists did go nuclear.

What could the government do? How could the government know for sure what State supplied the terrorists with the bomb(s). Contemporary leaders from the 'Rats and the Republicans have all committed to this legalistic insanity that even though we're at war, every action must be "measured" and justifiable in a judicial way.

What would the government do? The government would do nothing. (Save the ongoing stuff -- more special forces raids, attacks on dirt holes like the Sudan, etc.)

OPEC is a very rich entity.

Mark W.

(Unless some US military type pulled an Oliver Cromwell and, for a time, ummm, gave the politicians a time out... The libertarians would have a fit, but a lot of other Americans might give the guy (or girl!?!?) a rousing cheer... (But I've talked about this with some people who are very in-the-know about our military and I was told there are no such strong personalities in any position to do such a thing.))

THAT is the obvious, logical, sensible answer to the threat of more terrorism from within. Preemptive prevention, just a nice ,free ride back to the motherland. We're so damned worried about being 'fair' that thousands of Americans are DEAD and millions are threatened. It's ludicrous. I'd rather be unFAIR to foreign nationals than see countless more people DIE! You get the rats out of your house first, then you go after the ones in the sewers.

Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law and that includes foreign nationals who reside in the U.S. No one is guilty by religous or ethnic association. Not Germans, Japanese, Italians or Arabs. If there is strong evidence of terrorism to convict someone then they must be bought to justice. Otherwise leave law abiding, patriotic legal resident Arabs alone. Many of them are moderate Muslims or Christians who would be instantly persecuted if sent back to Arab states.

What would be potential responses from the United States?

The following should be considered:

1. The penetration of Islamic money into the U.S. government, including long-standing business relationships between some of our elected officials and "moderate" Islam.

2. Elements in our country, justified by "economists" and academics, have been busy exporting our industries. In many cases, these industries and the money tied up in them have been exported to Moslam countries.

3. Oil money would just as soon see us continue to import oil from Moslem countries, including countries that harbor or sponsor terrorists. Lots more money is tied up in this option.

4. The only way to completely eliminate the threat is to take out everyone that is a threat. Millions, probably hundreds of millions of people (united by religion) can't sleep at night knowing that we exist. The only way to eliminate the threat is to take them all out or render them all permanently incapable of mounting a threat. That is too politically incorrect, and IMO even in the event of a WMD attack, our leadership would not choose that option.

Get ready for this level of tension to be permanent......

As the threat grows.

If the militant wing of Islam goes nuclear, the world will have no alternative but to exterminate Islam, root and branch, starting with Mecca. This intended form of reprisal should be advertised well in advance, to give the moderates (if there are, in fact, any moderates) in the Islamic community one last chance to eliminate the terrorists themselves, before the rest of the world is forced to implement a very unpleasant Final Solution.

We have put up with this Jihadic crap for almost one and a half millennia. It was bad enough when the followers of Mohammed were content with butchery by sword and rifle, because the misery was limited to their immediate neighbors and the conquered subjects of Islam. But now, these maniacs extend their bloody hands across continents and oceans to strike out at people not even remotely connected to the Jihad-du-jour.

This must end. One way or the other, it must end.

Consider this: if Islamic fundamentalists gained possession of a "doomsday device" that would eliminate every human life on the planet, would they use it? Of course they would, because their brand of Islam is essentially death-focused. If the Jihadist can enter his gutter-paradise by killing "unbelievers" even though (or especially because)he commit suicide in the process, then it is not at all logically inconsistent for such a creature to seek the death of EVERYONE. The Communists would not have done this, because they are ultimately materialists -- they seek to create a socialist workers' paradise on earth. Nor would the Nazis have done this, because the hegemony of the Nordic race assumes the survival of the Nordic race. But Jihadists are existentially (!?) committed to death - theirs and everyone else's.

I assure you, if the terrorists strike with nuclear, we will immediately begin a retaliation likewise that will essentially make half of the Middle East glow from outer space. They may be that stupid, but perhaps the governments propping them up don't want to face the kind of MULTIPLE-nuclear response the USA is capable of delivering.

Remember, once the men aboard our submarines and ships get word that these b****rds have nuked one or two or our large cities, they will quickly and happily follow the orders from the Commander-in-Chief to turn the sand of Arabia into glass from the heat of our weapons.

If they are truly patriotic then they should become citizens and leave their old country behind. I once asked a friend of mine from Holland how it felt swearing allegiance to the USA. He replied, "It felt good." The rest of them can do it but if it doesn't "feel good" they should go back from where they came. Now is not the time to be pussyfooting. And I personally don't believe the founding fathers meant for the constitution to apply to everyone...only to citizens.

Call them whatever name or label but it is a waste of time as they are willing to die for their cause. They are out to kill in the name of Islam and they don't care. The fact is that Islamic terrorism is never going to end. They will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and use it without any hesitation. But Christian nations of the West (or what they once were) are playing touchy-feely and advocating restraint. Prevention is the best cure. Nuke the Middle East, then colonize it, and take full control of the oil. It is amazing after WW2, that the West gave control of the oil field to a race who never deserved it or worked for it. With oil money, these scum are out to destroy Christianity and that is the West. They will use nukes first while pointy heads intellectualize and pontificate.

We would storm the Whitehouse so that we-the-people, ourselves, would launch the nuclear arsenal.

Wow!

What a plan.

Uh, does Bill Gates know about your mega-mind?

Lord have mercy.

A terrorist attack on a commercial nuclear power plant with a commercial jet or heavy munitions could have a similar affect to a radiological bomb.

This is equine fecal matter. There is no way anything less than a nuclear weapon could breach a modern containment building. In that case, does it matter? We should be BUILDING nuclear reactors to cut off the flow of our money to the Middle East.

No money, no terrorists.

NO PROBLEM, if this happens:

I have it on impeccable authority, that the Israelis will simply:

"Blow up the Middle East."

Yes, you heard it here: The Israelis didn't accumulate a s***load of nukes to sit around idly if the Moslems go nuclear:

"Its the END."

For those of you are sceptics, or are simply ignorant of this irrefutable stark fact, read, or

THINK:

"ARMAGEDDON."