Nuclear Threat within US Possible (My Title)

FoxNews | October 30, 2001

[PrivacyChampion]

FOX NEWS just reporting that there is a potential risk of a nuclear terrorist attack against the US, maybe within the Continental borders with a 'dirty nuke' that has been smuggled across the Mexican border.

This is the threat that AG Ashcroft warned about yesterday.

[horsewhispersc]

I have 30 miles.

[GOPJ]

Like this?

A "salted" nuclear weapon is reminiscent of fission-fusion-fission weapons, but instead of a fissionable jacket around the secondary stage fusion fuel, a non-fissionable blanket of a specially chosen salting isotope is used (cobalt-59 in the case of the cobalt bomb). This blanket captures the escaping fusion neutrons to breed a radioactive isotope that maximizes the fallout hazard from the weapon rather than generating additional explosive force (and dangerous fission fallout) from fast fission of U-238. Like this?

"Variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes. Gold has been proposed for short-term fallout (days), tantalum and zinc for fallout of intermediate duration (months), and cobalt for long term contamination (years). To be useful for salting, the parent isotopes must be abundant in the natural element, and the neutron-bred radioactive product must be a strong emitter of penetrating gamma rays."

[That Poppins Woman]

They make us weak and vulnerable and put us in a position not to be able to legitimately, properly and thoroughly, defend ourselves.

What has been the direct cause of the capitulation of the Constitutional duty to defend is THE WAR ON DRUGS.

Protect the country or piddle away resources looking for drugs.

If and when a weapon of mass destruction is used in the US, all the pro-drug-war folks can console themselves with the latest 100 kilo cocaine and marijuana bust at the border.

Fools.

[Mixer]

Anyone else finding the warning and it's exact info hard to believe.

I mean the government has credible info that states there will be an American attack. They know the date, they know enough to warn all governors in every state, yet they dont know what the attack will be. Don't get me wrong I dont think the goverment is lying I just think they are holding out so that there isnt MORE mass hysteria.

Of course it is possible that the source is credible enough even without exact details but I am unsure at this point.

[Smogger]

If they had it, they would already have used it. They aren't just going to sit on it and risk being discovered and caught.

That is conventional warfare thinking. The goal of terrorism is long term.

Precisely.

People if you think they don't have nukes because they haven't used them yet you are crazy. If YOU had NUKES and other non-conventional means of attack wouldn't you use up everything else first? Of course you would. If I am the terrorist I am going to use up all of other means of attack first. I am going to use my plane attack, shoot off my Anthrax, and whatever else I have AND save the BEST for LAST.

There are a number of good reasons for this. First of all if Washington (or another major city) were to be NUKED, planes crashing into buildings wouldn't have the same psychological/propaganda value. Ditto with Antrhax. Pretty much every things else you use pales in comparison so you better use it first. Second, It would be much much more difficult after having used a NUKE to implement these other attacks (NOT VICE VERSA). The most likely result of a NUKE being detonated on US soil would be the internment of every Arab and Muslim in the country. Third, Osama is looking at the big picture. He has baited us into attacking Afghanistan (which I believe we have to do) in order to JUSTIFY what he is going to do next. Once he has the SYMPATHY of the MAJORITY of MUSLIMS in the world (cause we are bombing Afghan children) they will APPLAUD when he NUKES us.

In short I think it is VERY VERY likely there are alreay nuclear weapons of one form or another already in the country, and they have been here for quite some time. I think it's simply a matter of time before they are used.

[Mixer]

In my above statement I meant to say "lack of" exact information

[ChemistCat]

This is where you can bring up your complaints about censorship on FR; the moderators and site owner *will* read it. I suggest you address your complaint to Jim Robinson after you've read at least a hundred of the posts on this thread. I was really, really, really mad at Jim Robinson before the discussion on this thread; now I know what he's up against, and while I still think he and his moderators make mistakes, I know how impossible it would be NOT to make them.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oh brother, talk about a stretch. Actually much of our security measure to detect movements, incoming threats, etc. are the tools we use in the war on drugs. But don't let the facts get in the way of your simplistic statements.

[Question_Assumptions]

If a nuclear weapon gets used on US soil (any type of nuclear weapon), then our strategy must shift to, "Hand over any terrorist we ask you for or we will declare war on you and nuclear weapons have aleady been used against us."

[Joe Hadenuf]

"THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Do you think thats what the 6,000 dead Americans thought at the World Trade Center?

Think before you type.

Boston_liberty typed: 4,000?

Would that make a GD difference with you? Why are some of you people attempting to minimize this slaughter? No one will know the exact death figure for many months to come anyway. Would you feel better if I had typed 3,879 dead? Gezzz. Wake up.

Our borders and immigration policies have become a complete national disgrace, and now a national security nightmare for all of us.

[Mixer]

True...If they used the nukes first they know we will respond with bigger nukes. They have already inflicted the most horrific terror attack ever against the USA. If and when they decide to use nukes against us they know that the retaliation from us will be the worst imaginable so they need to weaken us first.....I hope that statement is wrong but it makes perfect sense to me.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Terrorists need to know that's the LEAST Bush would do.

If the threat of any kind of nuclear attack in this country is real and present and, God forbid, imminent, Bush needs to strike NOW.

How can any nation stand for the possible nuking of Southern California and still consider itself civilized?

Our watch words need to be "NO MORE MEMORIALS!"
Not ours anyway.

[spanky_mcfarland]

WHEN OH WHEN WILL OUR POLS. SPROUT SOME TESTES? It's time to deport all non citizens who are from these terrorist hotspots. Oh wait...nevermind...wouldn't want to pi~~ off the PC crowd...better to lay back and die!

[Outlaw]

Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies...

Tactical "dirty" nuke

Entered US from Mexico, vicinity of Brownsville.

NEST mobilized.

National Guard Civil Support teams (specialists in Weapons of Mass Destruction) activated.

List of potential targets in no specific order:

Sears Tower
Mall of America
TransAmerica Title building
Golden Gate Bridge
Statue of Liberty
CNN Center

Targets are supposed to be symbolic in nature.

Don't ask me to source because I won't. Flame me if you please. I am fading back into the woodwork.

[taxbreak]

One of two things will be the kick in the butt needed to remind the press and the people that this is a war.

Attacking a school where children are the targets.

Using a dirty nuke.

Terrorism is defined as: the use of violence against the citizen populace for political purposes.

We didn't start this fight with the Taliban. And there should be no moral questions about the constitutional requirement that our armed forces defend this nation from such attacks.

Pray that this does not happen and that the "real world" measures are put into place to prevent this from happening.

Sadly the threat does not expire Sunday evening at midnight; but instead a new vigilance and sense of urgency is needed.

[Smogger]

True...If they used the nukes first they know we will respond with bigger nukes. They have already inflicted the most horrific terror attack ever against the USA. If and when they decide to use nukes against us they know that the retaliation from us will be the worst imaginable so they need to weaken us first.....I hope that statement is wrong but it makes perfect sense to me.

To me the most important thing is this:

If you only had a few nukes WOULD'NT YOU USE UP EVERYTHING ELSE FIRST? I mean what type of impact is a few Anthrax letters going to have after you use a NUKE?

[ChemistCat]

Here's what I think. I think whatever intelligence assets our government has in the Arab world are incredibly fragile. Our government HAS to protect those assets, and sometimes that means they can't disclose what they know with ANY degree of specificity. Terrorists cells may test any members they suspect of espionage by feeding false information, then watching the government and media for how they respond. They'll tell A that they have a nuke in Kansas City, they'll tell B that they have smallpox ready to go in Washington DC, and they'll tell C that they have a truck bomb loaded with cesium in L.A. Watch and see which threat is being responded to, and they'll know where their leaks are.

In WWII, Churchill had information that a certain type of attack was about to be launched against Coventry. Unfortunately, he acquired that information only because of a newly cracked Nazi code. If he revealed that he had this information, by responding in a way that protected Coventry, the Nazis would have known the code was broken and that would have compromised agents in the field as well as knowledge that would be crucial to the broader Allied cause. Was he a traitor for letting Coventry get the catastrophic attack it suffered? Damned if I know. I think W and his staff are making comparable calls every day since this started. I don't envy them the judgement history will heap on their heads if they guess wrong.

In short, I do not expect my government to connect the dots for me. That's up to all of us to do. I think we'll be lucky if they can only tell us that there are dots to connect, and let us find them on our own. I'm stopping at a drugstore tonight to see if I can get some iodine. Just in case.

[horsewhispersc]

I wouldn't flame you for that!

[Mixer]

I am glad that the government has decided to not disclose info. This has hurt us in our past. I just get as nervous and crazy as the next guys waiting to hear what will happen next.

If disclosing information saves even one life then to me it was worth not telling. The government gets accused of lying when it doesnt tell the truth so i think they decid to tell hald the story and that puts them on trial even further. They are in a lose/lose situation.