Skip to comments.
What the White House is Really Worried About – Nuclear Blackmail
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil ^
| Monday, August 26, 2002
| FoxPro
Posted on 09/26/2002 3:43:08 PM PDT by FoxPro
I havent heard this stated anywhere, but after reading several editorials, and the statement by Condoleezza Rice, something to the effect We dont want to witness a smoking gun where the smoke is a mushroom cloud, it dawned on me what Western powers are really terrified of, losing power.
The Assumptions:
1. Saddam Hussein possesses a few small nuclear devices.
2. He has the ability to secretly transport these devices to the United States.
What he wont do:
He wouldnt actually detonate these devices in a large metropolitan area. This would be suicide on his part. If he did, there would be massive retaliation, and probably the destruction of Iraq and most of its people. This serves no purpose. Its called MAD, mutually assured destruction. It is what has provided relative world peace for the last 50 years.
The Scenario:
Agents of Hussein would take one of these devices and detonate it in some remote location in the US, such as a desert in Nevada or an eastern location in Montana. Theoretically this could be done without killing anyone, with a timing device or some other methodology.
After this, Hussein would appear in the media and credibly claim that he has hidden several of these devices in secret locations in New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. He would also state that any attack on his country would lead to massive destruction of these cities, immediately.
At this point Hussein has become a major nuclear player, without having the ability to deliver nuclear weapons the more expensive and conventional way.
Then the bargaining and blackmail begins. Hussein has assured his survival, and enhanced his global power, with little expense or effort.
This, I believe, is what the Western powers are really concerned about.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: nuclearblackmail
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
1
posted on
09/26/2002 3:43:08 PM PDT
by
FoxPro
To: FoxPro
This is one of the scenarios. Degree of difficulty is exceptionally high. Besides which, the country would be turned upside down and inside out overnight looking for devices.
And Baghdad, too. Overnight. Game Over.
To: FoxPro
Your equation is in error because you are discounting the "insane" factor.
To: RightWhale
I agree....
Tom Clancy on Viagra kind of stuff...
In that case Bush is Right To Srike First.
4
posted on
09/26/2002 3:53:22 PM PDT
by
cmsgop
To: FoxPro
Hussein is not going to waste a functioning nuclear device on a desert demonstration. Even if he did, this would mean the end of him, his regime, and a bunch of people in Iraq also. The government is just as likely to wipe him out for a nuke in Nevada as in LA, its all US territory and the American people would not be so discriminating.
If he was planning to do what you said he would most likely, IMO, detonate one at home and then inform our government privately that he had placed one. Whether he had or not it would make us sweat.
5
posted on
09/26/2002 3:54:17 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: FoxPro
He would most definately do it, because we couldn't tell who set it off. We could surmise, but I doubt we could completely pin it down. To pin it down, it would almost require prior knkowledge to make the case. IMO, once it's done, most if not all tracks are vaporized.
To: FoxPro
As I understand them, small "suitcase" atomic weapons are inherently unstable and degrade rapidly. Also they are reputed to be high neutron and Alpha emitters. We are already looking for them, have been. Afterall, we found commercial tile with too high a background radiation level in shipboard cargo containers.
You have to play out the scenario -- At what risk do you decide to play HIS game.
I say never.
7
posted on
09/26/2002 3:58:09 PM PDT
by
Blueflag
To: JoeSixPack1
This is a possible scenario, but the United States could not allow a foreign power to set off a nuclear weapon and hold the United States blackmail.
We would correctly guess that Saddam was bluffing. We would be right. We would attack Iraq with every weapon in our inventory, and we would set a horrific example to others.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
8
posted on
09/26/2002 3:58:43 PM PDT
by
section9
To: FoxPro
You are also forgetting the possibility that he will threaten other nations so as to get his way during UN negotiations, etc. I personally believe that that is the reason why France is so anti-US action. They are afraid of internal Terror cells operating in France.
9
posted on
09/26/2002 3:59:20 PM PDT
by
vannrox
To: JoeSixPack1
The man sends checks to the families of homicide bombers, gassed people in his own country, started a war with Iran, invaded Kuwait and tried to assassinate a President.
However, he will not use nuclear weapons against the U.S. because he is a rational person.
This article is a waste of space on a web server, and the author is obviously delusional.
To: JoeSixPack1
Precisely correct. "MAD" worked in a world where the adversaries weren't willing to annihilate the world. East and West were sane enough to build nuclear arsenals without using them. Saddam is different...The reason he's so dangerous is precisely that he would risk detonating a nuke in a large metropolitan area, and risk the consequences.
11
posted on
09/26/2002 4:05:14 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
To: FoxPro; Dark Wing; Dog Gone
All those hyperventilating about Iraqi/terrorist nukes pretend that (a) we don't have any nukes and (b) we wouldn't use any if we somehow obtained somebody else's nukes.
"Major Strosser has been nuked!"
"Nuke all the usual suspects."
The trick is to be thorough.
12
posted on
09/26/2002 4:21:16 PM PDT
by
Thud
To: Blueflag
Afterall, we found commercial tile with too high a background radiation level in shipboard cargo containers. So we did. Neutron emitters, yet. Say, did you ever actually see one of them tiles?
13
posted on
09/26/2002 4:22:02 PM PDT
by
Cachelot
To: My2Cents
I wish I didn't agree with you but I do. If he had or could get say two or three devices into the USA, he might call up the White House and say, "Watch LA". Set off the bomb and then say, "I have bombs in 5 other cities, if you retaliate or look for them, they go off." If something happens, he sets off the second. Would anyone call his bluff?
14
posted on
09/26/2002 4:29:43 PM PDT
by
JimSEA
To: stylin_geek
This article is a waste of space on a web server, and the author is obviously delusional. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Alas, this does include you.
Chill out, Geek.
LVM
To: FoxPro
And he is capable of it.
And we are vulnerable to this scenario.
And it may still be preventable if we do something.
And the UN could care less.
16
posted on
09/26/2002 4:33:08 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: FoxPro
I thought nuke devices need to be maintained. Somewhere on another thread I thought it was like every 6 months or so. If thats anywhere near true, his blackmail will only work for a short period of time (assuming he wouldn't also have the capability to maintain them, secretly, here in the US)
To: JimSEA
And who's to say he doesn't have nukes positioned already? That's the scary thought.
The best guess (without knowing what the White House knows) is that Saddam doesn't have nukes, but he's close to getting them, and if we don't act, he'll eventually have them, and the type of scenario you mention will be a reality. Who wants to risk that? Maybe Tom Daschle, at least until November...
18
posted on
09/26/2002 4:41:08 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
To: Cachelot
Good point! Never did see them. Were they naturally radioactive, or did they become that way?
If they became radioactive, then the reports could be 'true' without being truthful. Yes the tiles were radioactive, but so was the device concealed within the shipment (not mentioned, of course)
LEVEL 3.1 tin foil alert ...
19
posted on
09/26/2002 4:43:08 PM PDT
by
Blueflag
To: FoxPro; The Great Satan
What makes you think we haven't already been attacked with a weapon of mass destruction? What do you make of last year's anthrax?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson