To: Poohbah
Is it even plausible that, with the proper information and necessary equipment, let's say from AQ's apparent connections to Pakistan's Khan and/or at least some of the scientist's working for Khan, that they (AQ) "could" maintain the viability of these weapons for an indefinite length of time if they were still operable at the time of purchase? If AQ knowingly bought the weapons in an inoperable state, is it plausible they could be "refurbished", for lack of a better term, with the proper guidance and materials, or would it be more likely they bought them knowing the most they could do with them is construct a "dirty bomb".
1,358 posted on
02/09/2004 1:11:36 PM PST by
milkncookies
(As Napoleon said, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.")
To: milkncookies
Is it even plausible that, with the proper information and necessary equipment, let's say from AQ's apparent connections to Pakistan's Khan and/or at least some of the scientist's working for Khan, that they (AQ) "could" maintain the viability of these weapons for an indefinite length of time if they were still operable at the time of purchase?Nope. Tritium decays, plutonium decays, and Pakistan doesn't have very much of either to hand out to terrorists.
If AQ knowingly bought the weapons in an inoperable state, is it plausible they could be "refurbished", for lack of a better term, with the proper guidance and materials, or would it be more likely they bought them knowing the most they could do with them is construct a "dirty bomb".
The latter.
1,372 posted on
02/09/2004 1:37:27 PM PST by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson