E-Mail: Attack on U.S. '90 Percent Ready'

Fox News ^ | 03/11/2004 | AP

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

CAIRO, Egypt

[DannyTN]

"Tell these murdering Muslims that when they die, instead of getting 72 virgins in the after life, they get fish wife Hillary Clinton. "

You know the virgins are all supposed to be black-eyed, and I want to know who gives them those black eyes. Does Allah beat them up before he gives them to the terrorists. Or does the terrorist give them the black eyes before he marries them. Islamic Heaven----Yecch!

[HitmanLV]

It's unclear that many 'suitcase nukes,' if they are even operational at all, are much more potent than 1kt.

I don't know how you source 'conducted most probably with "suitcase nukes," some with a far greated yield than 1kt.'

The conventioonal wisdom has the so-called suitcase nukes at a yeild of about .1kt to 1kt, nowhere close to an attack that would destroy NY, DC, LA, Chi, and/or other major cities entirely.

Check this very rational and realistic, and not hysterical, analysis of smaller portable nuclear weapons.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

A 1kt bomb in, for example, would not destroy any of the entire cities you listed. A 1kt bomb would most likely leave a blast crater of a couple of city blocks, with an atomic fireball radiating outward for a few more blocks. In a city as dense at NYC, that could mean the murder of 100,000 or more, and the poisoning by radiation of several more 100,000s. In Chicago and LA, the numbers would be comperable but not as high.

In NYC, I would imagine that fire would shoot down some subway tunnels for miles, starting fires, killing and asphyxiating people, and setting off gas pipes all over the city. The fires close to ground zero would be enourmous - I don't think the NYFD can contain them so the army corps of engineers and other top-shelf pros would have to be brought in immediately (hours later at best).

Is the city 'destroyed?' Is the national really economy 'annihilated?' Would we really be on the brink of 'total collapse?' What are you drinking?

We would be hurt, sure. Hurt severely, but not irreperably. But I have to say, NYers, Los Angelinos, and Second City residents have an exagerrated sense of self importance. That somehow those tragedies in their cities (as enourmous and terrible as they would be) somehow means that the Union will collapse is downright strange.

The Union survives. The worst part will be the subsequent panic in those cities and other high-risk cities. That will suibside in relatively short order - some in days, some in weeks, I am certain.

A body count of 100,000s in 3 major cities is a huge disaster. We would respond, of course. I don't see it as any kind of given that our response would be nuking innocent cities in return.

Sorry, but to me it sounds like you are getting your info and drawing your conclusions based on a lot of reading of non Ian Fleming James Bond novels.

[Mr. Mojo]

But I have to say, NYers, Los Angelinos, and Second City residents have an exagerrated sense of self importance.

Nice convienetly overlooking the "and/or other major cities" part I wrote.

And how about the destruction of D.C.? What's the "chain of command" when the entire (political) chain is gone?

Look, whether the bombs are 1kt or 20kt, utter chaos would ensue. The stock market would completely collapse (in fact Wall St. could even cease to exist), and frightened Americans would be yanking their investments left and right. I think you're seriously underestimating that damage that would be done. Yeah, we'd survive, but we'd be a whole different place.

[HitmanLV]

Relax, Kissenger. I explicitly mentioned 'and/or other mahjor cities' earlier in the post. I didn't overlook it, conveniently or otherwise.

Maybe the NYers, Los Angelinos, and 2nd City Residents aren't the only ones with exaggerated senses of self importance!

DC? I just explained the kind of nuclear weapons they have the best chance of having (and at best, even if they are operational, are low in number - maybe 6-12 tops from what I have heard) aren't terribly potent, closer to the .1kt to 1.0kt yeild.

In any case, they need regular maintenence, which I don't think AQ has the know-how. They are probably better suited as 90kg doorstops rather than fearsome WMD.

And what's with the 20kt thing? Where did you get that? I don't think anybody thinks they have even a chance at getting one bomb of that yeild, let alone several.

One or two or three of these smaller nuke bombs (.1-1kt) wouldn't destroy DC, and probably not enough to destroy the Pentagon (which is designed to withstand a nuclear blast, in case you were wondering).

Our government is centrally located in DC, but even in a worst case scenario, a chain of command will exist.

Utter collapse? Nope. Severe panic? Yep. Wall Street? Most trading is done electonically. It wouldn't be a picnic, but your original analysis was heavy on hysterics and short on facts.

Panic would ensue, sure, but I am confident order would be restored relatively quickly (days in some cases, weeks in others). The Union is not simply NY, LA, Chicago, DC, and a handful of other cities.

I'm not saying the process would be easy - I am saying that your position is based more on fiction and hysterics than reality.

In any case, even after a limited nuclear hit like that (say 6 small nukes in 4 cities), I still don't see how the USA's response would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, and other mid east cities.

[Mr. Mojo]

20kt is admittedly bit high, but 3kt - 5kt is entirely possible (2nd paragraph down).

Maybe the NYers, Los Angelinos, and 2nd City Residents aren't the only ones with exaggerated senses of self importance!

lol....sounds like you have a severe inferiority complex there, boy (considering that's the 3rd or 4th time you've mentioned that).

I still don't see how the USA's response would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, and other mid east cities.

Yeah, it must be difficult to see anything with you head so far up your posterior.

[HitmanLV]

OK, keep waiting for us to 'nuke' innocent people. This isn't a game. What you originally suggested is downright kooky.

[Lady Heron]

The next attack will lead to millions of muslims looking towards two smouldering ruins for prayer.

You know that sounds great, but no government can nuke Mecca when it is a terrorist organization and not Saudia Arabia who commited the act.

What I think this might be leading to are anti-islamic terrorist groups forming, thinking they should give as good as has been dished out and going after those types of targets. Since governments have been supplying logistics and support to terrorist groups so that they would do their dirty work while they appear to keep their hands clean.... I wonder if the same will happen for the anti-islamic groups when they form. This could turn into and underground war not a state war.

[Lady Heron]

That won't happen. If it were going to happen it would have happened the day after 911

While I agree that it will not happen, the reason for it not happening on the day after 911 is that a WMD was not used a convential one was.

Correct me if I am wrong but we do not use nukes when hit by convential weapons only when hit with a WMD, and then a nuke is suppose to be the response. But like I stated in an earlier post it will most likely will not happen because it will be a terrorist organization hitting us not a country. A nuke will only be dropped if hit by a WMD and it can be tied to a country helping the terrorist out.

[RightWhale]

Nukes will be used when there is a military necessity. The only WMD that is worth the bother is nukes. There are few nuke targets of military value.

[Lady Heron]

The correct response is attack those directly responsible - using a nuke is like using a dozen grenades when a 9mm gun is better suited.

Using the nuke does 2 things. First it is the offical public policy of the US to use nukes if we are hit by WMD. The second reason and the better reason is the history of islam. Islam seems to go through militant stages and only stops its militancy when it has been horrified into a quiet phase.

Having said that I still doubt we would do it overtly when terrorist are the perps, a nuke or WMD will fall into the hands of some new anti-islamic terror organization (btw it does not have to be US sponsered, the Russians have an islamic problem also and they have a much looser control of their weapons).

[Lady Heron]

The only WMD that is worth the bother is nukes.

While I might agree for now, probably only until I have seen mass deaths caused by a WMD on US soil that is not a nuke, that was not what the US government stated a while back (maybe somebody on freerepublic can find the article). I thought they said that nukes would be the response for any WMD.

Everybody thought the government knew something that we did not and were sending a warning, when that statement was released as offical policy.

[RightWhale]

That might be Israel's response since they won't resort to chemical or bio weapons. The last Israeli will hit the big red button just before he is driven into the sea. Otherwise the nukes won't be used.

[Lady Heron]

I actually think that it would be more likely for Israel to use nukes in response to any WMD than it would be for us, they are so small that any WMD used on them could be country terminating, but still we stated in our offical policy that we would use them first also (though like I stated before it is doubtful if it is terrorism).

[RightWhale]

While a small tactical nuke could be used in an appropriate military setting according to policy, this act would open the door that has been closed since 1945. If a small tacnuke is used, be prepared to use everything.

[Mr. Mojo]

OK, keep waiting for us to 'nuke' innocent people. This isn't a game. What you originally suggested is downright kooky.

First of all, I'm not "waiting" for it. It's the very last thing I want to happen, in fact. .....Nor have I suggested otherwise. Secondly, there were plenty of "innocents" who died when we annihilated civilian targets in WW2 -- Dresden, Hamburg, Toyko, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Plenty of innocents. But we did what we had to do to win the war, and our actions were completely justified.

Similarly, taking out Mecca and Medina with nukes (if we ourselves were nuked by radical Islamic terrorists) would indeed involve killing lots of innocents, but it would be a necessary step to take to win the WOT. A lesser response would be viewed as "western weakness" and an open invitation to disaster -- more terrorism, of course. The only thing these people are capable of understanding is overwhelming strength, in case it's passed your notice.

[Mr. Mojo]

If our government was concerned about terrorists, our borders would be locked down and immigration brought to a trickle. The exact opposite has taken place since 9/11. Just kiddin' of course...

You're exactly correct, kidding or not ;)

[HitmanLV]

I'm not against the use of force.

I am against nuking countries in retaliation against a terror strike that involves the use of a small handful of low-yeild nukes (say, 3 cities, 4 or 5 nukes) stateside.

Retaliate against the terrorists, sure.

Retailiate against Mecca and Medina? The word I used was 'kooky.'

It is kooky.

[ought-six]

"Your advocacy and insistence of going nuclear is more like a petulant child's behavior. No way we would go nuclaear after being on the receiving end of a small nuclear attack via a terror network. It just won't happen - your fantasy of holy cities as glass is, thankfully, a fantasy."

Then Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, China, and Russia are like "petulant children", because I can guarantee they'd nuke in retaliation of being nuked first (I didn't mention North Korea because it IS a petulant child, no two ways about it). If Islamists nuked, say, Moscow, are you telling me that Putin would just go after the individuals responsible? Be serious. Russia would understand perfectly that such an attack was done for and on behalf of radical Islam, which enjoys wide support throughout the Islamic word, and it (Russia) would unleash the hounds of hell against the Islamic world (which Russia knows despises Russia, as well as it despises America; and Russia already is having to deal with its own home-grown Islamic extremists, so it would see such an attack as an even more immediate threat).