What the White House is Really Worried About – Nuclear Blackmail

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil ^ | Monday, August 26, 2002 | FoxPro

[RightWhale]

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.

[JoeSixPack1]

Your equation is in error because you are discounting the "insane" factor.

[cmsgop]

I agree....

Tom Clancy on Viagra kind of stuff...

In that case Bush is Right To Srike First.

[Arkinsaw]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Blueflag]

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.

[section9]

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

[vannrox]

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.

[stylin_geek]

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.

[My2Cents]

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.

[Thud]

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.

[Cachelot]

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?

[JimSEA]

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?

[LasVegasMac]

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

[pfflier]

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.

[Go Gordon]

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)

[My2Cents]

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...

[Blueflag]

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 ...

[aristeides]

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?