It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al-Qaidas Nuclear Option

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lkwalk
They won't need to steal one. Pakistan already has hundreds. And I agree- no terrorist is going to build one. They won't have to.


Pakistan may have around 50, not hundreds. Any weapon used can be backtracked to its point of origin, by analysing the fallout. So if Pakistan thought they could sneak one to a terrorist orginisation and not be found out they are wrong.

I'm sure the US would hvae plans to deal with teh Pakistani nuclear arsenal if radicals came to power.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1


I'm sure the US would hvae plans to deal with teh Pakistani nuclear arsenal if radicals came to power.


I'm guessing it would involve nuclear weapons, the US have all those weapons just waiting to be used on someone who does something wrong.

I just hope that day never comes.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Zanzibar]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
What's all this with Pakistan? Does everyone think that they would give one to a terrorist organisation or something?

If America found out that a specific country had intentionally supplied terrorists with a nuclear weapon, that country would be ripped from the face of the planet.


My point is that Pakistan will inevitably fall into the hands of bin Laden and very soon. When that happens- all bets are off.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I sincerely doubt that it will, and even if it does, then it wouldn't last even a month. Not just the government, but the country.

The Western world would not allow a terrorist organisation to have readily availabe nuclear weapons, let alone a proper military.

It just wont happen.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I sincerely doubt that it will, and even if it does, then it wouldn't last even a month. Not just the government, but the country.

The Western world would not allow a terrorist organisation to have readily availabe nuclear weapons, let alone a proper military.

It just wont happen.


'Famous last words' comes to mind here. On the other hand, 'from your mouth to God's ears' also comes to mind. I'm hoping you are correct and that I am thoroughly wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Okay then, if you were the leader of a country with 46,000 nuclear weapons and a terrorist organisation came to power in a country with even one nuke, what would you do?

I know what I would do, destroy it. I would find out where that nuke was and completely and utterly destroy the area.

Leaving it would just not be worth the risk.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Okay then, if you were the leader of a country with 46,000 nuclear weapons and a terrorist organisation came to power in a country with even one nuke, what would you do?

I know what I would do, destroy it. I would find out where that nuke was and completely and utterly destroy the area.

Leaving it would just not be worth the risk.


I know what my government would do to prepare for this- faciltate the arms of the enemy of my enemy. In this case it is India. Have you read the recent agreement between the US and India? We will rely on our new friend to turn Pakistan into a cinder. That is the true meaning of this new agreement with India. America won't press the red button. India will.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
That makes sense actually, use someone else to do your dirty work. I never really thought of it like that infact!

Either way, in the next few years, at least one nuclear weapon is going to be used, be it Americas, be it a Middle Eastern countries, someone is going to be wiped out.

It truly will be a sad day.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Okay then, if you were the leader of a country with 46,000 nuclear weapons and a terrorist organisation came to power in a country with even one nuke, what would you do?

I know what I would do, destroy it. I would find out where that nuke was and completely and utterly destroy the area.

Leaving it would just not be worth the risk.


North Korea has at least one nuke. And yet we have not destroyed it. Why not? That 'country' fits the bill as terrorist, evil, currupt- all the perjoratives that can be imagined- and yet the US has not struck. Maybe we will. I sort of feel that we will eventually nuke N. Korea. The problem is opening the pandora's box of nuclear war. We have a lot of nuclear-armed enemies.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
True, but North Korea aren't 'terrorists' in the traditional sense, they havn't been overly hostile towards the US. They have a government and something to lose, terrorists do not, they wouldn't care if their country was destroyed, as long as they had inflicted damage on their enemies.

That's the difference between the two, North Korea has sense, terrorist organistaions don't need any sense, they can simply disappear and reappear at will.

Though I do see a war with North Korea if the US keep on the war path.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Certainly the N Korians have been much more hostilte to the US than, say, Saddam was. Saddam was not a terrorist in your definition either. He was simply a sadistic scumbag. So what's your point?

[edit on 22-3-2006 by lkwalk]

[edit on 22/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The recipe might be on the internet, but good luck getting the specialized tools, and getting the tolerances just right. If everything isn't PERFECT then a nuclear bomb will fizzle. So even if they steal the fissionable materials, it's no guarantee they could build a device.


they're not that difficult.

the easiest one to build would be the gun type. you only have to fire the missing piece into the core to put it over critical mass. the only draw back is that it only works with uranium.

the implosion type is tricky, you have to have every explosive charge the same exact weight and explode at the same exact time. the core can be either enriched uranium or plutonium. its easier if you have a "trigger", that is a pit in the very center that gives off neutrons, you just need to squeeze the core (u235 or p239 ) beyond critical. you just need larger explosives with out the trigger. you also need a "tamper" or neutron reflector around the core. u238 works quite well at reflecting neutrons back, but if you don't have a reflector you will have a neutron bomb instead. not as big an explosion but it kills people and leaves the buildings intact

would you like me to build one for you

[edit on 22-3-2006 by bigx01]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by bigx01]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lkwalk

North Korea has at least one nuke. And yet we have not destroyed it. Why not? That 'country' fits the bill as terrorist, evil, currupt- all the perjoratives that can be imagined- and yet the US has not struck. Maybe we will. I sort of feel that we will eventually nuke N. Korea. The problem is opening the pandora's box of nuclear war. We have a lot of nuclear-armed enemies.


NK can currently deliver what nukes they have to the west coast via missle. they have a 3 stage missle that could reach any part of the us and it's one test back in the 90's faild on the 3rd stage, but they may have kept it from lighting to keep it from falling to earth on us soil instead of the pacific like it did.

that is why we have not struck them yet



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01
NK can currently deliver what nukes they have to the west coast via missle. they have a 3 stage missle that could reach any part of the us and it's one test back in the 90's faild on the 3rd stage, but they may have kept it from lighting to keep it from falling to earth on us soil instead of the pacific like it did.

that is why we have not struck them yet


so what are we waiting for???

Mod Edit: Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 22/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The first problem with the B-61


During the frenzy of the Cold War, new nuclear weapons replaced older ones so
frequently that warheads rarely reached teenage years. Now there are no more new
weapons in the U.S. The age of the average warhead among the seven kinds that
the nation stocks, according to lab officials, is pushing 20, with some nearing
30. One of the most serious aging problems is posed by plutonium, the explosive
metal that, when it is tightly compressed by a surrounding sphere of chemical
explosives, triggers the nuclear explosion.
"Bubbles of helium form in it as it ages," explains Joe Martz, program director
for weapons materials at the lab. "It shows more bizarre behavior than any other
metal." He supervises a series of experiments, compressing small chunks of the
man-made element with explosives, to track the changes in its density. "Nobody
knows what 75-year-old plutonium will be like," he adds.


As for the "plans on the internet"


Contrary to folklore, the art and science of making a thermonuclear weapon
aren't readily available in blueprints or on renegade Web sites. While all
designs end up with the warhead's two crucial components -- the hydrogen bomb
and the atomic bomb that triggers it -- the challenge has always been
determining whether the device would explode or fizzle.

www.nautilus.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lkwalk
so what are we waiting for???


because they could send one here on a missle. iraq couldn't


quote clean up - Umbrax

[edit on 22/3/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigx01

Originally posted by lkwalk
so what are we waiting for???


because they could send one here on a missle. iraq couldn't


quote clean up - Umbrax

[edit on 22/3/2006 by Umbrax]


Ahh.with the unlimited funding from "oil-for-food" and no UN inspectors Iraq was not far from that capability. Saddam funded terror. Terrorist lived in Bagdad "abu nidal" for example.

Now Iran is "minutes" away from mass producing nukes and they do have the shahab 6 missles that can hit the US and europe. But it is more likely Iran will have OBL sneak nukes into the US and let him take the blame. The "material" would have no "signature" because their is no reference samples.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The Shahab-6 can't even come CLOSE to hitting the US.



The Shahab-6 is a two or three-stage liquid/solid fuel rocket. The missile uses most of the same systems as the Shahab-5, but economies in weight and payload increase the range to approximately 6,000 km (3,728 miles). The missile is intended to carry one single warhead with a substantial yield, most likely in the area of 500-1,000 kg. As a result of its inaccuracy, the missile’s utility it probably restricted to attacking population centers and spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. Thus, the Shahab-6 is more likely a blackmail/terrorist weapon than a military asset.

www.missilethreat.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Shahab-6 can't even come CLOSE to hitting the US.



The Shahab-6 is a two or three-stage liquid/solid fuel rocket. The missile uses most of the same systems as the Shahab-5, but economies in weight and payload increase the range to approximately 6,000 km (3,728 miles). The missile is intended to carry one single warhead with a substantial yield, most likely in the area of 500-1,000 kg. As a result of its inaccuracy, the missile’s utility it probably restricted to attacking population centers and spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. Thus, the Shahab-6 is more likely a blackmail/terrorist weapon than a military asset.

www.missilethreat.com...


I prefer this site

www.fas.org...

Who says they have to be launched from Iran? How about Venzuela or Cuba?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
The site doesn't change the fact that it STILL only has a 4100 mile range with three stages. Either of those countries would have to build the facilities to handle the missiles, which we would notice. They would have to build fueling tanks, launcher platforms, etc. That's how the Cuban Missile Crisis started, we noticed Cuba building the facilities for the missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join