TA-THREATS: al-Qaeda's Claim of Posessing Nuclear Bomb Unlikely

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
In an interview with an Australian journalist, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir claims that al-Qaeda’s number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, told him that al-Qaeda had purchased a 1 kiloton bomb off the black market. Officials are doubtful of this claim and summarize that we probably would not know of a bomb unless it was used. The also stated that al-Qaeda was more likely to have a “dirty bomb” than an actual nuclear weapon.
 

interestale rt.com
WASHINGTON, March 22 (UPI) -- Weapons and non-proliferation experts doubt claims surfacing Monday from al-Qaida's number-two man that the terrorist organization has acquired a nuclear weapon.

"My instinct is if they have one we would first find out when they used it," said Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "What's the point of (boasting)?"


The bomb that al-Qaeda is claiming to posses would destroy everything within a half mile radius, and make the area uninhabitable for decades. It is unlikely that they would have such a weapon, or tell us if they had one. Most likely they would detonate one to show their intent and prove force. Then they would make demands and threaten to use other similar bombs.

Although the threat is unlikely, it is not to be ignored completely. The U.S. spends almost $30 million annually to keep about 30,000 Russian weapons scientists employed in peaceful projects so that they will not be tempted by offers to sell nuclear secrets.

Related ATS Discussions:
Al Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days
Question about suitcase nukes




posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Well thanks dbates. I mean I just dropped off reading this :

New Jersey Becomes First U.S. Seaport to Get Radiation Detectors
Monday, March 22, 2004

JERSEY CITY, N.J. – Northern New Jersey is the first seaport in the nation to use
new radiation detectors that scan incoming cargo containers for nuclear or
radiological weapons before they leave the port, federal officials said Monday.

Hmmmm....... you are really trying to make me buy some lead-lined underwear.
Do you know how much they cost??

/\/ight\/\/ing



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
MSNBC finally commented on this interview Last Night. The only thing was, it was just in passing. Theay just said that and interview had taken place by Al-Jazzera and one of Bin Laden's deputy's. There is also a link inside this article, at the begining, to a hoax theory.
Nukes in US Already???

I believe almost anything was possible before 9-11. Security was not tight, terrorist suspects were not being monitored, or else we would have known well ahead of time about 9-11. Considering all the Drug Traffic that still makes it into the United States, A) We are not as safe around the borders as we previously have thought, B) The Government is allowing this to continue in regards to some sort of New World Order Conspiracy(as far as population control by deaths, and to keep Rehabs in business), D) The American Government was really Naive to any signs pre-911, E) This has to be one of the biggest Conspiracies of all time.
President Bush Ignored Terrorism Warnings

And hopefully I can put part 2 of this out by the weekend.
Is the Stage Being Set?


JON

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   
How is it unlikely that they have a nuke, yet the only way we'll know is if they detonate it. I'd rather not find out about it at all myself. Unless they accidentaly set it off wherever they have it hidden.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by JON
How is it unlikely that they have a nuke, yet the only way we'll know is if they detonate it.

I believe the logic is that they would happily use one (They haven't), and if they really had one they wouldn't brag about having it. Even if they only had one I believe that they would use it as quickly as possible. Then they could lie about having 20 more and no one would doubt them. Nuclear weapons need maintence to stay reliable. Just look at the 3 failed missile launces that the Russians had last month. Even if they can purchase one, they won't have the staff to keep it operational. So it is doubtful that they are keeping a stash in storage somewhere.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
It's possible in fact. This explain who is customer for the nigerian uranium. (Last week, nigerian authorities said they have catched 2 kilos of uranium from a worldwide traffic)...

World is becoming a really dangerous place...



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
These people (if thats what we would like to call them) are terrorist, and as a terrorist your primary function is to terrorize by any means, They look to cause fear and panic. If they had one of these bombs they would have used it, and not just in the US but just about anyplace. They have already managed to make one of our alies all but turn tail and run. But they have not which can only make them do the next best thing, Tell us that they have one. This way everyone is looking over there sholdger and waiting.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
If what al-Zawahiri is actually accurate, it is more reassuring that they do not have such weapons.


1) It is VERY unlikely that an average "disgruntled scientist" would have any remote access to completed, functional weapons. Yes the scientist might be able to get a little bit of material out, or work on missile guidance for Iran, but complete weapons? No way.

Nuclear weapons production is always compartementalized, and the scientists, specifically, would have the *least* access. Scientists work in a lab. weapons are made in factories with blue collar workers making and assembling parts, with security men watching them.

2) if they are really "briefcase" weapons, and not older tactical artillery weapons, then they are probably fairly advanced to be made sufficiently small to be in a briefcase. That is good, because the most compact weapons would require tritium boosting, along with all modern strategic weapons. Tritium is expensive (can only be made in a nuclear reactor) and moreover it decays with a half life of 12 years or so. It turns into helium which can hurt the nuclear reactors. Hence operational weapons require removing the helium and replenishing the tritium at regular maintenance intervals.

If the weapons had been rugged 1960s-1970's tactical weapons made for front-line deployment in the field where regular maintenance would be less feasible, then those would be the most dangerous. These would be for military circumstances were complete maximum yield per weight was not necessary as opposed to reliability.

For example, decomissioned nuclear torpedoes or depth charges, or maybe artillery shells. I don't know for sure, but they may be designed to be operational without tritium or still work with low boosting levels.

They would probably not have the access code technology and advanced fusing mechanisms of the fancier missile warheads.



posted on Mar, 24 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I dunno. I think there is a slight chance them having the ability to if not already aquire one.

Besides OBL has already aquired peoples lives for these suicidal bombings... what's a nuke to him?





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join