TA-THREATS: al-Qaeda's Claim of Posessing Nuclear Bomb Unlikely, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 22-3-2004 @ 05:03 PM by dbates
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


reply posted on 22-3-2004 @ 10:36 PM by TrickmastertricK
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?



reply posted on 24-3-2004 @ 01:11 PM by mbkennel
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.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags
Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags
Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags
Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags
TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags
Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags
Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags