It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:53 PM
I believe that the United State already has and produces nuclear weapons. Now, what's to stop agents of the U.S Government from selling these on the Black Market to terrorists already in the United States? They already admit they're waiting to strike within U.S.A. The only nukes that would be possibly used are those made by the USA, with a made in the USA stamp.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by RockerDom
While I do not doubt that Al-Queda would love to have 20 suitcase nukes, I highly doubt that is the case. The only governments on earth I would think have the resources to build them are the U.S., Russia, China and England. The U.S., England and Russia would never have anything to do with Al Queda, and the possibility of China helping them is incredibly slim. Why would China want to help anyone destroy the country that supports the major part of their economy?

It's a scary thought, but not very plausible.

It is believed that Al-Qaeda had purchased Russian Suitcase Nukes on the black market. After the end of the cold war, claims from former Soviet scientists have acknowledged that up to 200 SCN were not in inventory. They were going for around $20,000-$30,000 on the market. I have been told by sources that their are indeed 7 SCN inside the US. They were brought in while developing the 9-11 plot. Since security is not even close then as it is today, it would have not been such a difficult task to bring into the country.

These Nukes are "Ready to go", if any depletion has occured, it can be brought right back up to par. In his book he claims that former Soviet scientists are indeed providing this task. There have been recent reports, but no Confirmation that Iran has sold Enriched Uranium to terrorist groups, one believed to be Al-Qaeda.

I hate to say that this is a very real threat, but it is. Information keeps coming out surrounding these conclusions all pointing to the fact that this has indeed occured, sometime between 1996-2000.

I belive CNN or someone like them did an undercover report, and actually travelled across Europe with a low dosage of uranium after 9-11.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 06:12 PM
Actually once you have the necessary isotopes it is very easy and cheap to build a small nuclear bomb. All you need is some tnt to smash the two peices together and some graphite to slow the reaction down and make it self sustaining. The hard part is making the isotopes needed for the reaction but I would assume it would be pretty easy to buy on the black market if you have the cash and the contacts.

Smuggling suitcase nukes into the US would be no harder than smuggling in drugs i.e. very easy if you have the desire and are willing to take a risk. But please understand these small primitive devices are not going to wipe out entire cities but will have the effect of negatively influencing peoples minds which is what terrorism is all about.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 06:46 PM

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
i honestly wouldn't be surprised if there were 50 nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons stashed throughout the united states by terrorists. and do you know why? the canadian border. thousands and thousands of miles of border that is, with the exception of major ports, unpatroled. all you would have to do is sneak it in through some backroads once it got into canada. not to mention security on the great lakes is almost nil. did you know that if someon boats over here from canada and comes to port they don't have to check in with customs? nope, it's only optional. and here in detroit the border is just too hard to keep in check. over a thousand freight trucks come across the border a day, making it a very daunting task for about 100 mena and women to check.

Ahh the "Blame Canada" mentality. The truth be told is this...If you want to continue having the way of life you have right now, then you're going to have to accept certain risks as a country. The only way to 100% protect your nation is to close the borders and go with ID chips or something similar to route out all the "Non-Americans". The negative side effect is your economy goes down the tubes.

Look at the war on drugs and how long that has been going on and look at the results. All the $$BILLION$$ spent and can you honestly say that it has had any effect.

As the old saying goes "if there's a will, there's a way". You can't stop people and materials entering the U.S. illegally without taking away rights and privileges and the end result is a collapsed economy.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 07:32 PM
Hmmmm ......

Very scary senario....

As to the truth of it, if it WAS true then I think we would see far more panic among the military INSIDE of America. The focus of the military wouldn't be on Iraq, but on uncovering the suspected bombers and securing the borders.

The silence of the gvernment and military on this matter only serves to raise suspicions that its not considered to be a real threat.

However they may have their own reasons for not making an issue like this public, and we have seen here that there are unusual military movements within America that are unexplained.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:08 PM
Yeah Netty, If any info was released to the public, I think it might cause some mass-panic. It's finding a needle in a haystack, but I have seen more security and precautions being taken at my Nuclear Plant. I believe that if they are unable to find them, they would protect anything that would cause even more damage. ie-Hitting a Power Plant. I don't believe Government officials would be claiming that we are a threat to a nuclear attack if they did not have any evidance, but then again.....

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:42 PM
How is this possible anyway?

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 08:46 PM
After Russia's Vietnam-like experience with Afghanistan, it is VERY hard for me to believe that any part of their nation would sell weapons to someone who they fought against for so long. I know money was hard to come by at the time, and the black market was flourishing, but don't you think we'd have seen something of this before now if some of these nukes were sold?

I would be the first to admit I could be wrong in this case, but the entire idea is incredibly far-fetched to me.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:21 AM

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
about 100 mena and women to check.

Look at the war on drugs and how long that has been going on and look at the results. All the $$BILLION$$ spent and can you honestly say that it has had any effect.

Should have been in NYC during the 80' has had great effects...atleast in my city...

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:36 AM

Should have been in NYC during the 80' has had great effects...atleast in my city...

I have, in the 70's, 80s and 90s, yeah drug lords had learn to do business in a more sophisticated way, now have you been in PuertoRico, that's where all the action is going on, the deterioration of the Island by drugs Traficant every day mafia style killings are making the citizens not even been able to come out of the house at night, my husband lost his nephew in one of those killings. The war on drugs was never won, drugs dealers just move somewhere else like PR. Were the doors to the incoming drug traffic is still open.

And I still dont buy the nuclear story by the ex FBI.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by marg6043]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:58 AM
I agree with you on the FBI story...but back to the war wasnt won...but only for the fact that its impossible to win...just like the war on terrorism...but has drugs become less open?...yes...has crime gone down as a result? I'd say the war was a good thing...

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:13 AM
OK, I guess it's time to stop 'lurking' and post.

I know what I'm talking about on this subject. I am a 30plus year Military guy. If any of my compadres are out there you recognize the 'nick.

NONE of the information below is in any way shape or form classified. It is all public domain and has been for years.

Yes, there are suitcase nukes in the U.S. that do not belong to the U.S. Military. They started coming in back during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Elements of the KGB and GRU have/had plans for using them to disrupt population centers and other key targets before, during and after any exchange of nukes between them and us. This is confirmed. Do some research. The former KGB that do speak out have confirmed this pubicly in many news sources and books. With this information most, but not all, were found, disabled and destroyed or taken apart.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the vast increase in the 'Black Market', it is highly likely that some of these nukes that are already in place have/were sold to terrorists.

There are a number of versions of so called suit case nukes. It depends on the yield (mega-ton) of the blast on how big they are. The 'normal' suit case nuke consists of one or two boxes that require a two or three man lift to move them. This configuration is aprox. 20 megaton yield. If you are thinking about someting the size of the suitcase you would take on a trip, yes there are some in that size, the yield would be measure in the kiloton range.

Hey, for those of you in other countries: England, France, Canada, etc. Check it out, the same thing happened there also. So....

No, I'm not going to post any links to verify this. If I can find it, you can find it also.

These devices were designed for use by agents that have very little training. They were designed to require very little maintenance or up keep.
Remember, these were designed to be smuggled in to an area and set off or cached for long term, this means the you are NOT going to send in a nuclear technician to do this. 'Joe Shmo' is the one that is going to do this.

WestPoint23, I hope you are a Cadet or Enlisted and not an Officer (God Help Us). Do some research, before you post.

YES, these devices are small enough to transport and smuggle. They were designed with that in mind.

The guy that wrote this book knows what he is talking about. Check out his backround.

----I await the 'flame' posts from those of you that are spouting "Deny Ignorance" [which I very much agree with] but are too quick to comment without checking the information available or that are unable to process the available information and make informative opinions. The later always make statements coming from the emotional side.


posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:23 AM
If Al-Qaeda had nukes they'd have used 'em already.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by neomoniker

If Al-Qaeda had nukes they'd have used 'em already.

Not necessarilly. A co-ordinated attack on multiple cities could take years to plan. 9/11 was in planning for 5 years. You could argue that if such devices were in the US, the military would be desparately trying to locate the devices, but for all we know they could be trying to do so covertly.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Paul

Not necessarilly. A co-ordinated attack on multiple cities could take years to plan. 9/11 was in planning for 5 years. You could argue that if such devices were in the US, the military would be desparately trying to locate the devices, but for all we know they could be trying to do so covertly.

What would be so hard about smuggling a few suitcase nukes into a major metropolitan hub?
That's eeeeasy. Just take your time, a matter of a few months, to get all of the nukes in position one at a time, set the timers, and GET THE HELL OUTTA DODGE!!!

[edit on 15-7-2004 by neomoniker]

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:16 PM
Night Stalker is quite correct. Nice post.

as far as when to attack, Would you (as a terrorist) rather take a chance at one and a misfire/arrest or line up 12 and let it fly. There were 4 planes we knew about on 9/11, but were there more?

It is similar to the War on Drugs you eluded to. IF you send in 12 planes and boats with drugs, and you lose 2, 10 got through. It is called CYA....Cover your ....

I feel they will wait till the perfect Oppurtune Moment...uhhh...Repub convention in NY...Dems in Boston...How About simulatneous strikes on Halloween?

Pick up a Clancy,Coonts or a Vince Flynn novel for a blueprint of an attack.... it is truly onlya matter of time.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:28 PM
I did some searching through Google, and came upon a website that made me perk my ears up.

The site itself is orginally from, and is authored by someone who refers to himself as Ghost612.

The first point he brings up are the size of the so-called suitcase nukes we know to exist:

...portable refers to a low yield device with casing that would require an 18 wheeler to transport! "Suitcase device" is a misnomer

These are not hand-held nuclear weapons. They are, technically portable, but not the size of an actual suitcase.

Secondly, he brings up the 100 missing Russian nukes.

none of these devices are missing; We know exactly where these devices are located at any given point in time. This is how we know: During the 1980's I worked as a Senior Systems Engineer for several DOD companies in San Diego (Advanced Digital Systems and SAIC). While in this position I was tasked with developing a "Fleet Satellite Catastrophic Restoral Plan" for the Joint Chiefs of Staff

How can he be so sure that none of them are missing?

My group was to develop a method for satellite intelligence restoral in the event of a space born nuclear strike by the Soviet Union. In the course of this study, we had to review all satellite capabilities and characteristics: both current and projected through the early ninety's.

A series of satellites planned to begin deployment in 1989 (temporarily delayed by the Shuttle explosion) are now aloft (2nd phase of the MILSTAR Program) They carry special sensor devices (Developed by SAIC) that can detect high-velocity spin-off particles from enriched uranium (necessary for nuclear devices).

Due to the small size and velocity of these particles, no amount of shielding can block them: not lead, not earth (sub-terrainian). Radiation hazards from these particles are minimal due to limited quantity. Our satellites are fool-proof in detecting and pin-pointing the locations of enriched uranium throughout the world. The nuclear verification process employed in monitoring Iraq and other nations via NATO and the United Nations uses these satellite joint detection systems (the NSA controls and tracks the data). Many articles concerning these satellites have already been written in specialty magazines (Defense Science and Electronics-for one).

Any attempt to bring a nuclear device into our country would be instantly detected (not to mention the track of its mobile transport). Once again, the major US media resorts to half-truths for the benefit of ratings: "Stay tuned for more on our impending annihilation!" their unspoken headlines read.

But where did the idea of suitcase nukes come from, then? Well, let me take you back a few years. I even found a nice picture.

That man's name is Peter Pry. He is holding a hypothetical mock-up of something that might exist. "It is basically a 105mm shell packaged in a large breifcase."

But why is he even holding it, and where did the idea come from?

On 7 September 1997, the CBS newsmagazine Sixty Minutes broadcast an alarming story in which former Russian National Security Adviser Aleksandr Lebed claimed that the Russian military had lost track of more than 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, any one of which could kill up to 100,000 people.

"I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia," Lebed said in the interview. "I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know."

Asked if it were possible that the authorities did know where all the weapons were and simply did not want to tell Lebed, he said, "No."

One thing to mention: Lebed had lost the Russian Residency to Boris Yeltsin the year before he gave this report.

Lebed stated that these devices were made to look like suitcases, and could be detonated by one person within half an hour. According to Lebed, he learned of the existence of these weapons developed for special operations only a few years before. While national security adviser to Yeltsin he commissioned a study to report on the whereabouts of these devices. Lebed was fired as national security adviser 17 October 1996 amid intense political jostling while President Boris Yeltsin was awaiting heart surgery. He admits that he had only preliminary results of his investigation at that time, and these results are the basis of his subsequent claims.

The bombs, measuring 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters (24 x 16 x 8 inches), had been distributed among special Soviet military intelligence units belonging to the GRU, Lebed said

Very, very scary. The American Government immediately freaked out.

The official response of the US government was given by State Department spokesman James Foley on 5 September (based on CBS' pre-release of the interview transcript).The official response of the US government was given by State Department spokesman James Foley on 5 September (based on CBS' pre-release of the interview transcript).

The government of Russia has assured (us) that it retains adequate command and control of its nuclear arsenal and that appropriate physical security arrangements exist for these weapons and facilities.

Russia's atomic energy ministry further rejected Lebed's claims on 10 September.

"We don't know what General Lebed is talking about. No such weapons exist," a ministry spokesman told AFP. "Perhaps he meant old Soviet nuclear artillery shells, which are all being safely guarded."

Lebed was looked upon some as a kind of hero, informing the world about the former Soviet states and how their weapon arsenals could be slipping through cracks no one was paying attention to. He warned everyone he could. Some people started giving warnings about him.

Questions about Lebed's credibility were immediately raised. Abruptly cast out of power, presumably leaving him with grudges, he was likely to be a leading contender in the next presidential election. In elections in June 1996 he placed third, behind Yeltsin.

State Department spokesman Foley said Lebed's allegations carried "not a lot of credibility."

He said US officials have often raised the matter of nuclear security with their Russian counterparts and that "we've been assured by the Russian authorities that there's no cause for concern."

Well, of course they're going to say that, right? They don't want to scare us. So where did Lebed get his information?

Lebed later testified before the Congressional Military Research and Development Subcommittee at a hearing on 1 October 1997 where he stated that the bombs were made to look like suitcases and could be detonated by one person with less than 30 minutes preparation. Lebed's claim that such devices had been manufactured were corroborated on 3 October by testimony from Russian scientist Alexei Yablokov, former environmental advisor to President Yeltsin...

Yablokov stated that he personally knows individuals who produced these suitcase-size nuclear devices under orders from the KGB in the 1970s specifically for terrorist purposes. As a result of their being produced for the KGB, Yablokov has stated that they may not have been taken into account in the Soviet general nuclear arsenal and may not be under the control of the Russian Defense Ministry.

For Yablokov's comments on suitcase nukes and Lebed given on WGBH/Frontline see

But are they even possible? I won't go too in depth, but here is a site that discusses the plausibility:

Basically, she says it's possible, but not very likely. It would require in-depth research, analysis, and, of course, lots and lots of money to do so. Russia was known for a lot of things, but it was never known to have lots of money.

My conclusion is as I stated before: There are no suitcase nukes as we generally think of them, and if they were here, we would know about them. I could be wrong, but I think you can see why I said what I said.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:54 PM
I think we've overestimating what it would take to have a small scale nuclear capability. It wouldn't require billions in research and years to develop. That work has been done already years ago. All it would require is to have access to the materials and someone capable of assembling the device. In 2001 the UN reported that 130 terrorist groups were then nuclear capable. Here's a link regarding that report

Just like on 9/11, we may once again soon be surprised at the ingenuity and capabilities of our terrorist foes. And then after the fact we'll all sit around in terror and disbelief at what has just hit us.

I think we give ourselves too much credit as to our capabilities and too little to our enemies.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 04:12 PM
Pleasent dreams everyone. It appears the boys in dirty night shirts are at it again. Sleeper cells are amongst us. Where would you go with these nukes? To a local 7-11 convience store.
They can be hidden anyplace within our borders. Maybe they dairy farms in New Jersey or how about a Holiday Inn in Houston. I'll bet my money they are hidden in major U.S. cities that house large Muslim communities.
If you think they are inside our borders demand that all Muslim communities
be scrutinized. I don't care about political correctness. What I care about is what happens to all non Arabs.

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:00 PM
Doesn't anyone think that they could have had nukes in this country BEFORE 9/11? After all since 9/11 happened then it makes sense to me that there might have been something like that going on. They know that AFTER 9/11 security would be tighter so it makes alot odf sense to me that they might already be here!

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in