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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:53 PM
I believe if they had a nuke in the US they would use it ASAP because they know the longer that they hold onto it the higher the chances that they would get tracked down by Word of Mouth or Cops or FBI etc.


posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 01:48 PM
They do have WMD, according to numerous reports/chatter. Why?
won't they use them? They seem to take time in their planning and
preparation, as between 1993 and 9/11/01.
Back in 2002 bin Laden's number two man (Zawahiri) did state:
"It would be unlikely, unexpected, not a landmark, something not
watched, and more devastating than the World Trade Center."
I'm wondering what this ^ can be.

[edit on 17-7-2004 by LL1]

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 02:33 PM
I read Paul William's book and I found it not only sobering, but coupled with thorough sources and an excellent bibliography. He does not come off as an alarmist and makes a very good case. My take from the book is that it was thoroughly researched and there is "very credible" evidence that suitcase nukes have been shipped into the U.S. (primarily through ports, since only 3% of ship's cargoes are inspected) and that there are sleeper agents (not just al-Quaida, but Pakistani and Russian nuclear experts) that are prepared to detonate these weapons. He does mention that frequent maintenance on these devices is needed (every three months) and that as they age, they are less likely to cause damage. It was a great read and really looks at both sides of the equation as to why al-Quaida wants to kill Americans (both military and civilian). It caused me to have a serious discussion with my wife as to our contingency plan if something in Philadelphia were to erupt. Of course, based upon his book, if one of these goes off in Philly, then I will be toast anyway.

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 08:57 PM
Do you people know that a "dirty bomb" is only good for 2-3 months because the nuclear material decays very fast and it wont be good after 2-3 months if you don't believe me check it out so if they had it they would use it or else it would go bad so this means they don't have them in the us if they did they would have already used them

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:03 PM
The threat is real, but the challenges are also real.

1) A "suitcase nuclear bomb", if it were actually effective, would also fry everyone who came in contact with it. No, not ten years later, but very quickly. Death could occur within hours after exposure. Enriched fissionables are, by nature, hazardous to human health. There's just not enough room for shielding sufficient to prevent fatal exposure to the gamma and neutron fluxen from these devices even in their "quiescent" modes. For you ex-nukes out there, think "tenth-thickness", "density" and "radcon". Yes, you can use a "rabbit" approach, but that introduces its own logistical problems.

2) An extensive network of domestic radiological sensors pre-dates 9/11 in the United States. We have been alert to the dangers of smuggled nuclear weapons for decades, and have not been sitting on our hands.

3) Satellite detection of radiological "hotspots" is a reality, and has been for a long time. The ability of these satellites to detect small amounts of fissionable material would best be described as "surprisingly amazing". Lightly-shielded nuclear devices would be child's play for these birds.

4) The United States does not advertise its ability to detect fissile material. This falls into the "duh" category, but is worth remembering. What the U.S. really knows and how it knows it is information that is most heavily secured.

Nota Bene: Yes, the Soviets did indeed successfully smuggle small nuclear weapons into the U.S. Unfortunately for the Soviets, we found out about it, and tracked every last one of these weapons down and neutralized them, learning quite a bit about Soviet nuclear weapon design in the process, as well as a few other things the Soviets would have preferred we not know. Alas, the methods by which we did this were not always painless for the conspirators, and there were fatalities. But, on a happier note, the counterdeployment program was a resounding success.

I am not out to minimize the risk of attack from smuggled nuclear weapons, but to put it in perspective. It turns out to be maddeningly complex and extremely difficult, as well it should be.

Chemical, and more ominously, biological weapons smuggled in hermetically sealed containers pose a far greater risk to the U.S. homeland.

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 11:02 AM
Majic, Williams does discuss your points in great length in his book and indicates that it is extremely difficult to transport, maintain and detonate these devices. I would have to agree with you that our bigger concern is a biological attack. Perhaps that is what bin-Laden was referring to when he mentioned the "black winds of death."

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 11:40 AM
this is a good way to get your date to put out in bed-" honey there are suitcase nukes in the us lets have sex now because the world may be extra crispy tommorrow!


i agree with everone who said if they had them they would have used them.

the black helicopters are all equipped with radiation detectors you cant hide a nuke in the usa i know from my "sources"

anyway i good excuse when she says no! or i have a headache!

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:38 AM
For those of you that still do not think it can happen.
Just because "if they had them they would have already used them"; what kind of argument is that?

You have to:

1) Think like a terrorist. (Target, Training, Movement, Material, Time Line for execution, Personel, etc)
2) Think like a military type (How can I stop it)

It takes time to plan any mission. Time is on their side. They can afford to take as much of it as they want. All that they care about is that the mission gets done. A 'suicide bomber' just does not wake up one day, strap on a bomb, pick out a target and go and blow themselves up. It takes time.

Remember the old adage: "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

Oh, I just remembered, ITS ALREADY HAPPENED, but we were able to prevent it.

Check out the links:

I also agree that a Chem-Bio attack is more likely to occur, but terrorists seem to go for the event that will make the biggest splash in the press.

H'mmm. Chem-Bio, maybe thats why I'm seeing so much chem gear being reallocated for Conus missions?

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:24 PM
I agree, I think Chem/Bio attacks are much more plausible than nuclear attacks. They are cheaper, easier to transport, and a lot more terrifying than nukes.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:15 PM
You'll have to excuse West Point. For the good of my nation's image I would like to point out that he has not actually been educated at West Point- he's just a young person who hopes to one day be some sort of unstoppable GI Joe hero who never really faces a dangerous enemy. He does no accept the possibility, nor is he prepared for it, that America could ever be vulnerable in any way.

It's possible, but I'm waiting to see it. The idea that the Chechens had ever recieved nuclear weapons has been mostly debunked- it started with a far right Russian paper and the Chechens eventually denied it.

The head of Pakistan's nuclear program has helped many other sources though. he supposedly helped NK, and is said to be a radical muslim. I dont know too much about it first hand though.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:32 PM
The easyest enemy to strike hardest is the one that thinks he is unbeatable.

Small examples:

Vietnam war, US got their asses whooped.

Iraq, anyone remember how sure Saddam and his incredibly entertaining minister of information were?

I'm sure the US goverment and military KNOWS nuclear, biological and chemical attacks are posible and on a verge of happening(taking out of the equasion the real internal threat for a moment)

People like West Point acting asif the US is so big bad and unstoppable doesn't represent his nation or any kind of reality for that matter.

Everything any person on this site can think of in form of a terrorist attack, no matter how bad or how evil or far fetched it sounds, it is posible to pull do.

The first thing you have to do to stop it, is being aware it can happen and is happening. And reacting accordingly.

In case of the nukes, indeed, he weapons need to be maintenanced and 'refueled' every few months, if they are kept fueled, but if the devices are ready, without fuel applied. All they need to do is bring the fuel and the devices together at the last moment and execute the detonation plans.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:46 PM
i wonder how well these wondrous orbiting sentinels detect high-energy particles after X-class solar flares?

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 10:03 PM
I do not condone westpoints blind assertion that we are invulnerable, however I also do not appreciate somebody from another country spouting off at the mouth against mine. How many wars has Belgium won? We did not get whooped in Vietnam, there was no clear objective in that war and when it is said that we lost, it is meant in a political sense. Our soldiers fought hard and well in a jungle they had no experience in against an enemy that did and often used tactics similar to those being used by terrorists in Iraq (i.e. sending civilians who seemingly need help only to explode a grenade when soldiers tried to help) although I do admit they fought hard also, militarily it was a stalemate. If that same war was fought today however, they would have no chance. As far as terrorists detonating a nuke here, I think it is highly unlikely they will explode a nuke the likes of what people are thinking, it seems people are imagining a Hiroshima like blast in a major population center and I just dont think they have the capability to assemble or maintain such a weapon, it takes large high-tech facilities to keep those puppies up and running. They may be able to pull of a dirty bomb attack, but read up on the facts about dirty bombs and youll rest easier knowing they are not as effective as the Bush admin. wants you to think. They are crude, disperse minor amounts of radiation that only affect the blast area, and thats if they even work properly. Personally, I think the greatest threat here is from a chemical attack, as biological weapons also require proper facilities and a great deal of maintenance.

[edit on 21-7-2004 by jd27]

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:28 PM
Actualy, check belgiums trackrecord. We did some very good fighting and we deliver some serious input into alot of NATO and other missions.

Belgan Para troopers are outclassed by few and the belgian F16 squads are deployed in alot of missions. Including the original Desert Storm.
The belgian minesweepers are deployed troughout the world and I can sum up things for a while like this.

We are a small country, of 10 Million people, so offcource we can't pull of big wars like the US with their 360 Million. But we did, do fight and will always fight if we support the cause.

Even Julius Caesar declared the belgians to be the bravest and most fiers of all tribes he ever fought

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:28 PM
Sorry, I didnt mean to come across as an arrogant American demeaning Belgium, I was seriously asking because I didnt know. I just get upset because I feel my country is being attacked by all sides even from countries that are traditionally our allies, like Belgium, you even said it yourself-where do you think F-16s come from? Its even more upsetting that we are losing our friends because of a president who stole the election, and dragged us into a war under false pretenses, whether we agreed or not. I hope with all of my heart he isnt able to steal this years election, so maybe we can begin to rekindle our lost friendships. Then we can all focus on the real war, against muslim extremists who will only stop when weve all converted to Islam, or are dead. The track we shouldve stayed on instead of diverting to this incredibly unfounded war with Iraq (which is not the fault of our awesome soldiers who are just doing their jobs).

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 12:00 AM
The relations with our historical allies have grown strained of late. A development I have watched with much concern and sorrow. But the US has brought some of this on ourselves by the arrogance of both our elected officials and also by high ranking federal employees. As this is a republic we have to take some of the blame for the actions of those we elect and those they then hire. I feel this will sort itself out eventually though. Our friends will remember they ARE our friends, and we will perhaps remember how lonely it is to be by ourselves.

However, as for the danger of dirty bombs and\or other types of NBC warfare, it would be wise to remember that these weapons would have to come FROM someplace and travel THROUGH other places to get to the US. If there was ever a time when we needed friends to watch our back, it is now. Perhaps now would be a good time for all US citizens to drop a note to their representatives about mending fences etc?

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:54 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Do you people know that a "dirty bomb" is only good for 2-3 months because the nuclear material decays very fast and it wont be good after 2-3 months

That is incorrect, undisturbed/uncleaned radioactive areas would remain dangeroud for several decades.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:59 PM
The day that the terrorists have a nuclear weapon on our soil we will all know it and won't have to read about it. We will all see the mushroom cloud over DC or NYC. I doubt they'd hold on to it for very long. A day or two at most to get it in place. I'm sure the bloodthirsty bunch wouldn't be able to wait any longer than that.

posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:13 PM
if this satellite technology is so amazingly effective why are they so restless about replacing it? they are; in fact this is addressed in the paul williams book....... williams is well-informed and yet he's not too confident in these satellite detection systems you extol.

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:52 AM
Um, worry more about things you can CONTROL.

You're far more likely to die in a car accident than to die from a terrorist attack in the US.

You're far more likely to get robbed and killed by your own citizens than by a foreigner in America.

If a nuclear bomb explodes in your town, you're either going to be dead or seriously irradiated.

So don't worry about it. You can do nothing to protect yourself against it, so why spend any time worrying about it.


top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in