Possibility of Osama having nukes is going mainstream

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
After much attention on internet forums and intelligence related websites the possibility of al Qa'ida having access to nuclear secrets if not material is now being reported in the mainstream media. The following excerpts are from an AP report
 

cnn.netscape.cnn.com.../ff/story/0001%2F20040204%2F0753915856.htm&sc=1104
Experts Worry Terrorists Have Nuke Plans
By BURT HERMAN

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The nuclear black market that let Iran, Libya and North Korea acquire weapons technology from Pakistan under the noses of international monitors raises suspicions that terror groups also acquired bomb components or plans, experts told The Associated Press.
``If the black market could transfer technology from Europe to Pakistan in spite of all these sanctions and embargoes, that same black market of smugglers can also pass on materials from this lab to terrorist groups,'' said A.H. Nayyar, a nuclear physicist and head of the Pakistan Peace Coalition. ``The possibility exists and needs to be investigated thoroughly.''

``If the black market could transfer technology from Europe to Pakistan in spite of all these sanctions and embargoes, that same black market of smugglers can also pass on materials from this lab to terrorist groups,'' said A.H. Nayyar, a nuclear physicist and head of the Pakistan Peace Coalition. ``The possibility exists and needs to be investigated thoroughly.''

The possibility even if remote, that al Qa'ida had access to pakistans nuclear scientists or material is disturbing to say the least.

The fact that this is now being reported in the mainstream press is encouraging because it may shed light on a grave possibility before it is to late.

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Kano]




posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'll be in my bunker if anyone needs me.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Interesting.... to the extent that this very notion has been discussed extensively here on a number of threads.


Suitcase nukes, unaccounted for weapons grade uranium, etc. comes to mind and an article or two or mention that the UN in Libya realized or didn't realize just how easily nukes (parts, etc) can be obtained through the international black market.


regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
what do you think we'd do if they used a nuke on US soil? i believe it would cause a massive US invasion of several middle east countries as well as martial law declared in the states. i really hope it doesn't happen.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I just wonder where in the world the terrorist group al Qa'ida, if they do have their hands on nuclear components, would be able to build such weapons? They would need like a warehouse or something, possibly in a country that sympathizes with the known terrorist group.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
what do you think we'd do if they used a nuke on US soil? i believe it would cause a massive US invasion of several middle east countries as well as martial law declared in the states. i really hope it doesn't happen.


It would esculate into WW3. Sadly, it is not that far off of an idea.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
I just wonder where in the world the terrorist group al Qa'ida, if they do have their hands on nuclear components, would be able to build such weapons? They would need like a warehouse or something, possibly in a country that sympathizes with the known terrorist group.


This being just a matter of logistics and thinking the problem through, I think tranportation of an assembled device would be out of the question until ready for use because of the high risk of discovery at border.

Smuggling of componets in small amounts to the target country for later assembly in less secure interior areas is likely. Multiple networks and locations duplicating effort while staying compartmentilized would increase possibility of success. (think drug smuggling)

Once device is completed delivery means by truck shielded with lead and boron inside trailer is possible especially if they stay off interstate and use secondary roads where detection devices are less likely to be encountered.

The danger of the above possibility is very high in my opinion. Realizing how porous the borders are and just how really difficult it would be to check every suitable building within 2 hours driving distance of major cities muchless covering all entry points to those cities that trucks could use is daunting.

My hope is that the US has satellite's that are capable of detecting the radium on a watch dial because if they don't we're in trouble.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I wouldn't be surprised if they had nukes but they definitely have no means of manufacturing quality nukes. They would probably have to buy them in the black market from someone who bought it from someone who bought it from someone.


-Brandon



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
....i believe it would cause a massive US invasion of several middle east countries as well as martial law declared in the states. i really hope it doesn't happen.


Undoubtedly there would be tremendous (and understandable) public and political pressure to "get even" as a result of such an atrocity - but *which* countries would you target for invasion?? Afganistan? Iraq?? Libya (surely not)....

What I'm trying to say is that terrorists are (or *can* be) "independent" of a country - sure, they might be fighting an injustice or for a greater good - but they don't necessarily *live* there. And that's the problem, isn't it? The "Send a gunboat" policy (that we British used quite successfully for a couple of hundred years or so) somehow does quite fit anymore. Yes, invade a country - but do you get the perpertrators?


And, if you *do* - what about the martyrs that will follow??

Just my thoughts... OH!! Forgot to say: I hope it doesn't happen either,,, I quite like living, and these kind of things tend to decrease the chances of being able to continue to do so...


[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Genya]



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I would simplify the topic as:

"Possibility of having nukes is going mainstream".

And that is not in reference to media, but in a more general proprietary sense. Thank any country behind weapons proliferation, you can't hide behind issues of national security.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Anyone know where in the USA are possible targets?



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Anyone know where in the USA are possible targets?


Most likely the BIG Cities are the most likely candidates for an attack. So unless you live in a big city I wouldn't worry too much.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot

Originally posted by jrod
Anyone know where in the USA are possible targets?


Most likely the BIG Cities are the most likely candidates for an attack. So unless you live in a big city I wouldn't worry too much.


hehe.. no need to worry then, not as if many people live in those Big ole cities anyway!

I would think Washington will be pretty safe, as the pentagon and the big wigs live there most of the time. They aren`t going to set one off in their own back yards afterall. Ooh yeah, by that I am saying any "information" is probably just another black flag op. Big Boom, point at the arabs, must be them.. etc etc.. we invade.. you see the pattern.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genya

Originally posted by enomus
....i believe it would cause a massive US invasion of several middle east countries as well as martial law declared in the states. i really hope it doesn't happen.


Undoubtedly there would be tremendous (and understandable) public and political pressure to "get even" as a result of such an atrocity - but *which* countries would you target for invasion?? Afganistan? Iraq?? Libya (surely not)....

What I'm trying to say is that terrorists are (or *can* be) "independent" of a country - sure, they might be fighting an injustice or for a greater good - but they don't necessarily *live* there. And that's the problem, isn't it? The "Send a gunboat" policy (that we British used quite successfully for a couple of hundred years or so) somehow does quite fit anymore. Yes, invade a country - but do you get the perpertrators?


And, if you *do* - what about the martyrs that will follow??

Just my thoughts... OH!! Forgot to say: I hope it doesn't happen either,,, I quite like living, and these kind of things tend to decrease the chances of being able to continue to do so...


[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Genya]


don't get me wrong, i personally agree with you that we're dealing with a borderless war here and invading a country might not even produce the terrorists but i don't think that will stop the US administration from bombing and then invading any country they think 'the terrorists' might be in at the time of a hypothetical nuclear attack.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
We as Americans are a big bunch of sissies. It is due to a number of reasons.

1) Over sensationalizing by the media.

I think we all know this by now. Duct tape and plastic eh?

2) The severe lack of major events (aside from 9/11 and Pearl Harbor) on U.S. soil in the last 100 years.

Israelis are way better equiped to handle something like that.

3) Division of the public

I for one think that there is so much conversation from opposing views that now drastically oppose each other, the divide would only worsen.



posted on Feb, 4 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
most likely city for an attack is NYC, DC, LA in that order.......other targets would include vegas and maybe even new orleans during mardi gras because both places represent the things that those terrorists hate - us having a good time.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by enomus
don't get me wrong, i personally agree with you that we're dealing with a borderless war here and invading a country might not even produce the terrorists but i don't think that will stop the US administration from bombing and then invading any country they think 'the terrorists' might be in at the time of a hypothetical nuclear attack.


Well said enomus!!

I'm sure there *would* be a public "angst" and need to "punish" the perpetrators of any such atrocity, should it happen (God forbid). Also, the might of the USA would need a "focus" to target (afterall, what is the *point* of having weapons systems if you don't use them??) (Clearly, the "deterrent" effect - and Mutually Assured Destruction theory - will have been proved "ineffective" if terrorists comitted such an act?).

So, the pressure would be on to "do something". But, to whom?

At the moment, the UK is currently setting up the Butler Inquiry to look at how "intelligence" failed us with regard to WMD's. The USA is doing a similar study, I believe?

So, my point is that even *with* "intelligence" - which country(s) would be targetted for "punitive action"?? It's a scary thought - what if the terrorists were found to be located in a friendly country (UK??) for example? Would there be a call to take a "revenge" nuclear strike agaisnt, say, London??

Far-fetched? Who knows in this climate??



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 05:06 AM
link   
I would think that it would be more likely to be the West Coast this time round, LA, SF etc. Perhaps even Texas or the deep south as a challenge to Bush and a strike deep to the heart of the US.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join