Approval to Use a Nuclear Bomb Against Americans

I have already notice that there have been a few Businesses that were run by a certain ethnic group to have closed up shop without prior warning, one day open, next closed all contends gone. Humm?

You've seen this? Where? Details. If that's true then there might be serious concern. Can you provide details please?

Thank you MrNice for asking...
I reside in Michigan, I have this info from a very good resource,
This Site.. and there are links that are already profided in threads related to this topic. ( I wish there could be away to put everything related to this topic into to one Major Thread) Every aspect of this subject will give a great deal of insight from those that are part of this concern. Rather it be extreem, or what is real! Each of us see it different. However, there is allot of insight for those that see outside of the box and share it.
What details are you asking for from me

OBL made it clear, in his videotaped message, that he could have killed many more ppl than he did in the WTC. He obviously did not need any special permission to kill thousands of ppl. But, it seems that he does need religious permission or dispensation of some sort to use a WMD to kill, potentially, many thousands or even tens of thousands of ppl. Why is it so difficult for ppl to understand religious fervor, religious faith and religious direction? OBL is a TRUE BELIEVER and it will take AMERICAN TRUE BELIEVERS to put an end to his beliefs. Face it America, the latest round of the CRUSADES has begun.

Incidentally, I believe that, in battle, a Moslem must offer warning or provide a chance to the vanquished to convert to Islam before being executed. OBL is, basically, providing this opportunity to Americans before he stikes again.

Originally posted by SIRR1
Is this more BS from AQ?

I agree with Mike Rivero from WhatReallyHappened. His conclusion is the most logical.

THE SAUDIS AND NUKES

No sooner had Iran agreed to halt their uranium enrichment activities than it became apparent that the Neocon war machine was starting to cast around for another justification to widen the wars in the oil regions of the Mideast. Building on the dubious claims made in the opening moments of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11", this week we saw Michael Scheuer, a CIA operative currently making the rounds of the media, accuse Osama of planning to use a nuclear weapon on the US, and moreover, that Osama had the permission of a Saudi Sheik to do so.

Well, we're just going to have to go in and smash them-there Saudis for that, aren't we?

Fool me once........

Let's take a look at Osama himself. You may want to hold your nose because the real Osama, the CIA asset the US trained and equipped to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, died in December 2001 and his funeral was reported in the foreign press. Of course, the American media never covered the story of the funerals, because they needed a live Osama, even if he was a fake, to scare you all into going to war.

Now, let's take a look at the idea of Saudi Arabia as a perpetrator of a terrorist attack on the US. Why would they do it? What would they gain? Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good��. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". The months since 9-11 have borne that out. US support for Israel's agenda grew stronger as Israel committed more atrocities against the Palestinians. More money flowed from the US to Israel. World opinion, which had been growing against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, temporarily abated. World hostility towards Arabs in general grew. Forgotten was the fact that Israel was actually in defiance of more UN Resolutions than Saddam had ever been. And, it was assumed at the start of the war that direct access to Iraq's oil would reduce American demand for Saudi oil, and likely force prices down as Iraq's oil came to market. So, where was the motive? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would strengthen US-Israeli ties? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would undercut their own oil revenues? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would anger the world against Arabs? Me neither.

According to Carl Cameron's FOX News story on the Israeli spy ring, the US Government classified evidence that linked arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. There was no classification of evidence linking Saudi spies to 9-11.

The 9-11 scene was littered with passports using Saudi names, passports which the FBI admits were high-quality fakes. Why would Saudi Arabia commit 9-11 and use phony passports pointing back to themselves? If Saudi Arabia had done 9-11, it is safe to assume the phony passports would have likely pointed to Israel.

The warnings of the attack sent to Odigo in New York and Israel before the 9-11 planes had even left the ground confirms beyond question that Israeli-linked companies did receive advance warning. Why would Saudi Arabia warn Israeli companies if they were behind 9-11?

See any Saudis dancing on vans while the towers fell?

If the Saudis were connected to a terror attack in the US, the government would move to seize their funds inside the US, just as they did Iraqi funds and the funds of various Arab charities. And this is a considerable sum of money. Would the Saudis just throw that all away? Hardly.

Israel, on the other hand, is jealous of the influence the Saudis have in the US because of their money. Billions pour into the US from Saudi Arabia. Billions flow OUT to Israel. Israel's agenda has always been to find a way to sabotage the political influence the cash flow brings to Saudi Arabia while leaving the cash in place. Israel's dependence on American money means that Israel itself could no0t survive the crash that would result of Saudi Arabia were to withdraw their funds from the American investment market.

Which brings us to a simple point. If the Saudis really did want to harm America, all they have to do is take their money and go home. It's legal for them to do so. It is, after all, their money. They can put it where they want to. And given the recent performance of the US economy, who would fault them? The hard fact is that the Saudis, if they wanted to attack the US, could do more damage on a national scale by yanking their investment than by setting off a single nuclear bomb. They would not need Osama. They would not need a nuclear weapon. They would not need to smuggle terrorists into the US.All they would have to do is pick up a phone to their brokerage.

Then there is that big valve on the pipes leading to those US oil tankers. If Saudi Arabia wanted to harm the US, and with the US unable to extract much oil from war-torn Iraq, all Saudi arabia has to do is find another customer for their oil, or switch their currency of choice from dollars to Euros.

If Saudi Arabia really wanted to harm the United States, it has several ways to do so, all of them perfectly legal and moral. They do not need Osama and a nuclear weapon. And if they did, would they write such an agreement down?

The US, on the other hand, does need an Osama armed with a nuclear weapon to expand the war of conquest over the middle east. Israel, eager to sabotage diplomatic relations between the US and all Arab countries, needs an Osama armed with a nuclear weapon, and as we saw in the recent AIPAC spy scandal, their agents are in the very Pentagon offices that have been feeding us the now exposed lies that took us all to war in Iraq.

We were lied into Afghanistan, then we were lied into Iraq. Emboldened by their successes, of course the liars will continue to create more wars, using more lies.

You are being lied to again.

Fool me once...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

above all obl is a religious radical. why is it surprising he would ask for permission from a religious authority figure? he probably would use them even if he didn't get permission, or just keep asking until someone gave him their blessing. besides it shouldn't be that hard to find someone who agrees with him in all of the jihad.

Assuming the OBL fiction is true, what makes Bush's religious fanatacism any different?

There comes a time we must look beyond what continues to be the force that drives the reason for OBL to take his/ or Bush position on opionions they each have expressed for each of us. Money, or principle in Religion. Clearly this concern of each will separate the answer to a resolve. We share only one thing that will prove to be true... We Breath the same air!
With that, we can/must find a way to protect the values of each in a peaceful matter without death to express the point. Has there been the concept to sit down and go over this eye to eye, not yet! Who will have the balls to suggest this and make it happen from the few that have put us/them in this conflict. Until then, We will continue to discuss this with a helpless feeling. While death continues to prove the result of not doing so.

There will be no peace, no sanity until the Bush regime is cast out. Then their boogyman Osama will evaporate into the high mists of Afghanistan.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
There will be no peace, no sanity until the Bush regime is cast out. Then their boogyman Osama will evaporate into the high mists of Afghanistan.

I wonder if you really believe this. OBL attacked the US at least 4 times during the Clinton presidency. Why would he just go home after Bush is gone?

As to the other poster about the "100 suitcase nukes", this has been thouroughly debunked, so it's not really worth discussing. A little research will shed plenty of light on that urban myth.

Well then where is your research and your links to debunk it??????

Originally posted by Iwunder
Well then where is your research and your links to debunk it??????

To tell the truth, it's not worth my time. A little research into suitcase nukes should show you the illogic of this proposition. Consider the minimum amount of fissionables needed, the trigger, shield, HE required to initiate the reaction, and the detonating mechanim just for a start. Then add it all up, weigh it out, calculate the space required, and tell me how big your suitcase is going to be. When you have done all that, you can research the Russian mini-nukes and look at the level of maintenance they required, even in a disassembled state. Convince me that any of these would still work today without Russian Technicians and parts to keep them viable.

If you truly wish to debate this, I suggest you back up your statement first with your sources. Unsubstantiated allegations do not impress me, especially when I know they are just urban myth. Then maybe I will respond. But first I suggest you do some research to save yourself the embarassment.

Putin Himself Admits he Does'nt Know, And read down my freind, years ago USA developed small Nukes also
Quoted from link
Link is in next frame

The smallest nuclear warhead manufactured by the USA was the W-54, used for the Davy Crockett The Davy Crockett was a tactical nuclear weapon that was deployed by the United States in West Germany from 1961-1971, during the Cold War. The smallest missile-launched nuclear weapon ever built, the Davy Crockett carried a variant of the W-54 fission warhead with a variable yield of 10-250 tons. The Davy Crockett could be launched from either an M28 (102mm) or an M29 (155mm) recoilless rifle, with the only difference being the effective range, between only 1.24 miles for the smaller M28 and 2.5 miles for the larger M29.
Also a warhead which could be fired from a 120 mm recoilless rifle, and a backpack version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). While this warhead, with a weight of only 51 lb (23 kg), could potentially fit into a large suitcase


[edit on 16-11-2004 by Iwunder]

Smal nuke link

If you think it can fit into a Recoiless Rifle and not a suitcase then your not wasting your time but everyone elses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link: Al Qaeda Bluffing

Quote:

He said the suitcase nukes have a lifespan of only one to three years because some of the materials, such as the battery and the conventional explosives that produce the charge that sets off the nuclear reaction, deteriorate over time and must be replaced. Otherwise, he said, they become radioactive scrap metal.

Shingarkin said the Soviet Union kept some of the bombs near Moscow, where it trained about 30 to 50 military spies to transport and detonate them abroad. More deadly portable devices were kept in the Baltic republics and, possibly, Ukraine, he said -- close to the Soviet borders with its NATO neighbors. There were never any suitcase nukes in Uzbekistan or in any other Central Asian republic, Shingarkin said, because the Soviet Union did not perceive any acute threat from its southern flank.

He said the Soviet Union had taken its suitcase nukes back from the Baltics to Moscow in the 1980s. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, some portable nuclear bombs may have remained in Ukraine, but "three years after they got there, they wouldn't be nuclear bombs anymore," he said.

Im not Slamming your post but I thought they only used one material in conventional nukes which woud be weapons grade plutonium which has a half life of give or take a couple hundred million years.

Does three years make that much difference or is it something else that breaks down (chemophysically) ?

Originally posted by leiphasw
Link: Al Qaeda Bluffing

Quote:

He said the suitcase nukes have a lifespan of only one to three years because some of the materials, such as the battery and the conventional explosives that produce the charge that sets off the nuclear reaction, deteriorate over time and must be replaced. Otherwise, he said, they become radioactive scrap metal.

Thanks for this link, good reading and makes me feel a bit better. Cheers!

You are right another good link for engineer to read !
In the above post
Nope I'm not Embarassed Yet, but its ok to tell me when I am

Originally posted by Iwunder
Smal nuke link

If you think it can fit into a Recoiless Rifle and not a suitcase then your not wasting your time but everyone elses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's funny. Have you ever seen a recoilless rifle? The M-29 155mm is 8 feet long and weighs 371 pounds. The M-28 120mm is over 5 feet long and weighs 116 pounds. That's minus the XM388 279mm nuclear tipped projectile, which weighed 76 pounds. The M-29 was transported on an M113 or a large truck, but fired from the ground. The M-28 was generally carried and fired on a jeep, but could be carried for short distances by a three man team.

The SADM fit into a large carrying case that took two guys to carry. It weighed 163 lbs. The smallest warhead ever built by the US was the W54, at 51 pounds. It was about twice as powerful as the fertilizer bomb used in Oklahoma City. Not exactly a city killer.

It's painfully obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Russian nukes. Their mini was in the same class as the SADM, and weighed just under 200 pounds.

Russian nukes, especially small ones, contained barely enough plutonium to acheive critical mass, and relied on tritium to generate the yield. Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years, so there went your yield. The neutron generators had to be replaced every 4-6 months. Short maintenance periods were typical of all Russian warheads. Not only would any stolen Russian nukes have missed at least 20 scheduled services by now, the trigger would be completely degraded. Also the HE used to start the reaction would most likely be degraded. If one stolen in the early 90's was set off today, it would go Fzzzzzz...pop.

In addition to this, all Russian nukes were equipped with a sophisticated permissive action link (PAL), which would preclude unauthorized use.

I'm not going to get into Russian politics, or why the Lebed claims were politically motivated, or how many times he changed his story. Even if it were true, the most likely scenario for the stolen nuke theory would be that they ended up in Chechen hands. So why haven't they used them?

[edit on 18-11-2004 by engineer]

The Recoiless Rifle is only to launch the warhead an assumed safe distance from the operator, a suicide bomber only needs the warhead, not the launch casing or the Recoiless Rifle, just simulate an impact on the percussion cap.

This should not even be a debate, it is called a discussion forum, so lets put all the EGO'S aside!

One thing I would not like to do is turn this discussion into a Nuke cookbook, even though there is allready way to much info on the web to build one.

But by the way Tritium is a gas used for detection not detonation as your post implies, and I wouldnt mind seeing your research otherwise.

Another question for you is dont you think that if a 51 pound warhead was developed almost 45 years ago does that not concern you today what may have been developed in between then and now?, It does not take a nuclear scientist to arrive at the potential answer for that question.

If you intend to get technical please u2u me instead in lue of my second paragraph.

Edited paragraphing

[edit on 11/18/04 by Iwunder]

[edit on 11/18/04 by Iwunder]

Originally posted by Iwunder
...a suicide bomber only needs the warhead, not the launch casing or the Recoiless Rifle, just simulate an impact on the percussion cap.

Percussion cap???? Now that's funny. What, you just hit it with a hammer? FYI, the M388 was time fused.

Originally posted by Iwunder But by the way Tritium is a gas used for detection not detonation as your post implies, and I wouldnt mind seeing your research otherwise.

Do you think there is only one use for tritium? As I stated previously, All Russian nukes used tritium to boost the yield. Both fission and fusion types. The yield was regulated by the size of the tritium pit. Google 'tritium boosting' if you want to know how it works, but don't try to tell me that is not used to control the yield in a nuclear bomb.

Originally posted by Iwunder Another question for you is dont you think that if a 51 pound warhead was developed almost 45 years ago does that not concern you today what may have been developed in between then and now?, It does not take a nuclear scientist to arrive at the potential answer for that question.

The point is not whether small nukes have been developed. It is your post about the Lebed claims that 100 "suitcase nukes" were stolen and are now in terrorist hands. This is pure BS. Period. They would no longer be functional, even if the story was true. There's about a hundred reasons for this, besides the ones I've already pointed out. Not the least of which is simply that the KGB did not posess any nukes, they were all under the control of the 12th GUMO.

The mission of portable nuclear devices would have been explosions in the enemy's rear position during or just prior to the outbreak of war for the purpose of disrupting the infrastructure as well as sabotaging the enemy's command and communications. This directly points to the MOD Spetsnaz as the likely custodian of these weapons since this use of the devices closely matches its type of missions. Spetsnaz representatives flatly denied possession of nuclear weapons, but their statements might refer to the fact that in peacetime, nuclear weapons remained in the custody of the 12th GUMO and were released to troops at a special command.

BTW, the description of "3 aluminum coffee can sized cannisters" with a detonator and a battery is a joke. Anyone that knows the even very basics of a nuke bomb design would see that right off.

If you insist on perpetuating this silly story, that's your business. Journalists have a certain habit of misrepresenting the facts on systems they don't understand, which leads gullible people to buy into stories that are patently absurd. My advice to you is take most of what you hear on the news and 60 Minutes with a grain of salt.

I'm not trying to be critical, but you come off as someone very young who is trying to look more knowledgable than you are.

Have a nice day.