chuteless 1 #1 March 22, 2004 A report came out last night saying Al Qaeda has purchased some of those 100+ suitcase sized nuclear weapons that went missing when the Soviet Union fell apart. They claim these weapons are available on the black market in central Asia. Now, what do you think they want them for ????? Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #2 March 22, 2004 Can you provide a link to the story? Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #3 March 22, 2004 niot a printed link, but it was a headline story on TV last night, and daio this morning. Apparently, it stemmed from an Australian reporter who interviewed Al zawihir. I'm not sure if thats how the jerk spells his name...but he is second to Osama Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #4 March 22, 2004 QuoteCan you provide a link to the story? Sky News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #5 March 22, 2004 Don't have a link, but actually saw an interview tonight on Aussie TV with a Pakistani journalist (Hamid Mir) who has very good Al-Qaeda connection who has interviewed OBL 3 times. The last time in November 2001 i.e. the only interview post 9/11. The interview was very interesting. Mir claimed amongst other things: - The real “brain” in Al-Qaeda is not OBL but Ayman al-Zawahri. AZ speaks English, is well educated and traveled the world in the early to mid-90’s recruiting for Al-Qaeda. - OBL was “chosen” as the head figure, not because of his leadership skills in an organizational or political sense, but because of his battlefield performance against the Soviets which gave him “cult status” in that part of the world. The real “brain” is Ayman al-Zawahri. - When the journalist asked OBL and AZ if they had nuclear weapons (in 2001). They claimed they had purchased 100 suitcase nuclear bombs in the former soviet republics in central Asia. This is probably where the story comes from. If it is true or just posturing we don’t know. The number seems very high, but the way the former USSR is “leaking” weapons for $, it is probably possible they got something. - The journalist is also claiming that a very powerful faction in Saudi Arabia is actively supporting Al-Qaeda and OBL (partly for internal reasons, trying to destabilize the current regime). He also claimed that OBL several times during the past 2 years has been hiding in Iran and that the Iranian government has been (or is) supporting Al-Qaeda. I found the interview very interesting. The guy seemed to be very well connected. Edit: Post above has the link to the story at Sky--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #6 March 22, 2004 Well, the fact is that they have not had them up to this point, or they would have used them. Whether this story is true or not, time will tell. The "suitcase Nukes" story has been out since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Several middle eastern terriorist groups have claimed to have purchased them, but up until this point, I don't believe any of them have, or they would have used teem, most likely on Israil. If is a fact that a strong Faction in Saudi Arabia supports Al Qaeda, that has been common knowledge for a long time. The Bin Laden/figurehead theory is also quite feasible, but a more reasonable idea as to why would be due to the money he funneled into the organization. He financed quite a bit of it, and even though it is claimed that his family cut of his funds when they found out about the terriorist actrivity, he still is a big finicial draw for the various terriorist sellots that send money to these organizations because of him! I agree with Bill Cole here, (if they have them) "Now what do you think they want them for ?????" I'll give you a hint, not to sit in a cave somewhere and collect dust!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #7 March 22, 2004 Even Rumsfeld, Chaney and FBI Meuller says it will only be a metter of time till they get them, and that they would not hesitate to use them (That quote from a book) Lets say they bought ten....and try to smuggle them into North America...how many would get through? If they come through Canada, with the inept government here, they might even get all ten in. I do niot think they will use them against Israel...but if they were to cripple the USA, then Israel would be at the mercy of all the Arab countries. Then there would be a drastic rise in anti-semitism, because the State of Israel would be blamed for everything from both sides. Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cudlo 0 #8 March 22, 2004 Who was it who said "I dont fear someone who wants 100 nuclear bombs. I fear the man who only wants 1" ?_________________________________________ "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #9 March 22, 2004 As the old proverb/saying goes, "May you live in interesting times." Just plain scary times is more like it.-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #10 March 22, 2004 Quote"I dont fear someone who wants 100 nuclear bombs. I fear the man who only wants 1" ? Steven Segal? Harrison Ford? I remember hearing that line in an action movie, years ago. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #11 March 22, 2004 The "Suitcase from Allah" has long been a fear. Fortunately, nukes are very high-maintenance, and it takes a lot of continuous know-how to keep them operational, otherwise, they'll "fizzle". Another example of high-maintenance technology is the missing Stinger missles. They need all kinds of TLC to work right, and the operator must be trained in how to use the weapon; kinda hard to do that with a one-shot device) - thus far, none of them has been used. For those who say SAMs have been used in Iraq - TRUE, but those were of Soviet make from Saddam's inventory, not Stingers. I suppose we'll find out the hard way whether the ragheads have nukes when DC is vaporized. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 March 22, 2004 Quote Quote"I dont fear someone who wants 100 nuclear bombs. I fear the man who only wants 1" ? Steven Segal? Harrison Ford? I remember hearing that line in an action movie, years ago. - Jim It was either the Sum of All Fears (Ben Afflack, Morgan Freeman) or The Peacemaker (George Clooney) I don't remember which ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #13 March 22, 2004 It was on the AP and Reuters yesterday. A reporter in Australia released the information._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crapflinger2000 1 #14 March 22, 2004 Yeah, ditto that. Based on my expertise with tactical nuclear weapons gleaned from years of reading Tom Clancy novels and some website or something, I think the Harj is right... also, these things are not briefcase sized, more like foot-locker sized, and require all sorts of maintenance and power supplies and stuff. Doubtful anything these guys could buy would work in the first place. __________________________________________________ What would Vic Mackey do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #15 March 22, 2004 This is about the third time I've heard this claim. Nothing new; terrorist who have nuclear weapons are scary, so terrorist groups would certainly like you to think they have nuclear weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #16 March 22, 2004 Fortunately, nukes are very high-maintenance, and it takes a lot of continuous know-how to keep them operational, otherwise, they'll "fizzle". Another example of high-maintenance technology is the missing Stinger missles. They need all kinds of TLC to work right, and the operator must be trained in how to use the weapon; kinda hard to do that with a one-shot device) - thus far, none of them has been used. For those who say SAMs have been used in Iraq - TRUE, but those were of Soviet make from Saddam's inventory, not Stingers. ------------------------------------------------------------ Agree on both accounts, I use to work with stinger missiles and this is 100% a true statement! True of the nukes as well!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #17 March 22, 2004 To me, the greatest threat is not from a suitcase nuclear weapon, it's from a gun-type uranium based weapon. You can build those pretty easily. They're large; a terrorist would probably have to rent an office or apartment and build the thing there. But the materials you need (other than the U-235) are all readily available. You could get all the materials you needed from a farm supply store, a gun store and Home Depot. >Doubtful anything these guys could buy would work in the first place. Five years ago the idea that some crazy terrorists could learn to fly 757's and orchestrate the hijacking of four airliners simultaneously was pretty far-fetched. As the conflicts in Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Iraq and Israel/Palestinians drag on, there will be more and more people who are willing to do anything to defeat the "enemy." Eventually there will be an Arab (or Indian, or Venezuelan) Einstein or Teller or Oppenheimer. There will some day be a terrorist attack on the US using atomic weapons. It's more likely to be a subcritical 'dirty bomb' type weapon, but may be something even more destructive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #18 March 22, 2004 Perhaps they dont have any such weapons, BUT if the USA had taken a more decisive role in checjking out allthe warnings they had about Islamic terrorists within their borders, they might have stopped 9/11. Sure the Islamic nutbars can say they have them, just to pose a big scare...but what IF they do. As for manintenance, the Russians who sold them must know something about maintenance, and they'll sell anything for a price, even knowledge on how to. I hope Bush doesnt sit on his hands until he hears the big boom, and then says...hey, maybe we should investigate . Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #19 March 22, 2004 QuoteWell, the fact is that they have not had them up to this point, or they would have used them. I think there a lot of reasons why the old rumor about Al Quaeda possessing the missing Soviet suitcase nukes doesn't hold water, but I'm not convinced the "they would have used them by now" argument is one hundred percent valid. There could be strategic, logistical, or technical reasons why Al Quaeda wouldn't use these kinds of weapons immediately. They could be trying to get numerous nukes into strategic positions (such as the United States' most populous cities) for a simultaneous attack at a particularly strategic time (such as an election night, a particularly harsh winter, etc). They might still be working to overcome the logistics of getting the nukes into the United States. They could be unable to use them until they find someone who can do required maintenance on them. I don't think they have the nukes; in fact, nobody even seems certain there are any Soviet suitcase nukes missing. But there is no guarantee they would have used them by now if they had them.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #20 March 22, 2004 The big news this morning is the book written by a former Bush Administration staffer which accuses the prez of doing nothing about al-quaida despite pre-9/11 warnings. The dude was on 60 Minutes last night trashing NSA Rice. NSA Rice said this morning that the chap was the "Terrorism Czar" under the Clinton Administration, but was asked to stay on after Clinton left office. THAT was a mistake, and it kinda says it all. Edit to add - Saddam claimed to be ready to use chemical weapons if the US attacked. Turned out that was a ruse. Arab bluster is usually towards the grandiose, which is why my remarks on this phenomenon went unremarked in this forum when the post-overthrow fallout hit the fan (with no NBC weapons found thus far, but the reason it was thought to be so is the same reason "Why Arabs Lose Wars"). mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #21 March 22, 2004 "NSA Rice said this morning that the chap was the "Terrorism Czar" under the Clinton Administration, but was asked to stay on after Clinton left office. THAT was a mistake, and it kinda says it all." ------------------------------------------------------------ Yup!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #22 March 22, 2004 QuoteTo me, the greatest threat is not from a suitcase nuclear weapon, it's from a gun-type uranium based weapon. You can build those pretty easily. They're large; a terrorist would probably have to rent an office or apartment and build the thing there. But the materials you need (other than the U-235) are all readily available. You could get all the materials you needed from a farm supply store, a gun store and Home Depot. >Doubtful anything these guys could buy would work in the first place. Five years ago the idea that some crazy terrorists could learn to fly 757's and orchestrate the hijacking of four airliners simultaneously was pretty far-fetched. As the conflicts in Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Iraq and Israel/Palestinians drag on, there will be more and more people who are willing to do anything to defeat the "enemy." Eventually there will be an Arab (or Indian, or Venezuelan) Einstein or Teller or Oppenheimer. There will some day be a terrorist attack on the US using atomic weapons. It's more likely to be a subcritical 'dirty bomb' type weapon, but may be something even more destructive. I think you've pretty much summed it up. A Uranium bomb is much easier to build than a suitcase nuke because a suitcase nuke requires very pure plutonium, very precisely calculated explosive charges, and a very precisely timed detonator. If all of those factors don't come together, you're left with a very expensive dirty bomb. Terrorists are much more likely to buy weapons grade uranium from one of the second world countries with emerging nuclear power plants and build a gun-type bomb in the back of a large truck. Dirty bombs don't worry me too much because of their limited effective range. I'm worried about the weapons that can disintegrate me from half a mile away, then pepper my county with lethal doses of radioactive fallout. There is some interesting information on surviving nuclear attacks here.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #23 March 22, 2004 We can only hope that the ragheads will irradiate themselves and die slow painful deaths, or barring that, sterilize themselves so that they can't make more little ragheads. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #24 March 22, 2004 Yeah....keep looking at it as though its just a rumour. "BANG" and your rumour goes up in smoke...and its too late. Dont you guys ever learn???? America didnt believe the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbour either, until the Arizona hit the bottom. And there are many other examples....too many to, list here. Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #25 March 22, 2004 QuoteYeah....keep looking at it as though its just a rumour. "BANG" and your rumour goes up in smoke...and its too late. Dont you guys ever learn???? America didnt believe the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbour either, until the Arizona hit the bottom. And there are many other examples....too many to, list here. Bill Cole My point was that there isn't any way to be sure. We can only hope the NEST guys are squared away... mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
