Al Qaeda nuclear weapons

[Douva 0]

Quote

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

People need to be prepared. There is no question about that. We, as individuals, can't find or stop terrorist nukes, but we can be prepared in case they are detonated on US soil. Search the Internet for information on making "bug out bags" and expedient fallout shelters. There is a lot of really good, free preparedness information out there, if you look for it. There's also a lot of bad information, so double check your facts.

THIS BOOK is a great place to start. If you don't want to pay $20 to order the book, you can legally download it for free HERE.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[chuteless 1]

I am not referring to individuals...but your government....dont THEY ever learn????

They are almost as bad as the inept bungling Canadian Government...all they laern is how to spend taxpayers money on themselves. Many current scandals going on here, and they'll get voted in again..

Bill Cole

[BlindBrick 0]

Quote

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 only probelm with this theory is that most terrorist units capable of purchasing these nukes realize the truth behind them. These nukes aren't weapons, but demolition charges. For raw destructive power, these charges just aren't all that impressive. Any organization worth their salt likely realizes the best use for these charges is to remove their physics packages and grind them up into a really fine powder for use n a "dirty' bomb or for poisioning a water supply or the like.

-Blind

"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

we can be prepared

For years, children and adults lived in fear during the cold war. Practicing "duck and cover" so that you could identify the bodies by the seating chart. Digging fallout shelters in your back yard.

For any shelter or "kit" to work, it has to be nearby, you have to be awake, you have to be listening some media...

If you are not at home, the shelter doesn't work.
If you are sleeping, nothing works.
By time the media picks up of everything, the bomb has gone off - too late.

I refuse to live in fear anymore.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

Ah ha so telling the truth and letting everyone know what was really going on in the Bush Administration is... saying more of the " all" than just shutting up and aquiecing to the party line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4571338/

If you READ the whole article you get an insight into a group of people out to settle PERSONAL socre with Sadaam.. at any cost.

Wandering into the White House Situation Room, the president pulled aside Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief of the national-security staff who had been held over from the Clinton years. According to Clarke, Bush asked: was Iraq responsible for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington? Bush wanted the FBI and CIA to hunt for any evidence that pointed to Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Clarke recalls that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was also looking for a justification to bomb Iraq. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld was arguing at a cabinet meeting that Afghanistan, home of Osama bin Laden's terrorist camps, did not offer "enough good targets." "We should do Iraq," Rumsfeld urged.

The most telling part

advertisement

Clarke was skeptical in the extreme. Six days after the president's request, Clarke says, he turned in a classified memo concluding that there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity in 9/11—nor any relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The memo, says Clarke, was buried by an administration that was determined to get Iraq, sooner or later.

A career civil servant, Clarke was known for pounding the table to urge his counterparts at the CIA, FBI and Pentagon to do more about Al Qaeda. But he did not have much luck, in part because in both the Clinton and early Bush administrations, the top leadership did not back up Clarke and demand results.


Clarke sharply whacks Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as the leader of the Get Saddam squad. When the White House finally did convene a top-level meeting to discuss terrorism, in April 2001, Wolfowitz rebuffed Clarke's effort to focus on Al Qaeda. According to Clarke, Wolfowitz said, "Who cares about a little terrorist in Afghanistan?" The real threat, Wolfowitz insisted, was state-sponsored terrorism orchestrated by Saddam


AS a side note.. he was a carreer analyst.. starting out in the REAGAN Administration.. then in Geroge the 1st and then Clinton. So he was kept BECAUSE of his work not his political affiliations. I would venture to say after seeing how the current administration botched things it was time to go.

[billvon 2,400]

>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.

I think it is comments like that that make "ragheads" believe that their only chance of survival is killing the people who want them dead.

[billvon 2,400]

>I hope Bush doesnt sit on his hands until he hears the big boom . . .

He's going to have a credibility problem after claiming that Iraq had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons. The boy who cried wolf and all. Which is too bad.

[chuteless 1]

I still think Bush will be re-elected without his cheating.

Bill Cole

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

we can be prepared

For years, children and adults lived in fear during the cold war. Practicing "duck and cover" so that you could identify the bodies by the seating chart. Digging fallout shelters in your back yard.

For any shelter or "kit" to work, it has to be nearby, you have to be awake, you have to be listening some media...

If you are not at home, the shelter doesn't work.
If you are sleeping, nothing works.
By time the media picks up of everything, the bomb has gone off - too late.

I refuse to live in fear anymore.

So I suppose you don't jump with a reserve parachute because that would be "living in fear?" There is a difference between fear and preparation, and sometimes it's a very fine line, but there is nothing wrong with being prepared. The two schools of thought that denounce preparedness--the "I'd rather just die" school of thought and the "if we change our lifestyles, the terrorists win" school of thought--are little more than camouflaged denial. Your comments suggest that you know very little about the effects of a nuclear explosion, but I can't fault you for that because our government made the decision years ago to quit keeping citizens informed about matters of civil defense. Your criticisms of civil defense practices are akin to people who mock skydivers for wearing helmets--"How is that helmet going to protect you if you hit the ground at a hundred and twenty miles an hour?" As all skydivers know, we don't wear helmets to protect us from a double total malfunction; contrary to popular belief, most skydivers who die don't die from double total malfunctions. Likewise, there are many factors besides the heat and blast force at ground zero to consider when preparing for a nuclear attack. I don't suggest people build fallout shelters in their backyards, but fallout takes a minimum of about one hour to start to fall, and that is enough time for most people outside of the initial blast radius to reach their home or a shelter or even to build some sort of expedient shelter. "Drop and cover" actually helps protect against the "popcorn effect"--a blistering effect caused by dust and light debris in the high winds caused by a nuclear blast. There are also numerous scenarios where the government and the media might know an attack is imminent, in which you wouldn't have time to start gathering supplies or looking for a shelter, but you would have time to grab your pre-packed supplies and get to a predetermined shelter. If you don't want to take any steps to prepare for this type of event, that's your business, but don't tell people it's useless. The only thing that will be truly useless following a nuclear attack are the people who were so afraid to change their comfortable ways of life that they did nothing.

--Douva

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

So I suppose you don't jump with a reserve parachute because that would be "living in fear?"

All the examples that I gave showed how they were ineffective. Perhaps you missed that relation. That is what I was trying to say. I expect my reserve to work.

Quote

The two schools of thought that denounce preparedness-

There is also the "All the 'preparedness' stuff is useless" school.

-

Quote

Your comments suggest that you know very little about the effects of a nuclear explosion, but I can't fault you for that because our government made the decision years ago to quit keeping citizens informed about matters of civil defense.

In the 70's, the National Security Advisor to the President, Robert wrote a book called "Ground Zero". He knew everything about nuclear attacks. He a lot of the civil defense policies. At the time, he was concerned about massive nuclear attack by the USSR.

He said, "We get an 18 minute warning of an attack. I want 3 weeks so that I can be trout fishing in New Zealand." I agree.

Quote

Your criticisms of civil defense practices are akin to people who mock skydivers for wearing helmets

My criticisms are entirely different. I wear a helmet. A helmet may save my life. Here again, the distinction is "precautions that can save your life vs. meaningless actions".

I did the "duck under your desk and cover your neck" drills in school to be "prepared". That will save you during a nuclear attack?

Quote

If you don't want to take any steps to prepare for this type of event, that's your business, but don't tell people it's useless.

Sorry if I expressed an opinion differing from yours. In the future, I'll check with you before posting.

Quote

The only thing that will be truly useless following a nuclear attack are the people who were so afraid to change their comfortable ways of life that they did nothing.

I find that there are people in denial who think "If I only do , I will be safe." It may provide some comfort, but no practical protection. Do you have a silver cross for werewolves also?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

So I suppose you don't jump with a reserve parachute because that would be "living in fear?"

All the examples that I gave showed how they were ineffective. Perhaps you missed that relation. That is what I was trying to say. I expect my reserve to work.

Quote

The two schools of thought that denounce preparedness-

There is also the "All the 'preparedness' stuff is useless" school.

-

Quote

Your comments suggest that you know very little about the effects of a nuclear explosion, but I can't fault you for that because our government made the decision years ago to quit keeping citizens informed about matters of civil defense.

In the 70's, the National Security Advisor to the President, Robert wrote a book called "Ground Zero". He knew everything about nuclear attacks. He a lot of the civil defense policies. At the time, he was concerned about massive nuclear attack by the USSR.

He said, "We get an 18 minute warning of an attack. I want 3 weeks so that I can be trout fishing in New Zealand." I agree.

Quote

Your criticisms of civil defense practices are akin to people who mock skydivers for wearing helmets

My criticisms are entirely different. I wear a helmet. A helmet may save my life. Here again, the distinction is "precautions that can save your life vs. meaningless actions".

I did the "duck under your desk and cover your neck" drills in school to be "prepared". That will save you during a nuclear attack?

Quote

If you don't want to take any steps to prepare for this type of event, that's your business, but don't tell people it's useless.

Sorry if I expressed an opinion differing from yours. In the future, I'll check with you before posting.

Quote

The only thing that will be truly useless following a nuclear attack are the people who were so afraid to change their comfortable ways of life that they did nothing.

I find that there are people in denial who think "If I only do , I will be safe." It may provide some comfort, but no practical protection. Do you have a silver cross for werewolves also?

In the UK in the '60s we were promised a 4 minute warning of a nuclear attack by the USSR. Just about time to kiss your a$$ goodbye. They used to keep some Avro Vulcan bombers (with their engines spooled up) waiting at the end of the runways at all times.

No-one bothered with fall out shelters or duck&cover drills. We laughed when we saw newsreels of US kids doing it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Douva 0]

Quote

All the examples that I gave showed how they were ineffective. Perhaps you missed that relation. That is what I was trying to say. I expect my reserve to work.

You showed no such thing. You gave several examples of preparedness practices (mostly older practices) and CLAIMED they are ineffective, but you gave no evidence to support this CLAIM. A whuffo can claim helmets are ineffective protection against a skydiving accident. They can even support that claim with evidence (something you failed to do) about how fast the human body falls. That doesn't mean their argument is valid.

Quote

There is also the "All the 'preparedness' stuff is useless" school.

This school of thought is a little different, in that it is less a form of denial and more a sign of ignorance.

Quote

In the 70's, the National Security Advisor to the President, Robert wrote a book called "Ground Zero". He knew everything about nuclear attacks. He a lot of the civil defense policies. At the time, he was concerned about massive nuclear attack by the USSR.

He said, "We get an 18 minute warning of an attack. I want 3 weeks so that I can be trout fishing in New Zealand." I agree.

Nobody knows everything about nuclear war because there has never been a nuclear war. Information about the effects of a nuclear war is mostly theory and conjecture. We may only have 18 minutes of warning before Russian missiles fired in a surprise attack reach us, but that doesn't mean everybody is dead in 18 minutes--It means the bombs go off in 18 minutes. Those who survive the initial blast (most of us) will still have a chance to survive the fallout. It should be noted that nuclear warfare tactics and theories about nuclear warfare have changed a lot since the '70s. The primary threat has also changed. The biggest danger is no longer an ICBM attack from the Soviet Union; the biggest danger is nuclear weapons snuck into the country by terrorists. That scenario completely changes the ball game and nullifies the whole 18 minute scenario. We might have 18 weeks of warning or no warning at all. The truth is that nobody knows what the scenario or the aftermath might (or will) be.

Quote

My criticisms are entirely different. I wear a helmet. A helmet may save my life. Here again, the distinction is "precautions that can save your life vs. meaningless actions".

You know a helmet will save your life because you understand the dangers of skydiving and the purpose of a helmet. You don't understand the dangers of nuclear war or the purpose of certain precautions. Therefore, your criticism is exactly like a whuffo's criticism of a skydiver for wearing a helmet.

Quote

I did the "duck under your desk and cover your neck" drills in school to be "prepared". That will save you during a nuclear attack?

Will it protect you from a nuclear missile that lands next door? No, of course not--you'll be incinerated. Will it protect you from a nuclear missile that lands five miles away? Possibly. You won't be incinerated, but you will have to worry about falling debris.

Quote

Sorry if I expressed an opinion differing from yours. In the future, I'll check with you before posting.

You didn't just express an opinion that differed from mine; you expressed a dangerously erroneous opinion based on whatever limited resources you have come into contact with in the course of your day-to-day life. You might as well be a gardener telling people to quit taking their heart medication.

Quote

I find that there are people in denial who think "If I only do , I will be safe." It may provide some comfort, but no practical protection. Do you have a silver cross for werewolves also?

Show me where I told people they could do one thing to guarantee their safety? I told people there are things they can do to prepare. Your werewolf metaphor is not only childish, it's an inaccurate metaphor. Werewolves are nonexistent mythical characters, and nuclear war is a very real threat. In a nuclear war, a lot of people will die, and some will survive. Those who survive will be the ones who are lucky enough to survive the initial blasts and smart enough to plan for the aftermath.

--Douva

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[chuteless 1]

I think some of you aremissing my point here.

Im not saying one should not be prepared...Im saying the government should be going after these freakos with greater intensity who are buying and/or selling suitcase bonmbs.

They should be speninf their time trying to prevent such a disaster...not waiting until one happens and then tell the people to "duck under your desk"

Priorities gentlemen

Bill Cole

[Douva 0]

Quote

I think some of you aremissing my point here.

Im not saying one should not be prepared...Im saying the government should be going after these freakos with greater intensity who are buying and/or selling suitcase bonmbs.

They should be speninf their time trying to prevent such a disaster...not waiting until one happens and then tell the people to "duck under your desk"

Priorities gentlemen

Bill Cole

I really don't believe the government is "waiting until one happens." What would be gained by that? Do you really believe our government is so evil that they don't care if a nuclear attack occurs? Tracking these types of transactions is extremely difficult. A nuclear attack on US soil would do every bit as much damage to our leaders' lives as it would to the public's. They'd loose friends, family, and assets just like the rest of us. They're doing what they can; there is just so little they can do.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[chuteless 1]

well, there's nothing like locking the barn door AFTER the horse is gone.

Too much time looking for WMD in Iraq .....but they found OIL.....

If they dont get some agents looking for suitcase bombs, the oil wont do them much good.

Bill Cole D-41

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You gave several examples of preparedness practices (mostly older practices) and CLAIMED they are ineffective, but you gave no evidence to support this CLAIM.

I exactly responded to this statement by you:

Quote

Search the Internet for information on making "bug out bags" and expedient fallout shelters.

I said that fallout shelters are worthless because:

You have to be where they are. Any disagreement?

Not at the dz on weekends, not at work, not asleep if home. So they help you 15 hours a week? Maybe you have one on the back of your pickup. A mobile shelter.

You must know of the blast. Any disagreement?

You can find out about it your radio is on and the nuclear fallout doesn't affect your reception.

Range. You have to be at a certain range for a shelter to have a value. Any disagreement?

The blast has to be far enough away that you live through it, but near enough to where you need the shelter. All true comments?

Quote

You didn't just express an opinion that differed from mine; you expressed a dangerously erroneous opinion based on whatever limited resources you have come into contact with in the course of your day-to-day life. You might as well be a gardener telling people to quit taking their heart medication.

I stated my reasons. You state that my opinion is invalid because of my knowledge. Any disagreements with what I posted based on your job as nuclear weapons designer? Too bad I've never read books and stuff.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I really don't believe the government is "waiting until one happens." What would be gained by that? Do you really believe our government is so evil that they don't care if a nuclear attack occurs?

Quote

I know Bill doesn't believe this, but there are many who do. Even a few on these forums.

Tracking these types of transactions is extremely difficult. A nuclear attack on US soil would do every bit as much damage to our leaders' lives as it would to the public's. They'd loose friends, family, and assets just like the rest of us. They're doing what they can; there is just so little they can do.

[chuteless 1]

I know all about the "freedom of speech" stuff in the USA, and although I agree with it in principle, I think there has to limits somewhere...those photos are past the limits.

I feel that the US Government is suffering from the "George Armstrong Custer" syndrome....
Oh it cant happen to us...we'll show them.

The Sioux and Cheyenne are still laughing over that one.

I dont think Bush or Chaney or anyone in government is willingly turning a blind eye.

Its just they should be doing more since Al Qaeda has proven they mean business...and they are in business to destroy the USA and Israel.


Bill Cole D-451

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I know all about the "freedom of speech" stuff in the USA, and although I agree with it in principle, I think there has to limits somewhere...those photos are past the limits.

Well than I'm glad you don't have any say in the matter. There are limits. You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater, or anything like that to intentionally incite panic or a riot. Other than that, no one should have their opinions about the government limited.

I'd make a comment about the right wing religious whackos and the freedoms that they want to elliminate, but you might construe it as a personal attack.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

You gave several examples of preparedness practices (mostly older practices) and CLAIMED they are ineffective, but you gave no evidence to support this CLAIM.

I exactly responded to this statement by you:

Quote

Search the Internet for information on making "bug out bags" and expedient fallout shelters.

I said that fallout shelters are worthless because:

You have to be where they are. Any disagreement?

Not at the dz on weekends, not at work, not asleep if home. So they help you 15 hours a week? Maybe you have one on the back of your pickup. A mobile shelter.

You must know of the blast. Any disagreement?

You can find out about it your radio is on and the nuclear fallout doesn't affect your reception.

Range. You have to be at a certain range for a shelter to have a value. Any disagreement?

The blast has to be far enough away that you live through it, but near enough to where you need the shelter. All true comments?

Quote

You didn't just express an opinion that differed from mine; you expressed a dangerously erroneous opinion based on whatever limited resources you have come into contact with in the course of your day-to-day life. You might as well be a gardener telling people to quit taking their heart medication.

I stated my reasons. You state that my opinion is invalid because of my knowledge. Any disagreements with what I posted based on your job as nuclear weapons designer? Too bad I've never read books and stuff.

So, if I understand correctly, your response is: You can't be one hundred percent safe all the time, so why worry about being safe at all?

My reference to fallout shelters was to "expedient fallout shelters," meaning shelters that already exist (cellars, deep basements, culverts, etc.) and shelters that can be thrown together in as little as an hour. You also seem to have missed the point I made about having a minimum of one hour before fallout even starts to fall. I can get from the DZ to my home in one hour. (Yes, I know, traffic patterns might vary slightly in a post nuclear attack scenario.) Your argument about having to be in or near your fallout shelter at all times is based on your misinterpretation of what few facts you have encountered.

I didn't say your "opinion was invalid;" I said your statement was dangerous. Telling people to just sit back and let whatever happens happen is dangerous.

As to your repeated question, "Any disagreement," the answer is "Yes, I disagree with basically everything you said."

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[billvon 2,400]

> did the "duck under your desk and cover your neck" drills in school
> to be "prepared". That will save you during a nuclear attack?

I think there is a common misconception that a nuclear attack will mean instant incineration of everyone within 1000 miles. Not true at all. The US did a lot of tests of nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's - in several they even had "spectators" pretty close to the blast site. In one famous test they had observers directly _beneath_ an airborne nuclear detonation. They survived because they knew what to do and had simple safety equipment (goggles, masks.)

For the most part, a terrorist nuclear weapon will kill far more people due to panic and the normal effects of an explosion (flying glass, fires) than through incineration or disintegration due to the shock wave, or even through radiological threats. Given that, knowing how to protect yourself from blast damage (such as getting under something before the plate glass windows go) could save people. And not panicking, having an evacuation plan (or supplies so you don't have to evacuate) will save a lot more.

Terrorists don't use ICBM's to destroy everyone in a city. They kill a relatively small number, and let panic and terror do the rest. Hence the name.

>I find that there are people in denial who think "If I only do , I
> will be safe." It may provide some comfort, but no practical
> protection. Do you have a silver cross for werewolves also?

A silver cross will not save you from harm. Being able to get out of a city before the roads become choked off will.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There are many who believe the Bush Administration wants this because they believe he wants to use it as an excuse to cancel elections, declare martial law and stay in power. A brief look at some of the looney left websites will also confirm this.

Gee you mean like General Tommy Franks(ret)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government

Oh and the last time I checked.. Newsmax.com is not what I would exactly say is a left leaning website.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

There are many who believe the Bush Administration wants this because they believe he wants to use it as an excuse to cancel elections, declare martial law and stay in power. A brief look at some of the looney left websites will also confirm this.

Gee you mean like General Tommy Franks(ret)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government

Oh and the last time I checked.. Newsmax.com is not what I would exactly say is a left leaning website.

Thats a long way from "wanting it to happen"

[Guest]

Quote

>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.

I think it is comments like that that make "ragheads" believe that their only chance of survival is killing the people who want them dead.

They've sworn to kill us all because we're "infidels". Funny, but religious fanaticism doesn't always get contempt. Guess it depends on what kind it is.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,400]

>They've sworn to kill us all because we're "infidels". Funny, but
> religious fanaticism doesn't always get contempt. Guess it depends
> on what kind it is.

Here you will see some pictures of some 'ragheads' performing a ceremony to mourn the victims of 9/11. Here are a few 'raghead' quotes:

Organization of the Islamic Conference: "These terrorist acts contradict the teaching of all religions and human and moral values."

Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar in San Francisco: "Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs."

Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Qatar: "Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin. This is backed by the Qur'anic verse which reads 'Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind' (Al-Ma'dah:32)."

King Abdullah II, of Jordan: "What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."