Nuclear threat by muslim extremists likely?

[Hunter]

OK call me nutz.

I fully expect a large dirty nuclear device to be set off somewhere in the US by Muslim extremists.


If ya think yes, why are ya still living on the East or left coast?

If no, why not?

It's my thought they'll take out #1. NYC or #2. DC.

A distant 3rd choice is Australia because they've been making Muslims toe the line and deporting those who don't.

I think DC because it's the political center of the so-called "free world".

When exactly?

Wish I knew. But sometime within the next 12 Mo's.

What do ya think?

[John Corry]

It's my thought they'll take out #1. NYC or #2. DC.

Good riddance. Hope they get a bunch of Senators/Congressmen when they do.

If ya think yes, why are ya still living on the East or left coast?

The radiation from a 'dirty bomb' in NYC or DC will be containable and low level. Not really all that dangerous. The damage done will be from the ensuing panic...not the device itself.

That being the case, you're no safer in WY than I am in GA. Eneergy, food supplies, the economy, travel, telecommunications...everything is so interconnected that an event of this sort anywhere in the nation will affect all of us.

FWIW, I think a smallpox (or similar) outbreak is more likely and would be much more effective at screwing things up in America.

[Don Wills]

I suspect a dirty bomb would be much less devastating than Katrina,
with few casualties and essentially no property damage - mostly just
panic for a couple of days and a ten block area deserted for a few
months.? IMO, a dirty bomb is more trouble than it's worth, so I
doubt that's what the attack will be.? The bad guys aren't stupid.

As Australia is really hard to get into, particularly for non-US citizens,
I suspect the bad guys won't do them.? They want to hit us here.

My bet would be a car/truck bomb type attack similar to the first
attack on the world trade center, and even though DC would
be their first choice, it's too well defended.? More specifically,
I'd bet on a suicide car bombing in front of some random
federal building somewhere on the east coast.

(I wonder if when the spooks in Fort Meade read this post I'll
be getting a knock on the door in the middle of the night.)

[MamaLiberty]

Ed Ward makes a pretty good case that it won't be the radical Muslims who will use the nuke. They may well get the blame (again), but someone else has the resources and an even better reason to use it.... Make up your own mind.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm

I didn't write it, but I'm very tempted to believe it.
MamaLiberty

[clemmac]

Good riddance. Hope they get a bunch of Senators/Congressmen when they do.

Are you forgetting about the already established and operational "shadow government" that exists right now in a secure underground bunker.  We'll have a spare government, right there, ready to "take care" of us even if there were a massive loss of life in DC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer

[MamaLiberty]

Perhaps, who knows.  The only thing that will stop them is the total collapse of the economy. When their phony money is no longer accepted anywhere, the entire government will screw itself into the ground quickly. They can't function at all without the endless streams of cash they print. The sooner nobody will take it, the better.

And no, it's not going to be a nice time for anyone, but we can survive if we get ready for it and stick together.

It would be nice if they waited until spring, however. Winter would be a real bad time for that to happen. sigh.
MamaLiberty

[Lady Liberty]

OK call me nutz.

I fully expect a large dirty nuclear device to be set off somewhere in the US by Muslim extremists.

I don't know about a dirty bomb, but yes, another terror attack is more than a little likely. And whether it's conducted by Muslim extremists or not, that's likely what we'll be told.

If ya think yes, why are ya still living on the East or left coast?

Because I haven't found anywhere for the big moving truck to park and unload. 

If no, why not?

It's my thought they'll take out #1. NYC or #2. DC.

A dirty bomb won't "take out" anywhere near a city. In fact, it's explosive power is no greater than whatever explosives it happens to be made out of. It's the limited area of radiation exposure and the ensuing panic that are the "terror" parts of dirt bombs.

That being said, NYC and DC are, of course, desirable targets, I'm sure. But both are fairly on the alert, and besides, wouldn't it be scarier if some random city got it instead? Then everybody, everywhere would be scared. And I'm pretty sure that's the point.

A distant 3rd choice is Australia because they've been making Muslims toe the line and deporting those who don't.

I dunno...not high enough profile, I suspect.

I think DC because it's the political center of the so-called "free world".

Potentially too secure. The place is crawling with cops and cameras these days.

When exactly?

Wish I knew. But sometime within the next 12 Mo's.

Maybe. I hope not TOO soon. I'd like to get the hell out of Dodge first, thanks!

What do ya think?

I think you should find me a nice place to move into. 

LL

[Hunter]

I don't know about a dirty bomb

I think I said "nuclear" Which means dirty and deadly.

I should have been more specific, eh?

It's being estimated 10-12 mill will die in the attack, either directly or because of its effects.

[Don Wills]

I don't know about a dirty bomb

I think I said "nuclear" Which means dirty and deadly.

I should have been more specific, eh?

It's being estimated 10-12 mill will die in the attack, either directly or because of its effects.

Yep, you should have been more specific.? FWIW, nuclear doesn't mean
dirty and deadly.? Some nuclear devices are actually pretty clean, particularly
if airburst. And it would have to be a really big bomb to kill 10 million,
something that is very unlikely.

Nuclear material is moderately easy to discover and track.? Given
the level of sophistication that we've seen in the middle east, IMO
the chance of an Islamic group detonating a device made with
radioactive material in the US is very small.? They are really good
with suicide belts, car/truck bombs and boxcutters, but that's about
the limit of their technological prowess.? Their success is more
related to their ability to mobolize large numbers of people against
us than it is to their technological capabilities.

[John Corry]

They are really good
with suicide belts, car/truck bombs and boxcutters, but that's about
the limit of their technological prowess.  Their success is more
related to their ability to mobolize large numbers of people against
us than it is to their technological capabilities.

That's the primary reason why I consider this to be a pretty remote threat.

The other is that even if they are able to pull it together to fabricate a nuclear weapon (it will be crude and low yield...if it goes at all), how many can they a) build and b) smuggle into the US undetected? My guess is one...MAYBE two.

Those 2 bombs will most certainly be set off in DC and NYC...not rural NE Georgia or anywhere else that I might live by the time they are able to do it.

Like I said, good riddance.

[Hunter]

Osama said he had one, I believe him. Furthermore, it's probably one of the ones the Russians are missing.

[Paul Bonneau]

If they decide to nuke someplace, DC and NY would be the obvious targets. I'd be worried some if I lived there.

They'd do it by buying one. They have lots of oil money, but no technical skill or infrastructure. Some countries have nukes (e.g., Kazackstan, I think) but those who control the nukes have not much money. Figure it out...

I'm not so sure they would do it, since the elimination of Mecca is a fairly likely response. Muslims don't want that. They can get almost as much mileage out of flying airplanes into buildings, and that's a lot cheaper and easier, and carries no such risk to Mecca. Although I'm not so confident as Chill is that nukes can't be smuggled in.

If they did wipe out NY and DC, I believe the effect on the rest of the country could be on net surprisingly little, at least on a personal level. What disruption would be caused by the loss of a federal government might be compensated by the increase in freedom that would result. The country might break down into two or three smaller ones though - not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm surprised Al Qaeda et. al. haven't done something even cheaper and easier: emulate the two idiots going around shooting randomly in DC. That had a tremendous effect on the people in DC and the cost was non-existent, and capture is even not that likely. Should be easy for someone who figures to go to heaven getting killed while shooting infidels. That they haven't done it, makes me think there might be a lot less to this terrorist threat than the gubmint is making out. But we all knew that...

[Don Wills]

I'm surprised Al Qaeda et. al. haven't done something even cheaper and easier: emulate the two idiots going around shooting randomly in DC. That had a tremendous effect on the people in DC and the cost was non-existent, and capture is even not that likely. Should be easy for someone who figures to go to heaven getting killed while shooting infidels. That they haven't done it, makes me think there might be a lot less to this terrorist threat than the gubmint is making out. But we all knew that...

You hit the nail on the head!? If they can't even get two wackos to
go on a shooting spree, or to set off a single car bomb or IED, then
the chance of them obtaining a nuke, learning how to use it, smuggling
it into the country, transporting it to DC/NY, and then setting it off seems
to me to be very near zero.

[Lady Liberty]

You hit the nail on the head!  If they can't even get two wackos to
go on a shooting spree, or to set off a single car bomb or IED, then
the chance of them obtaining a nuke, learning how to use it, smuggling
it into the country, transporting it to DC/NY, and then setting it off seems
to me to be very near zero.

No need to smuggle it in. I remember hearing a couple of years ago ? and then hearing it again ? that there are supposedly some suitcase nukes already here, smuggled in years ago by the Soviets. (Talk show host Michael Reagan interviewed a KGB defector on a couple of occasions on his show. If you're remotely paranoid, do NOT ever listen to this guy share anything of what he knows...)

But let's pretend for a minute that there aren't any suitcase nukes here now, and that as if this moment, we're entirely safe from any kind of nuclear attack. And now let's remember that our southern border leaks like a sieve, our northern border would if anybody was anywhere near as determined as the Mexicans to try it, and some 90% of shipping containers still go un-inspected. (Don't look at me ? I've been complaining that these things need to be addressed virtually since 9/11). al Qaeda has money, and we all know it's got the will. Assuming they can buy a techie to go with their new toy, smuggling something like that into the country isn't anything I'd imagine the planners are losing any sleep over.

But I think there was an earlier point that has some real validity to it, and that's the notion of retaliation. In a case like that, you can bet there'd be retaliation, and it would be a real example of "shock and awe!" There are some who might actually welcome the destruction of Mecca as being still a greater motivation to unite the world of Islam against us, but the single biggest problem is likely the fact that Mecca sits squarely in allied (nominally, anyway)  territory.

Personally, I think the terrorists' greatest effect has been to make us talk about it all the time, to set up color coded warning systems and invent ginormous new bureaucracies, to pass laws that curb our freedoms even as they prohibit singling out the most probable suspects lest we be accused of being racist, and etc.  (And yes, I do know that most of the things we've done have far less to do with terrorism than they do with exerting power and control over Americans.) It seems to me the terrorists aren't doing all that badly without the nuke...

LL

[Blaineus]

Personally, I think the terrorists' greatest effect has been to make us talk about it all the time, to set up color coded warning systems and invent ginormous new bureaucracies, to pass laws that curb our freedoms even as they prohibit singling out the most probable suspects lest we be accused of being racist, and etc.  (And yes, I do know that most of the things we've done have far less to do with terrorism than they do with exerting power and control over Americans.) It seems to me the terrorists aren't doing all that badly without the nuke...

LL

I agree with you whole heartedly.  They want to terrorize us.  The big guys "on our side" want it to happen that way.  Nukes are pretty definitive, stringing us out with plot after plot is probably more effective with both sides.  The terrorists disrupt our infidel way of life without us getting riled up enough to strike back with ultimate force we have, and the government gets to mold us like so much clay.

And I personally don't think they have even one nuclear device, outside of possibly some raw uranium in a box next to something like C4.