| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
From the Drudge Report, with thanks to dsvochak:
Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network....Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft.
Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer.
Posted by Robert at November 12, 2004 2:14 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I read this article some time ago-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/13/171536.shtml
Posted by: Carolyn2![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 12, 2004 2:32 PM
Well, a lot of us are hoping (and still waiting?) for the POTUS to take the gloves off- but it looks like at least a few of the Saudis are getting a jump on things.
And my wife says: 'Glad we don't live in the states!.
I wonder how long until Canada is hit....
Posted by: Gary at November 12, 2004 2:38 PM
Wow.
Go Saudi furballs, go! One blotched attempt at nuking the US, nay any western nation is all that's required for us to wipe you off the map forever with our conscience intact.
Heh, you should never both live in the water and pick fights with the crocodoile. Similarly, you should never both want to live and pick fights with a country that has 10,000 nukes....
Go figure.
Posted by: voletti at November 12, 2004 2:39 PM
So the Saudi Sheik agrees with the Dutch that they have the right to respond to the overt attacks on civilians by the Islamists that hide in the local Mosques.
The Dutch have my permission to use whatever force it takes to remove the occupying Army(Islam)
that has declared a "Holy-War" on them and notified the Government that a massive Jihad will slaughter thousands of non-Muslims. The Muslims that have remained silent and actually harboured
these thugs by allowing them to plot terrorism,are guilty and I'm surprised there weren't more Mosques torched.
The Muslims have been playing the victim far too long and only give lip-service when denouncing violence as un-Islamic,they should tell that to the Muslims that believe their version of the Quran is the correct one.
Muslims in Holland only make up about 0.0003
percent of the Worlds Muslims,maybe they have it all wrong and emulating Muhammed by murdering non-Muslims is a true practise of Islamic beliefs.
Did they really think the Dutch would lie down
and submit to Allah who is now the new Nazi threat to the World,Muslims have themselves to blame and I don't believe that terrorists could live in Holland and attend Mosques while not one Muslim knows what's going on.
Glad to see Germany is banning the Hijab and Islamic headscarfs that is really a ruse to proselatize their faith through wearing a costume
to depict Islam in public.
ISLAM MUST Gogh
at November 12, 2004 2:44 PM
I wonder if bin Laden's ever seen the movie "Crocodile Dundee"?
"That's not a nuke...THIS is a nuke!"
Posted by: lobo91 at November 12, 2004 2:47 PM
Gary:
This morning on the Canadian news two Palestinians in Canada threatened the Government to stop giving and aid to Israel since it contribute to the killing of his people.
Since Arafat is now gone I fear this news item was a call to Jihad by Muslims in Canada,lets not forget the Concordia riot where pro-Palestinians
smashed windows and spit on anyone appearing to look Jewish. I believe terrorist cells are waiting for their cue to strike and they Foreign-Student visa is a scam to get Muslim jihadists in the Country.
Dr.Elmasry (prof, and UofW) stated in public that all Israelis over 18 are valid targets for murder by suicide bombers be of the draft system that negates then being a innocent civilian.
He did not say people within Israel,it was All Israelis and that's why the Jewish foreign students attending the UofW fear for their lives
because of the Arab and Muslim students who also go to the UofW. The weasel is now claiming he never said it at all even though I watched both airings where he did say it,he's facing a "Hate-Crime" charge and is running scared despite his adamant demands for Police to charge others when a anti-Muslims comment is made.
Yesterday Palestine-House flew the Canadian flag at half-mast which is usually reserved for
Canadian heroes and people with Statehood.
Rememberance Day has been hijacked by Muslims and from now on Nov 11th will be "Arafat Day" with all the parades and tributes to the homosexual terrorist that robbed the Palestinians and funneled money to his wife in France.
The calim that Arafat was the best leader they'll ever have is a sad statement on the moral standards for Palestinians,was he the best they could do?.
at November 12, 2004 3:02 PM
Why can't we systematically assasinate all these clerics and shieks? They are the ones at the root of the problem.
The key to solving these problems is fuel cell vehicles. I am serious. The cars are designed and working. It is the infrastructure that is lacking.
at November 12, 2004 3:10 PM
Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority,..... Scheuer tells Kroft
If Osama had nukes I think he would have used them, I am just not sure that the typical Islamic delivery system ( Old Fiat ) will work?
The Islamic militants so far don’t seem to smart, could they care for and deliver a nuclear weapon? A nuclear weapon just isn’t that easy to make it detonate.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Fsswpnpr.html
I think that chemical or biological weapons would be much easier for them to use, manufacture and detonate.
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."
Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"
June 12, 2002
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802
at November 12, 2004 3:12 PM
Its time for the islamic wakos to realize something.
1. hit us with a nuke and we will utterly destroy anything islamic.
2. We dont care !!!!! anymore.
3. The quickest way to end all of the islamic countries is to hit us with one.
We will destroy every stinking islamic piece of crap nation on this world.
Period.
Go ahead make my day.
at November 12, 2004 3:15 PM
Well now, doesn't this revelation change the whole equation in the WOT. A Saudi Cleric?Doesn't that tie the Saudi's to any future attacks on the U.S? So doesn't that mean that the next attack on the U.S can and should be answered with the full and complete obliteration of the entire rotten Arab / Muslim population of the middle east? I really don't think the Saudi's would be stupid enough to allow UBL to pop off a nuke on the USA knowing full well they would be committing their own suicide, and I futher suspect that Powell has relayed as much to the Saudi's. I'll be more concerned now about some other psycho that wouldn't feel compelled to have clarical approval before doing something so heinous as touching off a nuke or bio attack.
Posted by: krkrjak at November 12, 2004 3:15 PM
I wonder what Ibrahim Hooper and 'moderate' Muslims will have to say about this?
Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2004 3:25 PM
krkrjk posts:
Doesn't that tie the Saudi's to any future attacks on the U.S? So doesn't that mean that the next attack on the U.S can and should be answered with the full and complete obliteration of the entire rotten Arab / Muslim population of the middle east?
I think it should be made quite clear to the Saudis that we will hold them responsible for this. One single nuke goes off and it's no more hajj - EVER.
Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2004 3:30 PM
My spencer.
I personally wanted to say.
A. Thanks for your teriffic site.
B. Thank you for letting us participate
(it means a whole lot to me)
C. The information is invaluable
(yes i get worked up sometimes)
but the information is quite an eye opener.
We may disagree on some things but that is what freedom of speech actually means.
We can disagree without killing each other.
I wish the muslims would learn this.
anyway with some sorrow
Thank You
I hope we dont have a war.
But I am preparing for it.
at November 12, 2004 3:37 PM
Question:
If the Chechens got their hands on pocket nukes, why haven't they frizzle-fried Moscow by now??
at November 12, 2004 3:39 PM
If Rubbishbin Laden had a Nuke, he would have used it by now! Remember last appearance of our Muslim Hero, not an AK47 or Rocket Launcher in site, this guy is losing his power and knows it, hence his elaborate robes and 'I am a Religious Man of Peace' bullshit to the American people. Baghdad Butcher Zarqawi is also on the run. The 'Holy Warriors' will soon be in holes or captured. If it's alright for Osama to get rid of Infidels from 'his region' then hey, it's okay for the Dutch to use force to get rid of their Muslim Rats - guess we all can, "Bless you Buddy for your helpful suggestion..."
Posted by: Morgane at November 12, 2004 3:52 PM
Remember the scene from austin powers where he was showing the US leaders the scene of the white house blowing up from 'independence day' while trying to get a billion dollars from them? Since the islamists and jihadists LOVE making threats...why not answer their threats with what our response would be packaged in a video made by some of our best special effects people...mecca and its inhabitants being melted, perhaps with the caption "the future of mecca should an islamic nuke even attempt to hit any western country" and I am sure they could make it look VERY REAL...this would not be a THREAT...merely a RESPONSE to his...and we all know how the jihadists ADORE video.
Posted by: USAgirl at November 12, 2004 3:56 PM
Alot of good a Saudi cleric's blessings do.....bin Laden should be asking for a normal sized heart and kidneys that allow him to pee on his own....
Posted by: DCWatson at November 12, 2004 3:56 PM
Morgane-
I'm inclined to believe some jihadist organization would have set one of these off by now as well. We're all assuming here that it's as simple as pushing a button to trigger one of these nuclear devices, and I'm skeptical that is the case. I would think some kind of code or something is required that the terrorists have been unable to determine as of yet.
at November 12, 2004 4:04 PM
jingoist -
Go ahead and start cleaning your gun, but I don't think it's quite time for "duck and cover". Let's not overreact here.
at November 12, 2004 4:13 PM
BTW-
Good one, DCWatson.
While we're freaking on nukes, maybe a little radioactive humor will lighten our moods. This is some great stuff, enjoy-
Nuke the Moon, by Frank J. at IMAO:
http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm
Actually it might make good policy. It would certainly make the jihadists wonder whether the there would be a hajj next year...
at November 12, 2004 4:19 PM
So I assume the old cold war doctrine of MAD has been obsolete for quite some time.
What policy guides US response to a nuclear attack by Islamic jihadi warriors within US borders?
This is why the immigration invasion and multiculturalism is an insane notion that has made America vulunerable in a way we were not when facing our previously identified foe, the Soviets.
I think a nuclear detonation in America may well occur, but an American nuclear response must be assured and followed by mass deportations. The only question is against whom?
Posted by: Andrew at November 12, 2004 4:20 PM
We START with the Saudis, Andrew.
Posted by: Mike at November 12, 2004 4:25 PM
Here's the link to the Timothy McVeigh
book that connects him to Islamic terrorism
in the Oklahoma bombing.
at November 12, 2004 4:39 PM
MIKE
I agree. But there's enough plausable deniability within the structure of the Islamist threat we face which would make it difficult to justify a nuclear attack against any given country.
Thats the genius of the Arab way of war, they lack a clear command structure. Islamist supporting governments are sheltered because they all lack transparancy and can claim plausable deniability.
I hope the strategists have made it clear to the Pakastanis or Saudis that the threshold for nuclear response is significantly lower in the case of a nuclear detonation in America.
You have Islamic governments saying one thing and then doing another, your propagandists, apologists, colonists, jihadists....It really is an Ummah with one focus of purpose, to win the world over to their religious Ideology with the greatest of urgency.
Posted by: Andrew at November 12, 2004 4:45 PM
This article assumes that these people have honor and morals.In fact there are no rules of engagement from their side and they are capable of literally anything.Al Qaeda had considered crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor in the US but abandoned that plan.However detonating a nuclear device is a lot easier said then done as you just don't purchase a nuclear device and save it for a rainy day.Nuclear weapons require care and maintenance or else they deteriorate quickly and are rendered useless.
Posted by: Roxane at November 12, 2004 4:51 PM
Here is a detailed "justification" for these
psychopaths genocidal ambitions:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR2504
I fear it is not a question of "if" any more but
"when"
at November 12, 2004 4:58 PM
You know, Nixon wanted to invade Saudi Arabia in 1973, but Europe persuaded him not to.
Now, I wish he had. It sure would have solved the Islam problem.
Posted by: Voltaire at November 12, 2004 5:02 PM
voletti, lobo91, jingoist, Bar, USAgirl and all you other wonderful (and I MEAN that, really I DO) posters here:
Don't you know that DYING in the name of allah at the hands of an infidel is the highest honor these bastards can accomplish??!?!
They WANT to die by our hands - they think they're guaranteed 72 virgins (I heard they all look like Olive Oyl from the Robin Williams "Popeye" movie) in paradise if that occurs, and they all simply figure ANYWHERE is better than the dirt floor they currently pee, eat and sleep on.
Let's give them what they want, and the sooner the better. Today three rocket-scientist palestinians accidently BLEW THEMSELVES UP in their suicide car bomb before they could deliver the vehicle to its 'proper' destination. That's probably what would happen would these muslims get their hands on a nuclear weapon -- they'd blow it, themselves and their surroundings up before they could get to where they wanted to go. Heck, let's GIVE 'em a nuke and watch the fireworks via satellite. Let's give it to the cleric in Saudi Arabia. Who's got his address?
Posted by: yahudimrevenge at November 12, 2004 5:37 PM
On September 11, 2001 the President of the United States flew to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana aboard one of two B747 aircraft normally used for Air Force One missions (VC025A). It is believed that at Barksdale, the president and only a handful of his senior staff, changed planes and embarked upon another B747, one of four configured as airborn strategic command centers (E-4B) and flew to Offutt AFB in Nebraska. He spent the greater part of that fateful day in the underground USSTRATCOM Command Center (a.k.a. "molehole"), that was described to the press by White House counsel Karen Hughes as a "secure undisclosed location".
For the first time in history, the President of the United States was physically present during an actual national emergency, in the room from which the National Command Authority is broadcast to all three legs of the US nuclear triad. While the safety of the president was a concern, it was more important that the ability to issue the NCA command was preserved during the emergency. The NCA can be issued by the President, the Vice-President, or the Secretary of Defense, in that order. The Vice-President was in the White House situation room and the Secretary of Defense was in the burning Pentagon. Noone was sure at the time whether more attacks on Washington, including the White House, were coming, so it was decided that the best course of action was to transport the president to the Command Center itself.
Only when the true scope of the attack could be assessed was it deemed safe to bring the president back to Washington, or more precisely, to physically separate him from the Command Center.
What I have described above should sober anyone who might harbor a doubt about how serious the United States is about using nuclear weapons (again) if necessary. Of course it is not necessary that the NCA be physically located in the Command Center or aboard the E-4B to issue the command to launch nuclear forces (think "football") but having the president in the Command Center itself completely cut out the entire communications infrastructure that connects the NCA to the source of the command transmission to the launch platforms worldwide.
It is possible that the world has never been closer to global nuclear holocaust than it was on 9/11.
at November 12, 2004 5:37 PM
Hello all,
If I could hijack this thread for 2 secs...
I may not get a chance over the weekend so I'd like to wish Mr. Spencer & all the postees here a very happy Eid Mubarak. May Allah (swt) give your the spiritual bliss and the power to relax.
Now you can get back to Nuking Saudi Arabia....bye!
Posted by: Naseem at November 12, 2004 5:53 PM
As Andrew says,
plausable deniability has been the trump card for arab/islamic terrorists for years, one that arafat was super adept in using, and that saudi, iraq, syria and lets not forget iran consider leaves them not vunerable to retribution.
What upsets me is to hear the lefties and the lawyer types handle this war as if it is a criminal case and proof must be 100% before we make our move, very appealing to young ( stupid ) idealists.
Also, don't want retribution, want to stop the attacks happening.
Nothing like a good offense as the best defense.
Posted by: dby
at November 12, 2004 6:06 PM
We should make it quite clear to the Saudis, Osama, and any Islamist who think of such an act. If one nuclear weapon goes off in the US the result will be that Mecca and Medina will become the worlds largest free form glass sculptures. That'll give them something to mull(ah) over.
Posted by: eklektos at November 12, 2004 6:30 PM
To all...
Isn't it comforting knowing that a couple or more of those just plain nasty as hell bad boy Trident Submarines are loitering out there in the Indian Ocean /Pursian Gulf.
BTW, I got this from a pretty reliable source, The "martyred" ones are in for a big shock when they get to Allah land because those 72 virgins ARE virgin because they don't have vaginas.
Posted by: krkrjak at November 12, 2004 6:34 PM
Osama bin Laden, alleged international terrorist leader, in an interview with ABC News December 1998 Asked whether and how nuclear weapons would be used: "To seek to possess the weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."
Osama bin Laden, “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam” pamphlet, May 29, 1998
“It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God.”
From : http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/resources/20030101_bb_tnw.pdf
I wonder if Mr Scheuer knows about this stuff?
I dont think Osama needs anyone to give him the OK!
at November 12, 2004 6:37 PM
This rhetoric is nothing new. They feel that 4 million Americans or so should die as revenge and compensation, for the millions of Muslims that American government and Military have caused, in their view. There is no diplomacy left. I hope we are diligent and find the sleeper cells and suitcase nukes before the extremist Muslims are given orders to act.
Posted by: juicealot at November 12, 2004 6:44 PM
Wait just one second....how many times have we heard that the attacks are "unislamic" or "have nothing to do with islam" yes and even "those that carry out the attacks are not 'true muslims'" why oh why then would a so called islamic holy man, a cleric (I am sure we will hear that this particular cleric is a small figure in the islamic world with little to no pull) give religious permission to commit terrorism...hmmmm...sounds based in religion to me, Im not sure if even dan blather could put a 'muslims are our friends and mean us no harm' spin on this one
Posted by: USAgirl at November 12, 2004 6:45 PM
very happy Eid Mubarak
Posted by: Naseem
Is that arabic for we are most happy that Arafat the human pig is dead?
Posted by: Bar at November 12, 2004 7:13 PM
Ala-sux, sooner or later we are going to say to the Canadian Government "I told you so!" If our liberal government continues to buy votes from muslim and palistinian riff-raffs in this country, it won't be long till we see a 9/11 style terror attack on our soil.
No islam in Canada, Know peace in Canada.
Posted by: Ummagumma at November 12, 2004 8:21 PM
Come off it, guys.
The Islamic world is on yet another suicide mission. Sure, Americans can be massacred en masse with nuclear explosives. But remember, Americans have many, many more of them than the Muslims do --or could manfacture or purchase-- and can use them with greater accuracy and efficiency. Islam will be wiped off the face of the earth as the ultimate human sacrifice perpetrated by muslims to its own manufactured deity, Al-lah. So long, suckers.
at November 12, 2004 8:36 PM
Yahudimrevenge,
You are right, the jihadists are dying to die for Allah but they do have one morbid fear: the destruction of Islam. They would all sacrifice their children, their mothers, themselves, for Allah but their beloved Islam must endure and fulfill its manifest destiny---world domination. If Mecca and Medina were destroyed, Islam's back would be broken. It might survive, but it would be severely crippled.
Before this jihad is over, Islam's holy shrines may be the only things they aren't willing to sacrifice. Maybe not.
at November 12, 2004 8:40 PM
Naseem says:
Hello all,If I could hijack this thread for 2 secs...
I may not get a chance over the weekend so I'd like to wish Mr. Spencer & all the postees here a very happy Eid Mubarak. May Allah (swt) give your the spiritual bliss and the power to relax.Now you can get back to Nuking Saudi Arabia....bye!
I say:
What is your point, Naseem? We are discussing hypotheticals here. What do you think the Western reaction will be if we are nuked? Even if the New York Times and Michael Moore, etc., all together said, "The West deserved what it got; if you stopped oppressing those poor Muslims, then they wouldn't be so mad at you.", do you think that even a small percentage of people in the West would buy that unadulterated BS? I'm sorry. It would be just like Pearl Harbour. There would be no mercy. Radical Muslims just do not know what they are up against. We aren't even all that pissed off yet. You haven't seen the West when we are really upset.
Posted by: Admiral Don Juan at November 12, 2004 9:03 PM
What the jihadists don't understand is that they have not yet awakened the sleeping giant, but if they do decide to nuke us, the giant will awaken and unleash its nuclear arsenal on them wherever the hide!!!!!!!!!!!!
bud
Posted by: BudFox at November 12, 2004 9:26 PM
You know, only today someone tried to persuade me that radical clerics that condone terrorism are in minority. If so, where are those that condemn terrorism? It seems that being peaceful is against fundamental beliefs of Islam.
Posted by: Sen at November 12, 2004 9:57 PM
BTW we still don't know who was behind the Anthrax attacks. Although if it were muslims they wouldn't have been able to keep from bragging about it.
Posted by: Sen at November 12, 2004 9:59 PM
Here are some interesting facts:
//armageddononline.tripod.com/nuclear.htm
er than that in the centre of the sun.
Who is known to have access to these weapons?
Seven countries declare that they have nuclear weapons - the USA, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan. Israel is also known to have nuclear weapons but has never admitted it. South Africa is the only other country to have developed nuclear weapons but subsequently destroyed them. So we are left with eight nations.
Which of these threatens the US?
In order to pose a threat to the US, these countries need to get the warheads into range. For this, one of four things are needed:
1. Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). These have ranges of thousands of kilometres, allowing countries to destroy each other from great range.
2. Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). These are nuclear weapons launched from a submarine. The submarine can be move close enough to a rival to destroy it with even short range missiles.
3. Nearby missile bases. America has missile bases in Europe and, until fairly recently, Turkey. The USSR attempted to place missiles on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
4. Portable nuclear weapons, for example 'Suitcase Bombs'. These are small nuclear weapons that can be delivered by hand into an enemy's city, and then detonated. Another example would be placing nuclear bombs in trucks and driving into a city.
Of our seven other nuclear countries (excluding the US), Britain and France are NATO allies. India, Pakistan and Israel lack either a reason or the capability to hit the USA. This leaves China and Russia. They have both the ability and, potentially, the motive to attack America.
A Chinese missile strike would be devastating. Hundreds of cities would be destroyed, including every major one. But a Russian strike would be far worse. Virtually the entire population of America outside a nuclear bunker would be destroyed. Russia could scorch the entire surface of America many times over.
Which other states have nuclear weapons programs?
Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced nuclear program. It had a state-of-the-art facility at Al Atheer, near Baghdad. This facility was destroyed by UN weapons inspectors in 1992. A plant was being built at Tarmiya that would allow Iraq to produce enough enriched uranium to construct a nuclear weapon every two years. Their research was helped by former Soviet scientists. Before Iraq's defeat in the Gulf war, nobody knew of this research, showing how nuclear monitoring is insufficient.
A CIA report to Congress revealed that Iran is the most aggressive pursuer of nuclear weapons. In 1996 Iran attempted to acquire the required equipment from South Africa. In 1998 the Jerusalem Post reported that Iran had stolen to nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan. A US intelligence report said it was 98% sure that Iran had the necessary components for 2 or 3 nuclear weapons. Iran also ahs the necessary missiles to hit much of Europe.
North Korea is also believed to have a nuclear program. It has a nuclear reactor at Yogbyon, which uses MAGNOX technology, making excellent for producing weapons grade plutonium. Several more reactors are planned, which would give a total output of weapons grade plutonium of 230kg per year - enough for 40 nuclear weapons.
How difficult would it be for terrorists to construct nuclear weapons?
Many terrorists, like Al Qaeda, are extremely well financed, and fanatical enough to commit an atrocity on this scale. They may also be able to pay former Soviet nuclear scientists, some of whom have helped other countries with nuclear research. The design would not be difficult - in an experiment three physics students were able to design a nuclear weapon using only freely available information. Well-researched terrorist could construct a bomb with little difficulty if they acquired sufficient plutonium. This is not impossible - nuclear reactors produce such fuel and many of these are in countries, such as North Korea that may be willing to sell. Al Qaeda has already tried to purchase plutonium in Sudan.
Could terrorists have nuclear weapons?
Nobody knows, but it is possible. The collapse of the USSR has led to the possibility of many nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands. Many terrorists would dream of creating such a weapon, but it would be cheaper to get ready made devices from the former USSR. The greatest risk from these could be 'suitcase bombs' - nuclear weapons the size of suitcases, which a terrorist could simply walk into a city with.
Why are suitcase bombs such a great risk?
Russia created around 250 suitcase bombs - nuclear weapons the size of suitcases. According to a Soviet defector called Aleksander Lebed it has lost track of more than 100 - each of which could kill more than 100,000 people. Many of these bombs were distributed and hidden in hostile countries. Possibly the worst effect of a terrorist nuclear device would be that it could trigger a nuclear war. If America thought Russia had used nuclear weapons against it, it would not hesitate to retaliate; so one small nuclear device could kill billions.
at November 12, 2004 11:30 PM
If a nuclear islamic attack occured in the US,it would most probably be against a city on the east or the west coast,in other words,a liberal dominated area of America.
And eventhough these people are the most exposed to such an attack,as it did happened on 9/11 in New York City,they are the ones that find immediate excuses for the islamic terrorists,blaming America in the mean time....
I sure hope such an attack will never occur,but if it does,the leftist will find a plausible excuse,and the moderate muslims will say the attack was un-islamic and the perpetrators were not true muslims.
Are we going to continue to buy their lies?!
at November 12, 2004 11:35 PM
And then there is this:
Nuclear Terrorism --- How To Prevent It
Direct address for this page is: www.nci.org/nuketerror.htm
INDEX:
Introduction
Recent Developments / links
Are Reactors Adequately Protected Against Attack? / links / related news
Could Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons? / links / related news
Would We Know if Fissile Materials Were Stolen? / links / related news
Are Nuclear Weapons Vulnerable to Theft? / links / related news
How Vulnerable are Russian Weapons, Fissile Materials, and Reactors? / links
Are "Dirty Bombs" a Major Terrorism Risk? / links / related news
The International Task Force on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism / links
Key Studies Prepared for the Task Force
"Nuclear Terrorism: Defining the Threat" - NCI book / links
Other Key Nuclear Terrorism Documents / links
Other Key Nuclear Terrorism Web Sites
What You Can Do
Compilation of related News stories
at November 12, 2004 11:37 PM
In case some of you don't know, Michael Scheuer is the person who wrote "Imperial Hubris." I never read the book, but Ali Sina takes him to task here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina41107.htm
Based on the title of the book (and Sina's analysis), I don't think that Michael Scheuer knows much about Islam.
Posted by: Rublev at November 13, 2004 12:14 AM
Muslims,
Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and others are your worst enemy. Their actions are what turned the world against you.
For the sake of your families, turn these people over to authorities and stop threatening us.
Posted by: cross at November 13, 2004 3:54 AM
Ad Nauseum:
When you finish celebrating the holey month of Ramadan, instead of exposing your ignorance and hypocracy on this site, check out the anti-stoning site instead. It's listed on the left column of the DhimmiWatch.org site as well as this one. There's a stoning edict in Pakistan that they are trying to publicize and I'm sure they'd appreciate some local support.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 13, 2004 11:44 AM
Sen-
Concerning the anthrax attack, it was initially reported that there was unidentified white powder found in the trunk of Mohammed Attta's car when he obviously didn't show up to claim it. To this date, we have heard no followup whatsoever, only clues from the media that these attacks were the work of an American physician working on biolical terrorism. It has also been reported that he made several queries about crop dusters.
To me, the press goons or hired who-knows-what goons have never made their case concerning the American civilian, whose name escapes me at the moment.
I'd still like to hear more of what was found in Atta's car.
Posted by: kafira at November 13, 2004 5:16 PM
Hey Naseem,
It's a modification of a cold war strategy. Only now it's called IAD instead of MAD. (Islams Assured Destruction). Think we're playing, just remember that Osama thought we wouldn't retaliate for 9/11. Do you think they can afford to be wrong again?
Posted by: eklektos at November 13, 2004 11:23 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)