That's what I'm thinking haven. I think all of this is mindgames. bin Laden thinks he is in control, all of a sudden he has nuclear weapons? He doesn't have biological weapons, anthrax pops up, suddenly everyone is thinking about every single biological weapon under sun, small pox everything. He doesn't have nuclear weapons, suddenly partially burned alleged plans for nuclear weapons are found, now everyone is thinking about every single type of nuclear weapon under the sun, including suit cases. It would have been easier, and a lot more successful for bin Laden to use biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons yet they had to hijack planes. People keep saying this guy is smart, maybe he is. And wouldn't a smart person who is losing try to drop doubts and fear in people's minds? The Taliban, bin Laden, the way they have been trying to win this war is to get the U.S. to stop attacking. And the way they have been trying to do this is get the American people to suddenly panic and beg the military to stop their campaign. First they tried to drop anthrax and get people to think they had biological weapons. That didn't work. So now they suddenly have nuclear weapons, bin Laden suddenly has something nations around the world like Iraq couldn't get, and, how convenient, we find their plans sitting somewhere after they turned tail and ran. Mind games plain and simple.
Oh, one other thing... just read mc mark and treeman's latest posts. 1. It's possible the nukes are already in the US, of course. However, you've got to remember that nobody knows exactly how well all these plans are coordinated. Al Queda's structure is amporphous, meaning that while he funded it, bin Laden might not have known exactly what Atta and his cronies were up to. 2. Concerning the "ace in the hole" argument: Such could only be true if they view nukes as a possible deterrent. If you're just trying to inflict as much damage as possible, it makes no sense to hold your strongest weapon in reserve where it might get captured. The nuclear threat is entirely new. A few weeks ago, these people were saying "America will never feel secure until Arabs do..." and "stay out of planes." Now it's suddenly a nuclear threat? I have trouble buying all of this
Ok, think of it this way. How come an organization that hasn't used anything stronger then planes and small bombs suddenly have nuclear devices? How come they have nuclear weapons and haven't used them yet, yet they had to hijack planes? Why would they need an ace in the hole is my thoughts. They flew a plane into a building. Wouldn't it have been easier and a lot more effective to use these alleged nuclear bombs? How convenient is it that the U.S. is tearing them apart and suddenly they say "look we have a nuclear bomb!" That isn't any different then you being at home when someone breaks into your house, you're weaponless, but to scare the burglar off you scream that you have a gun. Fear factor. Now suddenly there are people afraid of nuclear devices in suitcases. They're doing their job well.
Just a couple of facts: 1) The Russians are unsure how many suitcase nukes are missing, but they are sure that at least a few are missing. Is they are missing, then someone else has them. There are no two ways about that. 2) The Russian Mafiya has been caught trying to sell nuclear material 9 separate times. Caught 9 times, so there's a lot of room there to speculate on what they've gotten away with. 3) There have been credible reports that the Mafiya has offered suitcase nukes at a million dollars a pop; reports say that they have up to 20 of them. Osama has reportedly bought several of these, the CIA believes two. Now, if you guys want to believe the "since he hasn't used them yet, he doesn't have them" argument - I dunno, maybe it lets you sleep at night - that's fine. But I personally hope to hell that the FBI is scrambling and chasing down every possible lead right now, because the CIA isn't prone to fantasies.
Think about it this way. From what the FBI says, they planned these plane attacks for 2 years. These terrorists are planners, they're not a couple of goofs running around waiving grenades. Every time they carry out something it's a bigger and more elaborate crime. Who's to say they don't have a long string of crimes planned and that at some time recently they finally got ahold of a couple of suitcase nukes. They're not going to dump years of planning on other potential acts just to jump the gun on something new. If they were to get these nukes they would want a plan so well done that they could not be caught or stopped. After all, the nukes can't be bought or stolen from any street corner. I don't think it's wise to assume that these people who have shown to be patient planners, who have operatives and sleepers around the world, are suddenly going to stop everything they're doing and rush to use nukes without a great deal of planning to ensure success.
The CIA has maintained that even if he DOES have nuclear material (which is uncertain), he wouldn't have activation codes. So if he sets it off, the best he could have would be a "dirty nuke." Not pretty, but substantially less dangerous.
If these people are so smart, why in the hell would they want to start an all out war against them ... knowing they will lose. The whole world has cracked down on terrorism ... and not for the US's sake. They fear they will be attacked too. Personally, I don't think Bin Laden counted on doing this much damage...and he f--ked up more than he intended.
haven: That is exactly what I've been saying all along - dirty nukes. But you are incorrect that they are substantially less dangerous - they may actually be more dangerous, depending on where they are detonated. If a suitcase nuke is detonated in a downtown area, it would likely kill a few tens of thousands of people. But if a dirty nuke (a converted suitcase nuke) was detonated in a downtown area on a windy day, it could kill a million or two people. It is essentially a poison weapon.
Space Ghost: They definitely miscalculated where our actions in Afghanistan are concerned, but it would be a mistake to equate that tactical error with a lack of sophistication. They are very intelligent; if anything else 9/11 should show how clever they can be. They're just insane, and insane people make errors in judgement.
You know, i've heard widely conflicting reports about that, probably since it's never happened. Some people seem to think that while there would of course be some cancer, mutation, and genetic defects in off-spring, the results would be relatively (key word) minor. I've also heard the claim you make, that millions could be affected.
haven: It really - literally - depends on how the wind is blowing. And if it rains, then it might not kill even a hundred people. But if the wind is blowing right... Plutonium is the poison that's the byproduct that's spewed out into the air, and it is one of the deadliest substances known to man if inhaled or ingested. A microgram would kill you. If the wind was blowing hard that day and dispersed it over a wide area... Of course if it started raining immediately after the detonation, well, I might convert to Christianity. The potential for a high death tally from such an attack is enormous, though. It just depends on the circumstances.
The irony is that his actions achieved the exact opposite effect of what had been hoped for. Thew world did not divide. It United. Bin Laden must be so pissed his urine is burning.
Check this out.Looks to me like these things are pretty easy to use In the 1960s the U.S. built its own version of a mini nuclear device-- the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). It weighed 80-100 pounds, was small enough to fit in a duffel bag or large case and was designed for sabotage missions-- airfields, bridges, dams. Like the Russian device, it had an explosive charge of roughly one thousand tons of TNT ( one kiloton). Film of the SADM was declassified in 1997 and shows how it would be deployed by a parachutist for a jump mission into water to reach a target. Although the parachute jumps and retrieval operations were rehearsed many times, the project was never put to use and these nuclear devices do not exist in current stockpiles. This shows how the SADM was designed for a parachute jump and "swimmer delivery system." The SADM was fit into a special flotation bag so the atomic munition would float when the parachutist hit the water. This clip also shows how the flotation bag was designed to attach to the parachutist's body. VIDEO 1 This shows test jumps into water from several Navy and Marine aircraft, and how the Navy parachutist- with the SADM attached- swims to target and de-attaches and activates the bomb. VIDEO 2
An interesting article on the nuclear weapon issue from the Nation Magazine. by Robert Scheer Real Evildoer? The World's Nuclear Arsenal Once again, we're being sold on the devil theory of history. Not that Osama bin Laden doesn't fit the bill as the Satan of the moment, just as Saddam Hussein did in the previous Bush Administration. But it's dangerous nonsense to suggest, as President Bush does, that we're up against an evildoer the likes of whom we've never seen. While it's certainly necessary to eliminate bin Laden's terrorist cohort, that will hardly end the prospect of mayhem in this world. We lull ourselves into a false sense of security when we insist that madness is the exclusive province of one group of extremists, or that it inevitably finds its locus in one religion or region of the world. When it comes to genocide, bin Laden is a minor contender. We've witnessed far worse from the good Germans, mostly well-educated, law-abiding Protestants and Catholics who killed 6 million Jews in the worst example of religious hatred ever. The United States caused the death of millions in Vietnam in a more recent war that never bore any reasonable caonnection to our security, as Lyndon Johnson's recently released tapes reveal. And what about Cheshire cat Vladimir V. Putin, a top KGB apparatchik when Soviet forces killed more that a million Afghan innocents, whose Russian troops now slaughter Chechen civilians? By personalizing evil, Bush ignores the role of our allies and ourselves in making this such a dangerous world. That's clear when one assesses the true risks of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which Bush in his UN speech warned bin Laden would use, saying, "No hint of conscience would prevent it." What hint of conscience prevented the United States from being the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons, killing at least 115,000 civilians in an assault that makes the World Trade Center attack pale in comparison? Clearly, it's the leading nations that have created the world's huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, and if there's a danger in their use now by terrorists, it's only because those nations' stocks have been pilfered or sold and their scientists bribed. If bin Laden possesses such weapons, it's through purchases on the black market or because he had the backing of nation-states, with Pakistan at the head of the list. He couldn't have done it alone. We've had him and his operation under constant observation, following President Clinton's orders to disable him. It's inconceivable that such an operation could have been directed undetected from the caves of Afghanistan. However, Pakistan has been hellbent on producing nuclear weapons, its program directed by scientists holding fanatical Islamist views who were forced to resign only after September 11. Also forced to resign, as an additional obvious embarrassment, was the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency, which has been intimate with the Taliban and bin Laden. The Pakistan-India nuclear arms race is the most dangerous confrontation in the world, yet we suddenly ended sanctions against those countries and will reward Pakistan's military dictator with $1 billion in high-tech military assistance for turning against his old buddies, the Taliban. China is another nuclear-armed state that only recently was accused by the US government of stealing our most valuable nuclear secrets. Indeed, the FBI all but ignored bin Laden as it kept 100 agents assigned to Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, producing a case so weak that Lee was never even charged with spying. Now that Bush has embraced China as yet another ally in the war against terrorism, the alleged theft of our rocket and nuclear technology is conveniently forgotten. We are fickle in our anger and grief; new enemies replace the old while the flag is waved and unity achieved. This is understandably therapeutic, as is the desire for revenge through bombing, even if it means killing children and starving the population. But it does not address the larger threat to the world's security. Rest assured that bin Laden soon will be reduced to a violent footnote. But the danger to our civilization presented by the cold war residue of weapons of mass destruction, which we and other civilized nations continue to produce, will haunt us long after bin Laden is a dim if bizarre memory.
(message from glynch) "The evil US is killing children and waving its nukes at other countries in an attempt to bully them into slavery!!!" That's it in a nutshell. Is it any wonder why many of us feel like when we read a glynch-post nowadays? I know I'm not the only one.
Treeman, as I said I will be more selective in responding to your quotes. However, .YOUR NEWEST TACTIC OF DELIBERATELY TRYING TO ASSOCIATE ME DISHONESTLY WITH A FALSE QUOTE YOU CONCOCTED IS BEYOND THE PALE. If you have any honor you will appologize for your false quote of your completely fictititious (message from glynch). You may not like my politics but you should not lie and be so blatantly dishonest. As I've said before you discredit yourself and your political opinions by such tactics. I ask others to tell treeman to stop such dishonesty.
glynch, I just did a search for the "article" you speak of.....no dice. Did you make it all up yourself? Prove it exists. post a link or somethiing....at thenation.com under their listing for Robert Sheer's articles, it doesnt have one listed for "The Real Evildoer"....not online or in print. Just because Sheer writes the kind of drivel that you agree with doesn't mean you can make one up and attribute it to him.
2K, why is it drivel? Whether he made it up, which I am not inclined to think he did, doesn't really matter. What does matter is the content...what in that article do you find so repulsing that you dismiss it as drivel? In defense of glynch, "bullying" US policy has been well-documented...Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, East Timor, the Phillipines...I could go on.
