• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Al-Qaida has obtained tactical nuclear explosives?

Is it Al-Qaida bluster or is it the worst possible scenario?

  • My guess is they have them.

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • They might have them and we should take it seriously.

    Votes: 12 37.5%
  • Not enough information.

    Votes: 10 31.3%
  • Highly unlikely. If they had them, why haven't they used them?

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • No way. The Soviets had good control over their nukes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other options as described below.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,737
Points
54
Well, I would have to say 'bluster'.

For good measure though, the intelligence community should keep an eye on this.

This was the first thing that popped into my head at about noon on 9/11/2001.

I voted #2, just because I want to believe that they have at least some shred of humanity and will not use the devices.
 

PlannerByDay

Cyburbian
Messages
1,827
Points
24
This is some pretty frightening stuff.

I think they may have them. I agree with the article that they will not use them in the Middle East on american interests. They will save them for American soil to prove we are still vurneralbe.

Al-Qaida IMO is more of a terrorist threat than Ole Saddam is/was and this is evident by 9/11. This "war on terrorism" should be taking place in Afghanistan the real threat, not Iraq. George Dubya (an oil hungry, big business (ie Haliburton) friendly, Yahoo) has nearly turned his back on Al-Qaida and they are regathering and another attack WILL occur. Lets just hope it is not with a nuke device.
 
Last edited:

otterpop

Cyburbian
Messages
6,655
Points
28
The countries of the former Soviet Union haven't had a sterling record keeping track of their nucs, so it's certainly possible and worth keeping an eye on. But on the other hand, it could be just talk. Let's get British intelligence and the CIA right on this. We can be sure they won't get us any false or overblown infomation on which to base our foreign and military policies.
 

martini

Cyburbian
Messages
678
Points
19
I voted #2 as well. I think that they MAY have them. Why they haven't used them yet? I dunno know. Maybe they DO have a shred of humanity beneath the extremeist boasting. I can only hope that they only use this as a threat, and never actually use the damned things. That would be bad. IMHO, if Bush simply stayed in Afgahnistan, hunting down Osama(and was successful), he would be very difficult to beat this year. His blunder in Iraq may have cost him a second term(not that I want to turn this into a political thread).
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,434
Points
39
I voted that it is likely and we should be vigilant.

I read the article and am somewhat skeptical of the original source given the fact that no other news services that I checked are carrying it at this moment.

I fear that there is a desire by al Qaeda et al to acquire and use such weapons, especially on US soil. And I worry that ex-Soviet weapons are not well secured. It is a lethal mix.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,037
Points
50
5 years ago, if someone said that they would fly planes into the sides of buildings, people would have said... yea sure, whatever. Our airports are more secure than that.

2000 years ago, we knew we where the center of the universe
600 years ago, we knew that the earth was flat
200 years ago, we knew man would never fly

Imagine what you will know tomorrow.
from the movie Men In Black

I think that we should be prepared for what we can not yet see or know.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
It is not if they have them and IF they will use them.

The real question is will we be willing to OBLITERATE the peoples, incocent and guilty, of the nation (s) that give them the aide in doing so.

Loosing our own people will be horrible, but harboring nations need to know, see, and ultimatly feel the doom allowing such operations to be planned and take place from thier soil SHOULD bring. Do WE have the guts to make whomever pay the price it should cost?
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,909
Points
36
michaelskis said:
I think that we should be prepared for what we can not yet see or know.
Are you talking about the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns? ;)

I'm no intelligence expert, but I have my doubts that Al-Queda actually has nuclear weapons at this moment. Even though OBL hasn't been found yet, I think the coalition did a fair job of turning over the terrorist network in Afganistan - if they possessed nuclear weapons, I think they would have turned up a bit more information on them. That is not to say that they aren't trying their damndest to acquire them, or that they wouldn't use them if they did. We should definitely be prepared for such an eventuality.

I think it would take more guts to resist the temptation to retaliate in kind.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
They have the technology and the means, it is a question of when. On a summer day when America is working and playing the bomb will destroy a city and no fewer than 100,000 (my conservative estimate) people will die immediately. The response will be swift and unmercifull, an absolute full blown assault on the nonnuclear staes that are responsible. And to the doubters out there, just think of the glory of crippling the most powerful state in the history of humanity, think about what a wonderful and purposeful goal that is for so many around the world. To bring the United States and Western civilisation to its knees. I'm sure it's coming. :-#

PS, Haaretz is one of my favorite LIBERAL newspapers in the world, They do great work!
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
How come there was no option for lets blow up Saudi Arabia, those terrorist harboring jerks? That's were most of these people are either hiding, or getting their funding from.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
They do not yet have nucular capabilities. Crippling New York with airplaines was much more difficult a task than setting off a nucular bomb would have been, and these people do not care about the extent of their killing. Their objective is to cause terror, and killing 300,000 is far more effective than killing 3,000. Spreading the fear that they may have nucular weapons is another form of terror.

While they may not have them yet, groups like Al Queda are seeking nucular, chemical and biological agents, and will be willing to use them against nations like the United States, Russia, Israel, or others. I think it is only a question of when.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Uhh... these vacations really make me disconnected about the world.... Al-qaida with nukes? where would they hide them? Nukes aren't that easy to hide... and besides [tinfoil_hat] at least one secret spy sattelite would pick it up[/tinfoil_hat] :)
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
The Irish One said:
....... just think of the glory of crippling the most powerful state in the history of humanity, think about what a wonderful and purposeful goal that is for so many around the world. To bring the United States and Western civilisation to its knees. I'm sure it's coming. :-#.......
People should do thier reading on nuclear weapons. Al Qieda is described as having backpack nukes. These were designed for nuclear demolitions work. For best effect they would take out hoover damn and it would REALLY screw the western plains. What these weapons won't do is bring the US or western civilization to its knees.

Even if they were to hit 5 to 10 cities at a crack with these things, it would not make the cities disappear. They are just simply not strong enough. We are talking about munitions magnitudes smaller than hiroshima and nagasaki.

To kill a 100k, a device would need to be infiltrated into a crowded area. Very possible, but hardly likely to be the lifeblood of the economy or country. Again, the best civil defense mechanism to protect the American populace was suburbanization. Nothing short of a COMPLETE assault by russian ICBM's could have endangered the US with anihilation. Our vital industries and operations are disbursed, therefore, nearly impossible to kill.

I would argue that the GOP with Bush at the helm is many times more dangerous to the country at large and its populace. I really just love waking up, hitting the google news engine, and seeing a US paper report that Bush thinks outsourcing US manufacturing and tech jobs is good in the long run for our economy and American workers.

Nuclear Weapons? Please, try Bush/Ashcroft!
 

Doitnow

Cyburbian
Messages
496
Points
16
I voted for 3 although i think that irrespective of whether they have it or not the threat perception has to be taken seriously. Whatever the american movies show has either happened or will happened in the newar future. So i agree that its better to be prepared and also grab the perpetrators as well as their abettors and ....

It has to be done right now.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
People should do thier reading on nuclear weapons.
I'm always open to sggestions.

Al Qieda is described as having backpack nukes.
The CIA describes the nuclear threat as follows

"Improvised Nuclear Device (IND)


An IND is intended to cause a yield-producing nuclear explosion. An IND could consist of diverted nuclear weapon components, a modified nuclear weapon, or indigenous-designed device.

INDs can be categorized into two types: implosion and gun assembled. Unlike RDDs that can be made with almost any radioactive material, INDs require fissile material—highly enriched uranium or plutonium—to produce nuclear yield. "

The CIA ,our first line of defense regarding these threats, is liberal in assessing the nuclear potential of our enemies, not without reason..

For best effect they would take out hoover damn and it would REALLY screw the western plains. What these weapons won't do is bring the US or western civilization to its knees.
From what I've read, the force that is generally associated with a back pack nuke is about 1 kiloton

This is from a Washington times article

The yield, too, is hard to pin down. One former American scientist who worked at the Department of Energy labs said that the "Davy Crocket," which was the small bomb later converted to special operations, had a one-kiloton explosive power and would level the Capitol Building and everything in a half mile radius. It also would spread radioactive waste across a wide area of Washington
That will shut the federal system down for a while, how long I don't know.
It's very plausible to expect a 100,000 dead, especially in a place like Manhattan, the financial center of the world and the USA. A prime target.
Our vital industries and operations are disbursed, therefore, nearly impossible to kill.
I agree. The US government will be severely damaged by any nuke attack, but it's nothing that can't be overcome, thank strategic thinking people for decentralization of information and government in general.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
They do not yet have nucular capabilities. Crippling New York with airplaines was much more difficult a task than setting off a nucular bomb would have been, and these people do not care about the extent of their killing.
I agree with your over all statement. You're right setting a nuke of is easier but we shouldn't assume what their time line is. These are patient people with a lot of cash at hand and doing the job right is first and foremost. When, is right.

What is this "nucular bomb" you speak of? ;-)
 
Top