Nuclear Terrorism

[Turtle]

terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

 

Just listening to Journalist Paul L. Williams on the radio and he says a university up in Canada has hundreds of staff from the Middle East that teach nuclear related subjects & they have links to Al Queda. He says they plan to nuke 7 US cities simultaneously & sooner or later.

That aside the world is at risk of nuclear terroism what with all the 'lost' spillage from known sources & all the radicals proclaiming their intention to use this stuff. What to do?:dead:

Discuss, I guess. I searched for a thread with this title/subject & found none. Here it is now.:dead:

[ronthepon]

We have to try and prevent the spread of nuclear power into sources from where it is easy for it to go int terrorist hands.

 

We also have to consider possible cases of nuclear ammo being dumped on cities. We have to impliment measures that will help minimise nuclear attack damage.

 

For this we can remember that in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagarsaki bombimgs, the damage to Nagarsaki was lower than the worst possible.

 

We might have to build nuclear bunkers, and all that.

[Turtle]

Journalist Paul Williams finished his piece & I culled some more info. The university he mentioned is Mcmaster & here is ther homepage. I haven't perused the staff yet. I will because I like to do the follow up research.

http://www.mcmaster.ca/

 

Williams has interviewd numerous times Hamid Mir (sp) the only journalist to interview Bin Laden since 9/11. I will read up on them both.

 

The radio show had a call in session & in response to a question on the background of nuclear terroism by al queda, williams suggested Googling 'Al Queda nuclear'. Think I'll give that a go to.

 

:ebluehair

/forums/images/smilies/devilsign.gif

[Turtle]

Another link, this time reviewing Williams book.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/13/171536.shtml

 

A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaida not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future.

 

These chilling allegations appear in "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11: What the Media and the Government Haven't Told You," by Paul L. Williams (Prometheus Books).

 

Web Search ResultsResults 1 - 10 of about 50,505 for Paul L. Williams

[Queso]

bring it on.

Let's erase.

Solve et coagula.

[Turtle]

Not even a snide remark? Errr...another snide remark? No supportive remark? Fence setting?

Nuclear attacks on US likely or not? Poll perhaps? Roger Wilco.

:doh: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb: :ebomb:

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

[GAHD]

Conspiracy theories are a two way street...

[Turtle]

Conspiracy theories are a two way street...

 

:doh:

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 5,130,000 for nuclear terrorism

http://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm

 

In summary, the main concern with respect to terrorists should be focused on those in a position to build, and bring with them, their own devices, as well as on those able to steal an operable weapon.

 

This article is 4 years old, and little is changed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201454.html

U.S. Called Unprepared For Nuclear Terrorism

 

If you've finished reading those...

http://www.nuclearterrorism.org/

[Turtle]

Nuclear terrorism realities

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040628-121252-5928r.htm

 

Unlike countries, which may fear retaliation, terrorist groups could be undeterred about using nuclear weapons to achieve a political agenda, the Carnegie report said.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has expressed interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. While terrorist groups are not believed to have the ability to produce nuclear weapons, they may be able to seize such weapons or materials from other countries.

[Eclogite]

I was thinking of setting up a poll entitled "Which do you think would be the bigger seller?"

 

(a) Some highly speculative thoughts I had about nuclear terrorism, backed up by very few facts, and quite frankly not something to really worry about.

(:doh: Nuclear experts, based in Canada, with al Queda links committed to terrorist attack on US

 

In short, Mr Williams has a very clear agenda.

 

That said, the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack is not zero. The solution, as it should have been for 911, is coherent, timely, pertinent intelligence. Pausing before invading sovereign countries; avoiding declaring war on a concept; and understanding that people dislike bullies, would all probably help to diminish the risk too.

[Turtle]

(a) Some highly speculative thoughts I had about nuclear terrorism, backed up by very few facts, and quite frankly not something to really worry about.

:eek:

I can post facts all day on this, & from good sources. Hardly nothing to worry about.:doh:

 

Powered by Google

Web Search ResultsResults 1 - 10 of about 13,606 for suitcase nukes

 

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm

Another portable weapon is a "backpack" bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three "coffee can-sized" aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It's kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters.

 

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

Attention to portable nuclear devices (often referred to as "suitcase nukes") peaked in 1997-early 1998 following well-publicized allegations by the late governor of Krasnoyarsk Krai and former Russian Security Council Secretary, General (Ret.) Alexander Lebed, that an unknown number of these weapons (possibly as many as several dozen) could not be accounted for. These devices represent probably the greatest threat if they end up in the hands of terrorists due to the combination of small size and full-scale nuclear explosion effects. Interception of "suitcase bombs" is difficult along land borders and practically impossible along maritime borders. At the same time, the political, psychological, and economic effects of a blast from a portable nuclear weapon would be far greater than, for example, those of a "dirty bomb."

[Turtle]

Of course suitcase nukes don't exist, and besides we took them all apart. :doh: Nothing to see here folks.:doh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SADM

 

 

:eek:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Eclogite]

Turtle ,I was directly addressing the claims being made by Williams about an alleged group of potential nuclear terrorists based in Canada, not the possibility of creating a small nuclear weapon. I may be doing Mr Williams and his book a great disservice, but it seems to bear the hallmarks of a sensationalist publication.

 

[I remain considerably more concerned about global warming. At worst a couple of acts of nuclear terrorism may kill a million or so people. The death toll from global warming will be much greater and extends far beyond the simple statistics of a body count. However, I do not wish to diver this thread from your intended topic.]

 

You go on to say:

I can post facts all day on this, & from good sources. Hardly nothing to worry about. http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm

 

I think you intend this link as an example of what we should be worried about. We seem to viewing this information in different ways. I see zero to worry about in the information contained within the link.

 

It describes, in simple terms, the general character of a suitcase sized nuclear device. It omits to mention, or emphasise, three things:

1) The device will not work unless the terrorist cell has been able to obtain in excess of 10kg of weapons grade plutonium.

2) The device will not work unless the terrorist cell has access to the sophisticated knowledge required to design the bomb.

3) The device will not work unless the terrrorist cell has access to the skill set required to implement the design.

 

So, I just don't see anything here that should give any cause for concern. I suspect most of the other 11,00 links are similar in this respect.

 

Additonally, I refuse to give the terrorists one smidgeon of recognition by succumbing to the latent hysteria that the possibility of a nuclear attack is intended to generate. Terrorists cannot succeed if we refuse to be terrorised. That is my position.

[bartock]

the only way any nuclear terror attack is going to happen on US siol is by the US government itself.

[Turtle]

Turtle ,I was directly addressing the claims being made by Williams about an alleged group of potential nuclear terrorists based in Canada, not the possibility of creating a small nuclear weapon. I may be doing Mr Williams and his book a great disservice, but it seems to bear the hallmarks of a sensationalist publication.

 

...

Additonally, I refuse to give the terrorists one smidgeon of recognition by succumbing to the latent hysteria that the possibility of a nuclear attack is intended to generate. Terrorists cannot succeed if we refuse to be terrorised. That is my position.

I guess we need to read the book to decide its value.

 

So we could have prevented 9/11 by refusing to believe it could happen?:doh:

 

How do you suppose just one nuclear explosion (tactical or dirty-bomb) in a US city will compare in total loss say to Katrina? How about simulataneous nuclear blasts in multiple cities? And why worry if you don't live in the US? No skin off your nose eh?:eek:

[Queso]

what a shame

we even need worry

about such

BULLSHIT :doh:

[Queso]

whatever

at least everyone would be forced

to do something different.

Like die,

for example.