|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Al Qaeda's nuclear option |
 |
|
This month's National Geographic which has an article about Chernobyl and the lingering effects/spread pattern of the radioactive fallout, drawing parallels with terrorists deciding to pop off a "dirty" bomb.
The thought of a 10-kiloton device fitting into the back of something as small and ordinary as a pick-up truck is chilling.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060323-083951-9939r.htm
| Quote: |
President Bush says frequently "we are fighting them over there so they won't come over here." "Them" are transnational terrorists and "over there" is Iraq.
The insurgency in Iraq has much to do with al Qaeda's plans for a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) act of terrorism in the United States, but not the way the White House believes. Assuming the Bush administration is successful in midwifing democracy out of a near-civil war situation in Iraq, the WMD threat level will remain unchanged. High, that is.
Paradoxical though this may seem to Washington's armchair strategists, the defeat of the al Qaeda-Sunni insurgency in Iraq would actually heighten, not lessen, the danger of a September 11 CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) attack. Defeated by the U.S. in Afghanistan and again in Iraq, al Qaeda would have to conclude its strategy of forcing the U.S. into a humiliating, Vietnamlike retreat has failed.
Arabic-speaker Professor Gilles Kepel, one of France's leading experts on al Qaeda, published last week "Al Qaeda dans le Texte," an analysis of the public and (intercepted) private utterances of the two Z's -- Ayman al-Zawahri (Osama bin Laden's No. 2) and Abu Musab Zarqawi, al Qaeda's insurgency honcho in Iraq. Stripped if its complexities, al Qaeda's strategy, Mr. Kepel explains, is to defeat the U.S. in Iraq, use this victory to roll over traditional oil-rich regimes in the Gulf that are security wards of the U.S., and then focus on Israel. But there is now an obstacle even greater than the U.S. -- Iran. Tehran, as seen through Zawahri's geopolitical viewfinder, is already calling the shots in large parts of Iraq. Whether the U.S. stays or leaves Iraq, concludes Zawahri, it's still Iran's ballgame. Which brings al Qaeda back to its WMD-in-America strategy.
"The Race Between Cooperation and Catastrophe," or why "the [nuclear] threat is outrunning our response" is how Sam Nunn, the former senator and co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, describes an overarching terrorist construct. The starter's gun for this new race went off at the end of the Cold War. Congress has appropriated almost $12 billion under Nunn-Lugar legislation designed to enhance security in scores of former Soviet and now Russian nuclear weapons and nuclear materials storage sites. Another $20 billion was pledged for the same purpose at a G-8 summit of the major industrialized nations in Canada three years ago -- $1 billion by the U.S. and $1 billion by the other seven per year for 10 years.
There has been no cooperation from India in the nuclear security field, says Matthew Bunn, director of the Atom Project at Harvard. "China," he adds, "has secured one civilian facility."
With more than $30 billion in the button-down-the-nukes kitty, more than half the security work remains to be done. There are 43 countries with more than 100 research reactors or related facilities that store enough highly enriched uranium nuclear materials to make several bombs. Only 20 percent of these sites are properly secured, says Mr. Nunn, and less than a handful meet U.S. Energy Department security standards, says Mr. Bunn. Most countries consider the Energy Department security criteria too demanding.
Rather than try to steal or buy one of thousands of Russian tactical nukes, or nerve gas artillery shells, a WMD terrorist is far more likely to knock off the night watchman, lower the chain-link fence somewhere in Switzerland or Italy and drive off with sufficient materials for a nuclear device. Actually making a nuclear bomb after that is the easy part; the recipe is on the Internet.
Mr. Nunn, chairman of the board of trustees at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says we appear to have forgotten the "devastating, world-changing impact of a nuclear [terrorist] attack. "If a 10-kiloton nuclear device goes off in Midtown Manhattan on a typical work day, it could kill more than half a million people," he explains. Ten kiloton is a plausible yield "for a crude terrorist bomb," according to Mr. Nunn.
Hauling that volume of explosives would require a freight train 100 cars long. As a nuclear bomb, it could easily fit on the back of a pickup truck.
Another Nunn scenario has a terrorist group with insider help acquiring a radiological source from an industrial or medical facility; say cesium-137 in the form of powdered cesium chloride. Conventional explosives are used to incorporate cesium into a "dirty bomb," then detonated in New York's financial district. A 60-square block area has to be evacuated. Millions flee the city in panic. Only two dozen are killed but billions of dollars of real estate is declared uninhabitable. Cleanup will take years -- and many more billions.
What interests bin Laden and Zawahri beyond casualty lists is collateral damage to civil liberties, privacy and the world economy. America, as they see it, would be knocked off its pinnacle. This would be the shot heard around the world and hundreds of millions of either frightened or jubilant Muslims would flock to the Muslim world's black Jolly Roger of white skull and crossbones.
In a routine exchange of information, Russia's chief intelligence officer in Washington notified his CIA liaison officer that al Qaeda operatives had been scouting nuclear storage sites in Russia. It would be a miracle if nothing had been stolen from Russia's long ill-guarded nuclear weapons storage depots during the collapse of the Soviet Union when anything and everything was for sale. We also know from sketches found in al Qaeda's safe houses in Kabul and Kandahar that bin Laden was interested in nuclear bomb design. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists from A.Q. Khan's stable were in Kandahar when this reporter was there three months before September 11, 2001.
The distance remaining to near-perfect security can be measured by how Mr. Nunn describes the adequacy of the U.S.-Russian response to the terrorist nuclear threat.
On a scale of 1 to 10," says Mr. Nunn, "I would give us about a 3, with the last summit between Presidents Bush and Putin moving us closer to a 4."
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
In a routine exchange of information, Russia's chief intelligence officer in Washington notified his CIA liaison officer that al Qaeda operatives had been scouting nuclear storage sites in Russia. It would be a miracle if nothing had been stolen from Russia's long ill-guarded nuclear weapons storage depots during the collapse of the Soviet Union when anything and everything was for sale. We also know from sketches found in al Qaeda's safe houses in Kabul and Kandahar that bin Laden was interested in nuclear bomb design. Two Pakistani nuclear scientists from A.Q. Khan's stable were in Kandahar when this reporter was there three months before September 11, 2001.
The distance remaining to near-perfect security can be measured by how Mr. Nunn describes the adequacy of the U.S.-Russian response to the terrorist nuclear threat.
On a scale of 1 to 10," says Mr. Nunn, "I would give us about a 3, with the last summit between Presidents Bush and Putin moving us closer to a 4."
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Truck? How about a container ship coming up the St. Lawrence and into the Great Lakes... did you see all the USCG vessels patrolling the river and L. St. Clair during the Superbowl? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: Pay back is a Bitc* ? |
|
|
Although I don��t particularly trust the intelligence of ��Terrorist Groups,�� It would seem that detonating a nuclear device inside the United States would be a tactical mistake.
I believe that Mr. Bin Laden himself understood the consequences of this before he gave the go ahead for 9/11. It was my understating that they considered a nuclear option at that time, but he nixed the idea.
This all makes sense to me; however, if the Koran states that killing 1 million unbelievers and causing 20 million Muslims to be sent to martyr heaven is Glorious, then the US is screwed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Truck? How about a container ship coming up the St. Lawrence and into the Great Lakes... did you see all the USCG vessels patrolling the river and L. St. Clair during the Superbowl? |
First, in order to post this reply I had to endure 28 critical error responses!
The problem is suddenly worse. 
Anyway- How about one of the 95% of container ships that don't get inspected?
I have a friend who receives 8-10 containers a year through the port of Miami. It is furniture from S.E. Asia. Most of his containers are delayed for inspection. So I am really curious about who isn't getting inspected. I guess a gay Jewish importer of furniture and accessories from Thailand would be high on a suspect list.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paddycakes
Joined: 05 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apparently the Franco-Albertan Liberation Front (FALF) already has one... Now is not a good time to be a redneck in Alberta... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Could terrorists smuggle dirty bombs into U.S.?
Federal investigation finds weak security by land and by sea
By Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
Updated: 8:56 a.m. ET March 28, 2006
WASHINGTON - The port of Long Beach, Calif. — among the busiest in the nation — is a key line of homeland defense. Some 4.5 million shipping containers pass through each year.
Big radiation portal monitors scan some — but not all — containers for traces of nuclear or radiological material as they leave the port. But, four-and-a-half years after 9/11, Senate investigators say only 39 percent of all containers entering the U.S. are screened for nuclear material. Many ports, including the third-largest, Miami, still have only handheld detection devices of little value.
��We still have massive blind spots in our ability to prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into this country,�� says Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Coleman says the Department of Homeland Security still is not moving nearly fast enough.
A report by the Government Accountability Office concludes DHS is two years behind schedule in installing radiation monitors in ports and not likely to have them all done, even by 2009.
DHS has made more progress installing detection equipment at the borders, but there investigators found another hole in the system. Coleman tells NBC News that undercover GAO investigators were able to bring enough radioactive material into the U.S. to make two dirty bombs — penetrating both the northern and southern borders. Monitors detected the radiological material, but undercover agents produced fake papers and got the material in.
��They were able to use counterfeit documents they got off a basic program on a computer,�� Coleman says.
DHS officials say they are now looking at how to plug that hole. But they insist significant progress has been made toward securing ports.
��We feel that at seaports that we're going to have a very suitable defense by the end of 2007,�� says Vayl Oxford, the director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which operates under DHS.
Stephen Flynn, a top port security expert, says that's an illusion, that the new radiation monitors aren't enough.
��They're not enough because they still can��t help us find a nuclear weapon,�� Flynn says, ��and they can��t help us find highly enriched uranium.��
Experts say that without added technology and much greater urgency, Americans will remain vulnerable to this very real threat.
Lisa Myers is NBC��s senior investigative correspondent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Pay back is a Bitc* ? |
|
|
| JAWINSEOUL wrote: |
(1) Although I don��t particularly trust the intelligence of ��Terrorist Groups,�� It would seem that detonating a nuclear device inside the United States would be a tactical mistake.
(2) I believe that Mr. Bin Laden himself understood the consequences of this before he gave the go ahead for 9/11. It was my understating that they considered a nuclear option at that time, but he nixed the idea.
. |
1. How's that? Terrorist groups don't have return addresses.
2. Links? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
JAWINSEOUL wrote:
(1) Although I don��t particularly trust the intelligence of ��Terrorist Groups,�� It would seem that detonating a nuclear device inside the United States would be a tactical mistake.
(2) I believe that Mr. Bin Laden himself understood the consequences of this before he gave the go ahead for 9/11. It was my understating that they considered a nuclear option at that time, but he nixed the idea.
.
1. How's that? Terrorist groups don't have return addresses.
2. Links?
_________________
|
Maybe it would be felt that the action would cause a reaction that would be detrimental to Islam as a whole.
Consider the reaction of all non american non islamic extremists and countries around the world to that event. Britain just introduced an ID card in response to its bombings, how many more forms of security would be imposed on the event of an attack of nuclear weapons regardless of where they occured.
That is also not taking into consideration the general publics attitude. If New York, Washington or any major city in the non muslim world went up in a ball of smoke with numerous casulties, I would not want to guess how much political fallout would occur, but it would not be little.
Even if they didn't have an exact return address. Though some people believe it is just a matter of when not if as u already know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAWINSEOUL
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure the U.S. understands the term, "An eye for an eye.�� If a dirty bomb went off in The States, then they would react emphatically. The Japanese could elaborate on the Americans foreign policy regarding appropriate force.
The level at which the United States draws the line regarding a response to a dirty bomb would be pretty arbitrary.
I may live in dream world, but I like assume that when the face retribution on the scale the Americans would use, people would not escalate the acceptable means of killing. Today the world would not accept an American Nuclear attack. If a dirty bomb went off, they would not have much choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Location: Eungam Loop
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If a nuclear device went off in the US, there would be no more discriminating between radical muslim terrorists and moderate muslims. I would not want to be living any where near a muslim country at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can't retaliate with a nuclear weapon if you have no target.
Terrorists are well aware of this.
Can you blow up Islamabad because Musharraf has no real power to deal with extremists in his country?
(rhetorical question here, I already have a pretty good idea of who would answer 'yes' to this question). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Federal investigation finds weak security by land and by sea. |
So how is allowing Muslims to run your ports a good idea? 
This thread was done months ago....when I already showed it was entirely likely for terrorists to have smuggled in multiple nuclear devices already.
Where is that old thread? I posted an interview with Al Quaeda agents, saying that they were already capable of a nuclear detonation in America, but that Bin Laden was advising against it, as it would get "out of hand" (his words).
Theres proof they already smuggled it in via Mexico anyway: multiple AQ agents have testified to this under "questioning".
Ready to head back to safe ol' korea yet bulsajo?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
So how is allowing Muslims to run your ports a good idea? |
Thanks Rapier!
I couldn't have asked for a more perfect sentence which shows your ignorance, you really don't have to hand me gifts like this when it's not even my birthday!
I posted this already in the Dubai thread, but obviously you're so "smrt" that you didn't need to read that before spouting off, so I'll just take 1 minute to type it out again:
Obviously you are referring to the DB deal right?
Where they wanted to buy the port service contracts (or something similar) off of P & O (a UK company, as I'm sure you know and have probably been on their ferries before).
Since the ports are not brand new nor is the servicing and running them new, the workers who worked the ports before and during P & O control would be the same.
Who are these mysterious port workers- would hundreds, even thousands, of shifty suspicious Muslims suddenly appear in ports around the US, to-ing and fro-ing in kaftas and dish-dashas, hatching their diabolical Muslim schemes?
No.
The ports would be run by Americans, as they have been, under the mangement of a corporation which, yes, comes from a Muslim country, but which also has a stellar reputation and which was cleared by federal security agencies.
But for idiots like you, this will probably be a cause to rally around for some years to come.
| Quote: |
| Ready to head back to safe ol' korea yet bulsajo? |
I'll take where I am and what I'm doing over where you are and what you're doing any day of the week, mate. And that's a fact you can take to the bank.
laughing at you, not with you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm interesting, first time I noted that a post of mine was deleted.
Didn't consider it highly offensive but rather frighteningly possible.
No warning either. Interesting.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
