terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

flashgordon · 2005-08-25 05:44:48

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=45203

it is amazing to me; these people are willing to learn so much science, yet they keep believing in their stupid religion just like so many here on these messageboards; maybe you all deserve to die.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 05:56:48

it is amazing to me; these people are willing to learn so much science, yet they keep believing in their stupid religion. . .

You don't have to know much science to assemble a nuclear weapon, it ain't that hard. You need to know even less to bribe a Russian guard that hasn't been paid in six months.

. . .just like so many here on these messageboards; maybe you all deserve to die.

That was just unwarranted.

That said, while the article doesn't say anything new the major points are worth repeating. Mainly SECURE THE DAMN BORDER!

On a different note, I suspect that if Muslim extremists succeed in detonating multiple nuclear weapons in the US that they will unleash a fury onto the Arab world that they can barely conceive. I have little doubt that our present squeamishness and restraint would not survive such an event.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-25 07:50:54

CC:-

On a different note, I suspect that if Muslim extremists succeed in detonating multiple nuclear weapons in the US that they will unleash a fury onto the Arab world that they can barely conceive. I have little doubt that our present squeamishness and restraint would not survive such an event.

Hmmm. I've often thought about the American or European reaction to a terrorist nuclear attack on home soil. But I've never made much progress with my thinking.
-- Where and how do you retaliate when the perpetrators represent a scattered and shadowy underworld enemy? The immediate desire would be to nuke something in return - but what? Where?
-- Would vigilantism against any and all Muslims, regardless of their guilt or innocence, become severe and widespread?

I just can't imagine any coherent response to such an attack. But I think a combined military operation (i.e. a truly international one) against Iran, to neutralize their nuclear ambitions permanently, would be much easier to organize afterwards than it is now! :?

flashgordon · 2005-08-25 08:25:49

A kid gets bullied on campus, you tell the kid what?

clark · 2005-08-25 08:32:08

Obviously to seek retribution against the bully, his friends, his siblings, his parents, his distant relations, his neighbors, and people who sometimes just blissfully pass him in the street.

Get em all.

At least if you go to some schools... or so the school of thought goes.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 08:50:10

Not sayin' it's good policy or that I agree with it, just calling it like I see it.

Does anyone else remember that festering gung-ho, "get 'em" feeling that was making the rounds immediately after 9/11? When even liberal Democrats were demanding swift military action?

Multiply that by ten times. That's what we'll have if New York, Chicago or LA get nuked by terrorists. And when the retaliation comes, which it will whether backed by full intel or not, concern over collateral damage will be much lower on the list of priorities. Anyone Muslim-looking in the US will suffer a great deal of undeserved "attention," lots of innocent people will be caught in the storm.

The US will turn into the pissed-off guy with a shotgun telling everyone, do what I say and no one gets hurt. It might be our downfall, it might be what's needed to end Islamic terrorism in our time. I'd rather not roll those dice, but then it's not our roll. If the mushroom clouds start rising, heads are gonna roll. The last check will have been removed, from then on anything goes.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 09:08:28

Could be true, could be made up to get people to visit WorldNetDaily or it could be spread by the government in order to set the people up for a further erosion of their rights and freedoms.
Substitute the word “terrorist” for another group of people, substitute the word “America” for another country, substitute “Assama Bin Ladin” for a religious figure, substitute the words, “worlds crime gangs” for “worlds banks” and see if you can identify what movie this is from

“That is the terrorist trick”
“they want you to see them as just another human being”
“but they are not, you are superior to them”
“The terrorist cares nothing for America”
“From birth the young are taught to follow the teaching’s of Assama Bin Ladin”
“The strangle hold the terrosts have on the worlds crime gangs is something now”
“America is just beginning to figure out”

But the great thing is unlike the text in the movie I am referring to the above could largely be true. The above is largely true as far as we know. Hate, what a great tool for evil figures to rise to power in the name of glorious ideals.

Palomar · 2005-08-25 09:26:13

*I read the article. It seems a bit alarmist to me. I've never heard of "World Net Daily" (reputable?).

But the issue presented has been raised before and yes, the U.S.-Mexico border situation is...bad. NM Gov. Bill Richardson recently announced a "state of emergency" regarding all the illegals crossing over. That's enough said, don't want to get off-topic.

We're in a really bad fix, if the tone and urgency of the article IS true. The sort of enemy Shaun points out (shadowy, doesn't wear a recognizable uniform/march beneath a discernible flag). No one will take responsibility, America will be condemned for retaliating, a civil war could erupt between ethnic groups (based on physical appearance), on and on.

Frankly I think most of the world would -rejoice- at our getting nuked into oblivion or suffering greatly. I think the ol' Machiavelli warning not to rely on anyone else to help one back upon one's feet -- because it won't happen -- will be apt in this case.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-08-25 09:26:28

C.C., I'm not saying your point is off. I was pointing out what that knee jerk reaction really means.

But if you can see it from where you are sitting, then some other people higher up can see just as well.

It is moments like those that we need leaders, not political-hack shepards of the enraged sheeple.

Consider it another way, how would you feel about “preemptive nuclear bombing”? Knowing what we know now, if we nuked Iraq because of a supposed connection to 9/11?

Retaliatory reprisals that are completely indiscriminate, which a nuclear response is, to the acts of a few individual criminals, which is what we face, against an entire geographic area is wrong. There is no justification for it.

The same way that there is no justification for killing everyone in a neighborhood because one person in that neighborhood committed a murder. Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

I don’t believe that restraint like this is a sign of weakness. What does sensei say about restraint?

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 09:55:44

The US will turn into the pissed-off guy with a shotgun telling everyone, do what I say and no one gets hurt. It might be our downfall, it might be what's needed to end Islamic terrorism in our time. I'd rather not roll those dice, but then it's not our roll. If the mushroom clouds start rising, heads are gonna roll. The last check will have been removed, from then on anything goes.

How far we’ve come from the king times when they use to draw and quarter people in the streets to strike fear of immense pain for anyone who dare cross the king.

BWhite · 2005-08-25 10:04:22

World Net Daily? Here is another of their offerings.

If I were running al Qaeda and I had ONE atomic bomb, it wouldn't be used in the USA, or Britain or Australia.

Baghdad's Green Zone? Okay, now there is a useful target. Imagine a dirty bomb times with those summer sandstorms that blow dust everywhere in the city.

The Saudi oil shipping terminal? Another good target.

Smuggle aboard a civilian airliner headed to Qatar International Airport and at the last minute divert over CENTCOM HQ.

= = =

A nuke within the US? Well maybe and we do need to inspect those shipping containers and secure Russian and Ukrainian and Pakistani materials but a terror strike would "waste" the bomb on a less than useful target.

BWhite · 2005-08-25 10:09:00

bin Laden attacked NYC and we were goaded into removing his mortal enemy Saddam from power.

al Qaeda is radical Sunni and despise the Shia in Iran as apostates. Now they nuke the Green Zone in Baghdad and blame the Iranians and we nuke Tehran in response.

bin Laden sits in his cave in Afghanistan and laughs.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 10:09:27

C.C., I'm not saying your point is off. I was pointing out what that knee jerk reaction really means.

And you're right, it would be an enormously bad call and leadership is required to avert that course.

But it's more than an issue of restraint. If the US suffers a nuclear attack the need for justice, vengeance, whatever you want to call it is going to be boiling over in a very large majority of the population. If not addressed it will be taken out on American Muslims at the very least. Therefore something more than mere restraint is needed.

Whether it be capturing those few responsible, getting full UN support in a massive "Fix the MidEast" campaign or merely turning one of the usual suspects into a smoking hole, the need for some "release" is needed.

So we would need either intelligence services capable of rooting out the culprits and capturing them very quickly, or leaders clever enough to divert attention to the ass-whooping of a scapegoat while those intel services try to find the real bombers.

And there's no shortage of scapegoat candidates.

Or we could really nip it in the bud, secure the borders with troops and start random ID checks of people everywhere in the country. Not supposed to be here, off to an internment camp to be shipped back home. But for a multitude of very good as well as a few silly reasons we know that won't happen.

I can't help but think of the end of Doctor Strangelove. . . We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. . .

Remember when it was just those communist hordes we had to worry about?

clark · 2005-08-25 10:14:17

I remember the ending differently- the part where Strangelove suggests 1 man to 10 women.

"... I can walk!"

Everyone always has a different take away.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-25 10:14:46

So rather than a quick assumption of the under ground shadow which will not be visible after the attack unless we catch a break and have hard evidence for whom may have caused the damage. We will instead just wait around for it to happen again since we are unable to identify the nation directly since these organization have no nation, only what they believe in is there cause. They will continue to hide until the next and the next until they have had there fill or some thing has changed for them to stop there attacks.
So how do we guard against such an enemy?

clark · 2005-08-25 10:19:27

Either you don't fight it, or you track everything and everyone.

There are no other alternatives.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 10:23:05

So rather than a quick assumption of the under ground shadow which will not be visible after the attack unless we catch a break and have hard evidence for whom may have caused the damage. We will instead just wait around for it to happen again since we are unable to identify the nation directly since these organization have no nation, only what they believe in is there cause. They will continue to hide until the next and the next until they have had there fill or some thing has changed for them to stop there attacks.
So how do we guard against such an enemy?

“what can men do against such reckless hate”, Lord of the rings

srmeaney · 2005-08-25 16:33:27

I realy dont see the problem here:

1. Terrorists with a single suitcase nuke will be busily reverse engineering it so they know how to make them later. Terrorists with more than one will be forced to disassemble and reassemble to verify operational condition.

2. There would be impressive amounts of radiation sickness occuring in odd places. It might be thought of as exposure to depleated uranium on a large scale but they would be wrong.

3. Their first target is not going to be an American one. It is more likely to be Israel or even Iraq. The second target option may not sound right but they are of the species that kills their own if they think you are betraying their philosophies.

4. The fact that there are not CIA agents with nuclear materials detection systems in every arab and eastern european city should be of more concern.

5. Cadmium shielding makes it impossible to detect smuggled nuclear material anyway. Cadmium can be used to absorb Alpha particles and Neutrons. A case that looks like a big haliburton might be made to encase the breifcase nuke.

6. Based on that, their best bet is to set one to trigger the instant the airplane lands. It would need to be used before the cases get searched or sensored. That is on the tarmac. The inablilty of Tourists to escape a nuclear target would add to the chaos.

7. It is easier to smuggle in through Canada than Mexico. Canadian Customs and airport security particularly for flights comming in from Asia has been comprimised and cut back to the point where a large number of Americans are being employed in positions that should require a certain level of Canadian presence and security clearence. Frankly, Canada has been comprimised.

8. The east Coast of America is wide open. It only takes one suit case on a fishing trawler coming in from outside to get one in to US Waters. Fishing trawlers are not a priority but should be.

9. Cargo freighters are increasingly crewed by middle eastern and eastern european crews. That puts a big question mark over every incident where a freighter collided with another freighter. If crews are deliberatly sinking cargo ships, then the sealanes have been comprimised and there is probably a nuke somewhere in a ship in a port.

10. In 1997-98 The Russian government were employing European Telecommunications contractors to put the phones back on in Grozney. The Technicians were abducted and contrary to KNR practices at the time, found executed prior to randsom negotiations. Their equipment vanished. Somewhere around 1998 a truck carrying fiber optic cable and a black cloth suitcase (this is the fibre optics technicians standard connection tool kit-it looks like an ordinary piece of luggage) crossed into Iraq and was sold to Saddam Hussein. That cargo was entirely ignored as it traveled south because Cable on a truck and people with suitcases fleeing the terrorist chaos of southern Russia was nothing new.
The terrorists who sold this equipment to Iraq did so through brokers in Turkey (out of Istanbul).
He used this to build a light speed telecomminications net work for his Mosul Airbase early warning system.

When this telecommunications network was discovered by the US government their first comment was "We dont know who sold him the fibre optics."

Assesment: USA Run by overpaid bureacracy, not doing its job, incapable of thinking outside the suit and tie.

September 2001, 7th: I bought myself a book to read called SAM7. A quick read about terrorists in London shooting down an airliner as it comes in on approach. I said: "I wonder how this lowtech terrorism would apply to American targets?" I went and drew a nice little picture of a cruise missile of the airline variety slamming into the side of the PENTAGON.

Assessment: USA vulnerable to weapons of its own making. date:9/9/2001.

There is your problem right there: Since these incidents Soviet nuke technology has been sold through Brokers in Turkey to Iran.

Assessment: Nothing has changed in the US intelligence network since 2001. USA still incapable of thinking past loyalty tests for its own people.

srmeaney · 2005-08-25 18:24:37

As long as I can do for $7.50 what a hundred thousand government employees with a budget of $50,000,000,000.00 cannot, the USA is an easy target.

flashgordon · 2005-08-25 21:34:12

where do I even begin? Maybe, if you hear a guy hate somebody for their color, what do you do?

I've made the case which was not shot down before about how people just believe what the social group says and believe in what social group they have been brought into because otherwise they don't get the support the social group gives them, so whatever the social group says is truth - not truth itself.

C.C. had already cancelled himself from being credible when he made the assumption months ago that my pointing out the irrationality of religion is the source or our problems by saying to the effect of ' not by taking them out. ' That is an assumption and clearly indicative of him not thinking scientifically, just whatever he's conditioned to think; that is a 'knee-jerk' reaction. You guys remind me of a friend of mine who always has little language tricks to keep from facing facts and logic - like my friends are religious, or you can't know everything; they always have these one liners which displays rushed thought. I make a question about bullies, and what is the responce? More unanalyzed conditioned thinking designed to not solve the problem but swoosh the problem under the rug. This is what allowed irrationalism spread in the Roman empire and that irrationalism eventually brought it down. These terrrorists with all their suicide bombings and now nuclear terrorism is 'clearly' supernatural religions inspired, and I've already made threads along time ago about how supernatural religions are organized irrationality, but nobody wanted to actually face the facts; instead, they just give off these vague talk to shut up the conversation.

As the movie 'Copland' said, "I've already given your chance to play cop, and you blew it!"

Bye bye america and quite possibly the human species - the real answer to the Fermi question!

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 22:06:32

where do I even begin? Maybe, if you hear a guy hate somebody for their color, what do you do?
I've made the case which was not shot down before about how people just believe what the social group says and believe in what social group they have been brought into because otherwise they don't get the support the social group gives them, so whatever the social group says is truth - not truth itself.
C.C. had already cancelled himself from being credible when he made the assumption months ago that my pointing out the irrationality of religion is the source or our problems by saying to the effect of ' not by taking them out. ' That is an assumption and clearly indicative of him not thinking scientifically, just whatever he's conditioned to think; that is a 'knee-jerk' reaction. You guys remind me of a friend of mine who always has little language tricks to keep from facing facts and logic - like my friends are religious, or you can't know everything; they always have these one liners which displays rushed thought. I make a question about bullies, and what is the responce? More unanalyzed conditioned thinking designed to not solve the problem but swoosh the problem under the rug. This is what allowed irrationalism spread in the Roman empire and that irrationalism eventually brought it down. These terrrorists with all their suicide bombings and now nuclear terrorism is 'clearly' supernatural religions inspired, and I've already made threads along time ago about how supernatural religions are organized irrationality, but nobody wanted to actually face the facts; instead, they just give off these vague talk to shut up the conversation.
As the movie 'Copland' said, "I've already given your chance to play cop, and you blew it!"
Bye bye america and quite possibly the human species - the real answer to the Fermi question!

I'm not sure what your point is.

srmeaney · 2005-08-25 23:00:53

Lets go for an easy question:

The current head of AlQuaeda is sitting on a fishing trawler in the port of Gwadar on the Pakistan Coast. His operatives bring him breifings every morning with Coffee.

The CIA's Yacht is off the North Australian Coast, Fishing illegal quantities Of Barramundi.

Which Party do you think is going to win?

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-26 06:42:27

This is getting a little goofy.

Meaney:

Assesment: USA Run by overpaid bureacracy, not doing its job, incapable of thinking outside the suit and tie.

Pretty much, yes. Such is the curse of all organizations, to become bloated and ossified in their ways.

Assessment: USA vulnerable to weapons of its own making. date:9/9/2001.

That's been fairly obvious for as long as the nation has existed. But it doesn't really get us anywhere to know that someone could use a jetliner, an American-made AR-15, a Ford truck full of fertilizer or anything else as a weapon against Americans. Deducing obvious things doesn't bring us one step closer to preventing tragedy.

Assessment: Nothing has changed in the US intelligence network since 2001. USA still incapable of thinking past loyalty tests for its own people.

Incorrect. It may well still be utterly f**ked up but things most definately have changed.

Flash:

where do I even begin? Maybe, if you hear a guy hate somebody for their color, what do you do?

What do you do?

C.C. had already cancelled himself from being credible when he made the assumption months ago that my pointing out the irrationality of religion is the source or our problems by saying to the effect of ' not by taking them out. ' That is an assumption and clearly indicative of him not thinking scientifically, just whatever he's conditioned to think; that is a 'knee-jerk' reaction.

Sounds like you're making assumptions based on social conditioning there Flash.

Besides, my objection wasn't to "pointing out the irrationality of religion" which I often do myself, but to the manner in which you tend to do it. Tearing down an idea through analysis is one thing, attacks on those who hold it is counter-productive and usually degenerates into irrational, frothing nonsense.

In response to the rest, to quote John "I'm not sure what your point is."

Feel free to enlighten us peons mired in the conditioning of our respective social groups.

flashgordon · 2005-08-26 10:27:32

you know, i just checked out space.com to see if there is anything more of interest(sometimes they do have interesting things, other times . . . well!), and one guy points out the civil war about to erupt in Iraq, and another guy gives some conservative slant and says the other guy isn't facing facts. I've already shown how you guy's(gals?) have thought non-scientifically, what do you do? You play your social games.

Perhaps another example is better. In 1490 or so, the Portuguese supported an exploration to find another way to the orient to gain an empire; they almost did; actually, the Spanish ended up winning, at least for a century; why a century? Because they ended up waisting all the wealth they gained from their explorations of the America's on petty wars at home. The fact is change happens in human societies because a new generation is born every fifteen to twenty years and 99% of them are to shortsighted to see what the logical and factual thing to do is, so they are really like ants in solving their problems. Today, we think that we think scientifically about solving our problems, but if that was the case, we would have colonized space by now by those who actually thought about things(the original rocket pioneers). This is what happens when you just follow whatever the incrowd says.

John Creighton · 2005-08-26 11:03:00

you know, i just checked out space.com to see if there is anything more of interest(sometimes they do have interesting things, other times . . . well!), and one guy points out the civil war about to erupt in Iraq, and another guy gives some conservative slant and says the other guy isn't facing facts. I've already shown how you guy's(gals?) have thought non-scientifically, what do you do? You play your social games.
Perhaps another example is better. In 1490 or so, the Portuguese supported an exploration to find another way to the orient to gain an empire; they almost did; actually, the Spanish ended up winning, at least for a century; why a century? Because they ended up waisting all the wealth they gained from their explorations of the America's on petty wars at home. The fact is change happens in human societies because a new generation is born every fifteen to twenty years and 99% of them are to shortsighted to see what the logical and factual thing to do is, so they are really like ants in solving their problems. Today, we think that we think scientifically about solving our problems, but if that was the case, we would have colonized space by now by those who actually thought about things(the original rocket pioneers). This is what happens when you just follow whatever the incrowd says.

What does any of this have to do with terrorists having nuclear weapons in the united states. Try to stay on topic a little please. I don’t even see how you rant ties into anything that was previously discussed. Try a little bit please to connect your random thoughts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-08-25 05:44:48

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#2 2005-08-25 05:56:48

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#3 2005-08-25 07:50:54

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#4 2005-08-25 08:25:49

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#5 2005-08-25 08:32:08

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#6 2005-08-25 08:50:10

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#7 2005-08-25 09:08:28

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#8 2005-08-25 09:26:13

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#9 2005-08-25 09:26:28

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#10 2005-08-25 09:55:44

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#11 2005-08-25 10:04:22

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#12 2005-08-25 10:09:00

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#13 2005-08-25 10:09:27

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#14 2005-08-25 10:14:17

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#15 2005-08-25 10:14:46

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#16 2005-08-25 10:19:27

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#17 2005-08-25 10:23:05

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#18 2005-08-25 16:33:27

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#19 2005-08-25 18:24:37

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#20 2005-08-25 21:34:12

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#21 2005-08-25 22:06:32

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#22 2005-08-25 23:00:53

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#23 2005-08-26 06:42:27

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#24 2005-08-26 10:27:32

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#25 2005-08-26 11:03:00

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

Board footer