Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/18/2001 7:10:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/18/2001 7:30:16 PM EDT by Bolt223]
Bush will hit Afghanistan. They will hit back with Suitcase Nuclear Bombs. Many of us will Die... ----------- Floodgates Open For New Brand Of Super-Terrorism By Ian Bruce The Herald - London 9-18-1 The west's unspoken nightmare in the wake of last week's kamikaze attacks in America is a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon in downtown Washington or a vial of botulism toxin in the Los Angeles water supply. When George Bush proclaimed the "first war of the twenty-first century", he omitted to mention that every conflict has two sides. The one objective from the terrorist perspective is the infliction of maximum casualties, civilian and military. The higher the body count, the more successful the strike. Osama bin Laden may go down in history as the first general and supreme strategist of the genre. Worse, he may be regarded as the first in a long line of utterly ruthless shadow warriors with a global reach. While the US fumes and prepares to unleash its unrivalled military might on Afghanistan, other terrorist networks are watching and learning. For people such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the concept of suicide bombing is not new. They just thought small-scale. They remain local players against Israel, lacking the breadth of strategic thought to widen their impact. But if bin Laden's followers can strike at the heart of America's commercial and military heartland, then the floodgates have potentially been opened for every fanatic anywhere with a grudge and a workable plan. The next strike may be electronically viral, an assault on major financial institutions, or on the computers that govern everything from troop deployment to traffic lights. A determined attack designed to override or take out air traffic control systems could cause more deaths than the Twin Towers kamikaze flights. Details of how to produce anthrax and botulism are freely available on the internet. Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network is known to have obtained samples. Nuclear weapons are difficult, but not impossible to obtain. Scores of warheads remain unaccounted for following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. America will win the next battle of the first super-terrorist war. But its people should be aware that the war itself could be far from over. http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/18-9-19101-0-16-37.html
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 7:23:46 PM EDT
It's inevitable and the White House & Congress know it..... [img]http://www.fatherryan.org/nuclearincidents/images/Nuketest.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 8:29:05 PM EDT
So whats your point? [:E]
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 9:32:21 PM EDT
after a suitcase nuke here...Theran, Bhagdad, Syria,the PLO, will be incinerated
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 10:01:01 PM EDT
Everyone go hide in your basement. I promise to let you all know when it's over.
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 10:41:20 PM EDT
GW cracks me up! (gardenWeasel not GWB).
Link Posted: 9/18/2001 11:15:08 PM EDT
Now where did I put that tinfoil... Bradd
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:09:39 AM EDT
Do you think if they had suitcase nukes they would be holding them in reserve??
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:40:26 AM EDT
Whats that old commercial with the big ape beating up the suitcase luggage in its cage? Samsonite? Hope they use a brand name for transport, those luggage carriers at the airport can be a bit rough. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:47:33 AM EDT
I’m not the brightest bulb on the tree but I think this was way more successful than they ever imagined. I think it is like when you are a kid screwing around and do something you know you are gonna get you’re a$$ spanked for. Like playing baseball in the house and breaking a window. You kinda’ knew it was possible, didn’t think it would happen and now that it did Mom and Dad are gonna’ nail you’re a$$. I think Osama and his boys had a big case of a$$ pucker last Tuesday.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:49:47 AM EDT
Actually they did bring suitcase nukes into the US for the attacks, but by complete coincidence, the airlines lost the luggage. At this point in time, the suitcase nukes are going in circles unclaimed on the conveyer at a Dominican airport's baggage claim.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:49:51 AM EDT
I sincerely doubt that Bin Laden has suitcase nukes, or he would have used them. This operation took FIVE YEARS to plan and stage...you think if it could have been more destructive, that he would have held back? I doubt it. He doesn't have nukes yet. But he will if we don't get him soon.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 10:54:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2001 10:54:18 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
Nukes have a "DNA", just like Germs. If either are unleashed on our soil, we will be able to trace their origin, and then we should and will respond with a devastating Nuke attack. Hopefully they won't be traced back to Russia.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:06:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Do you think if they had suitcase nukes they would be holding them in reserve??
View Quote
It makes all the sense in the world to hold the suitcase nuke in reserve, assuming they have one. Look at the terrorist's goals. He wants to inflict the maximum amount of pain with the fewest assets possible because his assets are not easily acquired. He wants to change policy through fear and intimidation of the public. He wants to demonstrate he has the upper hand no matter what action the government takes against him. Think of a high stakes poker game: the longer the player sits at the table, the higher the ante. When the ante gets too high, the winner forces all the other players to leave the table. The terrorist intends to be the winner in the game. What does he have to lose? The terrorist will keep the suitcase nuke in reserve and use it to stay in the game when the government raises the ante, e.g. carpet bombing in the Mideast. The harder the US and our allies hit in this war, the harder the counterattack will be. That is why we have to raise the ante now (nuke the terrorist harboring states) so that the terrorists' response won't be such a shock. Let's get them to take their best shot early in the game. Any questions?
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:09:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:11:22 AM EDT
I doubt they will use nukes. The people that are helping these guys out still like life. If a nuke goes off in the US, I would be willing to guarantee you that, the middle east would become the largest glass factory on the planet. Well, in about 100,000 years anyway. The downside will be dealing with all of the fallout. I don't think Saddam, or anyone else wants to be obliterated. Blowing a Nuke on US soil will get them that, and only that.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:23:45 AM EDT
We have been facing this threat for years. I think the term 'suit case nuke' is over simplified. It takes several tons of explosive to let off a nuke. The case people are refering to would have to be transported on a dump truck. It is not as if they could leave their suit case at the door of the Sears Tower. The best way to minimize a terrorist threat is to improve the security of our boarders. Not only who we let in, but how many. I personally think we should dig a big trench between Mexico and Canada followed up with a Great Wall of the Americas. That and enlarging the Coast Guard will help us seal our boarders. Since the Army Corps of Engineers is sitting idle, let them supervise the ROTCs on digging trenches.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 11:52:29 AM EDT
I wasn't going to say anything, but look: The suitcase nuke story may be a bunch of bullshit. The problem with nukes is that they are very easy to detect because they emit radiation. Even with heavy shielding, the fissionable cores can be detected and located. That's not to say that a small nuke couldn't be smuggled into the US, but I have heard that there are satellites in orbit that can detect even small weapons. The Soviets did build small nukes that were about the size of a steamer trunk. That's where the "suitcase" term came from. When the USSR fell, a few were unaccounted for. I doubt they fell into the hands of terrorists though. It doesn't take a dump-truck sized weapon--consider the battlefield Lance tac-nukes, or the ones they load on aircraft. They are all quite small but also fairly low yield (as compared to an ICBM).
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:02:49 PM EDT
To go down in history as the asshole that caused the inhalation of a whole race of people, especially when that race is your own, would bring shame and disgrace upon his family and religion forever. If he does do it, the halo you will see around Arabs in the Mideast is not going to be from God.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:03:24 PM EDT
Does this mean I get to kill people?
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:09:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hg112: Does this mean I get to kill people?
View Quote
Kill all you want. They'll make more.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:19:06 PM EDT
They would have to get the nukes here before they can blow anything up. Do not go getting your undies in a bundle. Like Mr.kpel308 said, "we all are going to die someday anyway." Don't fret it. One bomb here means no more Iraq, Afghanistan etc. We will be hit here I fear but nuke??? I don't know. I could be wrong.....[grenade]
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:21:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: I wasn't going to say anything, but look: The suitcase nuke story may be a bunch of bullshit. The problem with nukes is that they are very easy to detect because they emit radiation. Even with heavy shielding, the fissionable cores can be detected and located. That's not to say that a small nuke couldn't be smuggled into the US, but I have heard that there are satellites in orbit that can detect even small weapons. The Soviets did build small nukes that were about the size of a steamer trunk. That's where the "suitcase" term came from. When the USSR fell, a few were unaccounted for. I doubt they fell into the hands of terrorists though. It doesn't take a dump-truck sized weapon--consider the battlefield Lance tac-nukes, or the ones they load on aircraft. They are all quite small but also fairly low yield (as compared to an ICBM).
View Quote
I believe we have quite a few tactical nukes which can be fired by 105's and 155's. Those are pretty small. Probably about the size of a 'suitcase' which is probably why people started calling it that.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:26:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Do you think if they had suitcase nukes they would be holding them in reserve??
View Quote
Absolutely. The goal of radical Islam is not to destroy the world, but to dominate it. They cannot tolerate the fact that the world is not in submission to the Islamic moral laws. They believe it will benefit mankind to come under this administration, and are willing to exert all possible means to establish it. But nuclear weapons would eliminate the possibility of raping America of it's wealth and resources. I don't think they would consider nuclear weapons. Richardson
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:33:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 12:35:16 PM EDT
Said asshole would have to have mighty powerful lungs to "inhalate" an entire race of people . . . [;)]
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 1:31:21 PM EDT
What if Bin L'ASSHOLE sets off a nuke in oh say Kabul(sp) and then they blame it on the US. They yell out that we used a nuke on them and then the UN $hits their pants. China freaks and then they launch nukes on us while we are in their side yard? Just a thought. I think I might grab my tinfoil hat now.
Link Posted: 9/19/2001 2:06:28 PM EDT
"Backpack nukes" is actually the correct term. "Suitcase nukes" is a term the media came up with to make them seem smaller and lighter than they really are. They are man portable, but he best be in pretty good shape.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 6:00:45 AM EDT
Actually they did bring suitcase nukes into the US for the attacks, but by complete coincidence, the airlines lost the luggage. At this point in time, the suitcase nukes are going in circles unclaimed on the conveyer at a Dominican airport's baggage claim.
View Quote
LMAO!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 6:42:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 7: I believe we have quite a few tactical nukes which can be fired by 105's and 155's. Those are pretty small. Probably about the size of a 'suitcase' which is probably why people started calling it that.
View Quote
As of the time I got out of the military a few years ago, the smallest artillery piece that had nuke rounds was the 155. For the Soviets/Russians, it was the 152. And no, those rounds don't need a couple of tons of TNT to explode.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 7:12:47 AM EDT
What if Bin L'ASSHOLE sets off a nuke in oh say Kabul(sp) and then they blame it on the US.
View Quote
It would be hard to make it look like an American nuke. For one thing, it would have to be an airburst, not a groundburst in the back of a truck somewhere. And then there'd have to be some connection to a US missile (the Russians could confirm that no ICBMs were launched) or aircraft. Most of all, I doubt that the terrorists have anything as potent as the type of nuke the US would use on Kabul. Anything less than 50 kilotons just doesn't say "Made in USA". :D
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 7:25:45 AM EDT
I don't think they will be stupid enough to use a nuke - it will directly lead to WWIII. However, look out for a chemical/biological attack. If you live in a big city, or near a possible target, watch your six.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 7:46:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Death_By_AR15: So whats your point? [:E]
View Quote
Ditto!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:00:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JoseyWales: We have been facing this threat for years. I think the term 'suit case nuke' is over simplified. It takes several tons of explosive to let off a nuke.
View Quote
Several Tons? What a goof! Are you saying a MIRV is launched on a Saturn V? How about the man portable nukes we have? Go to: http://www.osti.gov/historicalfilms/filmlist.html See: SADM Delivery by Parachutist/Swimmer (Special Atomic Demolition Munition)
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:03:00 AM EDT
Nukes are too high tech for this group... Chemical is actually pretty easy to deal with (relatively speaking).. Biologicals are damn scary....http://www.thenewrepublic.com/express/crowley091701.html
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:26:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: I wasn't going to say anything, but look: The suitcase nuke story may be a bunch of bullshit. The problem with nukes is that they are very easy to detect because they emit radiation. Even with heavy shielding, the fissionable cores can be detected and located. That's not to say that a small nuke couldn't be smuggled into the US, but I have heard that there are satellites in orbit that can detect even small weapons.
View Quote
False Infrared is used to spot nuclear weapons from space. The problem is that even two inches of lead will prevent a nuke from being seen by satellite. Also, you wouldn't be able to see it unless it was armed. How hard would it be to smuggle a nuke in on a container ship into Canada and then smuggle it across the vast unguarded border into the US?
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:28:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JoseyWales: It takes several tons of explosive to let off a nuke. The case people are refering to would have to be transported on a dump truck. It is not as if they could leave their suit case at the door of the Sears Tower
View Quote
SADMs(Special Atomic Demolition Munitions)have been around for decades. It is a small yield nuclear device. It does not need "several tons of explosive" or a dump truck. It is man carried. The US used to have SF guys HALO jump them in. Russia can't account for all of theirs. Yes, they could leave it at the door of the Sears Tower. Or the St. Louis Arch. Or any other symbol of our country or large gathering of people.
Top Top