American Hiroshima?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Bubba, why do they want to kill us?

Thought that was pretty well spelled out in the Bin Laden letter.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

the only one with a shred of a reason this wouldn't be true is Blackadar (his three Cs)

Here's another C for you. Credibility. Of which Coach to Coach AM has none.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

What about the Atlantians?

Nah, most people from Atlanta are too lazy to go to free concert, much less to judge America for her apostasy. Columbus, maybe, but not Atlanta.

[jamesUMD]

Is a nuclear attack imminent in the US, probably. Is it a stretch to predict that? Probably not.

I'm sure that we have people that spend all day thinking of "worst case scenarios" and how to defend against them. I do agree with Blackdar that they would blow that puppy as soon as they got it near a viable location. What would they be waiting on? 1 Nuclear explosion would most likely do as much to damage the US psyche as 5 would.

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45253

[vtbub]

While I'm sure that World Net Daily is as trust worthy as the last article you posted was, I'm firmly in the camp of if they have them, they would have used them, and since the London attacks didn't use them, I don't believe they have them.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by jamesUMD

Is a nuclear attack imminent in the US, probably. Is it a stretch to predict that? Probably not.

I'm sure that we have people that spend all day thinking of "worst case scenarios" and how to defend against them. I do agree with Blackdar that they would blow that puppy as soon as they got it near a viable location. What would they be waiting on? 1 Nuclear explosion would most likely do as much to damage the US psyche as 5 would.

That would be the difference. 1 nuke would cripple our psyche. 5 or more and the U.S. as we have known it would forever cease to exist. The mindset of the terrorists in the article point to the latter scenario. Maybe that's why they haven't done it yet.

BTW, the article linked to in WND says before the end of 2005.

[Chubby]

hmmmm i'm seeing the future....... bubba will reference god sometime before the end of 2005...... i should post an article on some obscure site with no fact checking......

[Bubba Wheels]

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.aler....Tancredo.html

[JPhillips]

These suitcase nukes deteriorate pretty quickly if I remember correctly. My understanding is that they take some complex maintenance to keep them up and the average terrorist would have a very difficult time getting the tools and materials to do the job. I don't see any way there are multiple suitcase bombs in the US.

Bubba, I think you should look to something else to play out your apocolyptic fantasies.

[mrsimperless]

If the terrorists don't kill us, then either planet x will flip our poles, or the super volcano under yellowstone will kill us all. Or we'll die of peanut butter suffocation. (Always a morbid fear of mine) We're doomed regardless.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

If the terrorists don't kill us, then either planet x will flip our poles, or the super volcano under yellowstone will kill us all. Or we'll die of peanut butter suffocation. (Always a morbid fear of mine) We're doomed regardless.

.....dont forget the dreaded CHUPACABRAS!!!!!

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

That doesn't make your "sources" any more reliable just because they talk about ya know, actual human beings instead of Aliens. If your sources said that Aliens or Osama were hiding in my toilet i'd still use it to take a nice big crap and not worry about the consequences.

You always amaze me with your elogent arguments

[jamesUMD]

If 5 Nukes were detonated in the US, to be honest, I think that the United States would be sending winter (the nuclear kind) to just about any region on the planet that they even thought supported, financed, or even shared the same bathroom with Osama Bin Laden or Al-quaida.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Maybe so, but for all the hot air from yourself and my other critics, the only one with a shred of a reason this wouldn't be true is Blackadar (his three Cs), and while I might think that that is 'gullible' thinking on his part (9-11 was planned for years in advance, and those cells were here training in flight schools for years before the attack) and at least it countered points in the article.

Sorry, the sole argument against this seems to be "well, it never happened before so don't worry about it." Pretty much the same argument you could have made about something like 9-11 before that happened.

Sorry, my bullshit meter went off. The 9/11 cells were training, but once they acquired the weapons (airplanes), they were used immediately. You can place the people far in advance (like we do!). However, once you deliver the weapons, the timetable for deployment is usually very quick. After all, people are cheap compared to certain weapons. Given how much an active nuke or dirty bomb would cost, you can be certain they wouldn't let it sit around for weeks/months/years in the USA before using it. There's too big of a risk in letting it get captured.

Think of terrorist cells like an explosive chemical compound. You need them to be in the right place with the right weapons and mix them at the right time. The weapons are usually the last chemical before the mixture detonates.

But then again, I worked in intelligence, so what the fuck do I know?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But then again, I worked in intelligence, so what the fuck do I know?

Obviously not nearly as much as the "journalists" in Bubba's news sources...

[Chas in Cinti]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Most chilling thing I have ever heard. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/.../12.html#recap

See Blackadar boasting of his CIA connections earlier. How real is this threat?

This is too familiar to a recent Brad Thor novel, State of the Union ...

Here is the link:

State of the Union

Regards,
Chas

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Most chilling thing I have ever heard. http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/.../12.html#recap

See Blackadar boasting of his CIA connections earlier. How real is this threat?

War = $$$ for the corrupt bankers at the Federal (really private not federal) Reserve. My guess is the war on terror will out live us all. It's a great money maker. My point being, there really is no motive to end it. In order to continue the war, we need a boogey man... and maybe let some bombs go off to remind everyone why we fight the boogey man. Expect the worst once support wears thin.

Just a perspective.

Note: The article source seems questionable to me.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

- James Madison, while a United States Congressman

[TroyF]

OK, lets say you are right Bubba. They have em. Lets say they have TWENTY, and they are going to use them at 5pm EST on Friday.

What do you propose to do about it now? If terrorist cells truly have multiple bombs already in the country, unless you happen to have the Muslim on your block ask where he can get more plutonium, there isn't a whole lot we can do. There'll be some duds and some will go off.

And if they do, what are we going to do? As someone else said, a nuclear attack against the US is the definition of end game. Muslim countries would likely cease to exist about ten seconds after we were attacked. In short, the world we know it, not just America would come to an end.

And at the end of the day, exactly what the hell can we do about it? No matter if I trust our government or not, they are there for a few more years. So I'll let you go build your bomb shelter now. I'm gonna play some NCAA. . . and if the bombs go off, I'll see you all in the next life.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

OK, lets say you are right Bubba. They have em. Lets say they have TWENTY, and they are going to use them at 5pm EST on Friday.

What do you propose to do about it now? If terrorist cells truly have multiple bombs already in the country, unless you happen to have the Muslim on your block ask where he can get more plutonium, there isn't a whole lot we can do. There'll be some duds and some will go off.

And if they do, what are we going to do? As someone else said, a nuclear attack against the US is the definition of end game. Muslim countries would likely cease to exist about ten seconds after we were attacked. In short, the world we know it, not just America would come to an end.

And at the end of the day, exactly what the hell can we do about it? No matter if I trust our government or not, they are there for a few more years. So I'll let you go build your bomb shelter now. I'm gonna play some NCAA. . . and if the bombs go off, I'll see you all in the next life.

The problem with lending any credence to this kind of warped paranoid thinking is it increases the level of fear in the populace and leads to an environment where it is easier for those in power to strip away the personal liberties that were the foundation of what this country is supposed to be all about.

[vtbub]

I can think of another country I would use a suitcase nuke on before the USA.

[Bubba Wheels]

Two things not being addressed from the article:

1. The 'sources' cited in the article are the 'space alien' Paul Williams, retired FBI agent and consultant to the U.S. government on terror. The other 'crackpot' is some guy named Allen claiming to be a professor at some backwater podunk school named Harvard.

2. Documented that 20% or more of illegal immigrants crossing our unprotected borders are OTMs (Other Than Mexico) including those from Middle Eastern countries.

[Airhog]

The Case of Suitcase Nukes
By Stephen Schwartz Published 04/08/2004
E-Mail Bookmark Print Save

TCS


Recently, two fascinating topics have grabbed the attention of the Western public: speculation that Russians had sold "suitcase nuclear bombs" to al-Qaida terrorists -- based on a claim by a biographer of Osama bin Laden's factotum, Ayman al-Zawahiri -- and an outbreak of terrorist incidents in the Central Asian ex-Soviet republic of Uzbekistan.



These two matters are linked, for as I previously wrote in TCS, Uzbekistan sits in the middle of a dangerous nest of nuclear, ex-nuclear, and aspiring nuclear powers, including its former ruler, Russia; its neighbor Kazakhstan; nearby Pakistan, and China. In addition, the problem of Wahhabi terrorism, backed by the extremist religio-ideological bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia, is as undeniably deadly as the explosions carried out by suicide bombers in the streets of Tashkent in the past few weeks.



As for al-Zawahiri's threats, the Egyptian surgeon-turned-murderer is a notorious and hysterical loudmouth who will say anything for effect.



But are "suitcase nukes" a serious danger for global security?



To emphasize arguments I have made previously and elsewhere, handling of nuclear explosives is no work for amateurs. The specter of "suitcase nukes" has elicited extensive and authoritative comment from experts in the field, such as Nikolai Sokov and William C. Potter, who are published by the Monterey Institute for International Studies (see, for example, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm).



These knowledgeable figures remind us that rumors about "suitcase nukes" first began circulating in the late 1990s. Particularly in Islamic circles, it became common to hear that Al-Qaida or the Taliban had purchased "suitcase nukes" from rogue Russians. The hubbub was fed by Alexander Lebed, the late Russian politician, who claimed some 100 such devices had gone missing on ex-Soviet territory. Lebed added the inflammatory detail that Chechen separatists had come into possession of nuclear weapons. And Lebed issued the charge during an election campaign in which he was a candidate for a local governorship.



But evidence available from open sources suggests, first, that the probability that "suitcase nukes" were indeed stolen or sold to terrorists is low, and that if they were, their effectiveness has become diminished by the passage of time.



"Suitcase nukes" are not something one can store in a basement and use whenever one feels like it. They require regular maintenance and replacement of components, and in the absence of their handling by technicians, they would probably have little or no effectiveness, aside from providing evildoers with small quantities of weapons-grade radioactive materials, which unfortunately could be used to fabricate a "dirty bomb" -- i.e. a radioactive substance wrapped around a conventional explosive.



A "dirty bomb" would spray radioactivity, and while it might not destroy major structures or kill many people outright, would cause contamination leading to illness and death. A "suitcase nuke" could devastate a significant area and kill many people. But one does not set off a real, live nuke, whatever the size, just by throwing a switch. All nuclear weapons are protected from "casual" misuse by fail-safe systems that can only be overridden by trained personnel.



Russian accusations against the Chechens are so frequent and exaggerated -- notwithstanding the very real and lethal infiltration of Saudi/Wahhabi agents into the Chechen national movement -- that the association of the "suitcase nukes" scenario with the Chechens almost appears as evidence against taking it seriously.



In addition, solid information on the possibility that "suitcase nukes" were ever produced in the former USSR has not advanced significantly beyond the publicity uproar of the late 1990s. If such weapons really existed, more would be known about them, and they would probably have been used.



Nevertheless, at the end of March a Russian newspaper, Moscow News printed a claim by a military officer, Colonel-General Victor Yesin, described as former head of the Russian Strategic Forces, that miniaturized nuclear weapons had been developed in both the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. Yesin described these items as "nuclear mines." But this was also an old story. At the time of the Lebed allegations, a Russian scientist, Alexei Yablokov, stated that 700 "nuclear mines" had been held in Soviet arsenals. Yablokov appeared confused about the difference between "nuclear mines" and "suitcase nukes."



The existence of nuclear mines, as well as an American product known as the "small atomic demolition munitions" has long been admitted. The Russians planted such mines along their borders with China… which, for those concerned about Central Asia, is no source of comfort. Wahhabi agitators have made the millions of Muslims living in Chinese-ruled Eastern Turkestan another of their major targets.



Even if "suitcase nukes" do not represent an immediate and dramatic menace, the global coalition against terror must exercise every possible measure to guard against such weapons falling into the hands of extremists. That means reinforcing controls inside the U.S., compelling the Russians to clean up their nuke-strewn landscape, and standing by Uzbekistan and other countries that are in the front rank of struggle to curb the spread of Wahhabism.