{Terror} Will next terror attack be nuclear?

[BEER980]

Will next terror attack be nuclear?
Serious people worry about whether there will be another Hiroshima if weapons get into fanatics' hands
By PERVEZ HOODBHOY

One wonders what Osama bin Laden and his ilk learned from Hiroshima.

The decision to incinerate the Japanese city and another, Nagasaki, was not taken in anger. White men in gray business suits and military uniforms, after much deliberation, decided that the United States could not give the Japanese any warning, that although it could not concentrate on a civilian area, it should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many inhabitants as possible. They argued that it would be cheaper in terms of American lives to release the nuclear genie.

Crowds gathered in Times Square to celebrate: There were fewer of the enemy left. Rarely are victors encumbered by remorse. Declared President Truman: "When you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." Not surprisingly, six decades later, even U.S. liberals remain ambivalent on the morality of nuking the two Japanese cities. But terrorists are not ambivalent.

The New York Times reported that before the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States had intercepted an al-Qaida message that bin Laden was planning a "Hiroshima" against America. In a later taped message, released before the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, bin Laden said, "When people at the ends of the Earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime; it is something that has justification."

In a recent televised debate between myself and Hameed Gul -- an influential Islamist leader, retired general and former head of Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency -- my opponent snarled at me: "Your masters (the Americans) will nuke us Muslims just as they nuked Hiroshima. People like you want to denuclearize and disarm us in the face of a savage beast set to devour the world."

Gul then vented his anger at those -- like myself -- who opposed Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. He sees us as agents of America, apostates and enemies of Islam and the Pakistani state.

This extremist general was making a point that resonates around the globe. The United States has bombed more than a dozen countries since 1948, and recently killed tens of thousands on the pretext of chasing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It claims to be a force for democracy and the rule of law despite a long history of supporting the bloodiest of dictators, rejecting the International Criminal Court and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

The secret is out

But the nuclear monopoly is breaking down. The making of atomic weapons -- especially crude ones -- has become vastly simpler than at the time of the Manhattan Project. Basic information is freely available in technical libraries throughout the world, and surfing the Internet can bring anyone a staggering amount of detail.

Advanced textbooks and monographs contain details that can enable reasonably competent scientists and engineers to come up with quick and dirty designs for nuclear explosives. The physics of nuclear explosions can be readily taught to graduate students.

By stealing fissile materials in the thousands of former Soviet bombs marked for disassembly, or even a fraction of the vast amounts of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium in research reactors and storage sites the world over, it is unnecessary to go through complex processes for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing.

Anger in Muslim countries at the United States has never been higher. The desire for an atomic weapon to seek vengeance -- utterly immoral, foolish and suicidal though it be -- is becoming ever more popular.

The notion of an "Islamic bomb" existed long before Sept. 11. Addressing posterity from his death cell in a Rawalpindi jail, where he would be hanged two years later, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear program, wrote in 1977: "We know that Israel and South Africa have full nuclear capability. The Christian, Jewish and Hindu civilizations have this capability. The communist powers also possess it. Only the Islamic civilization was without it, but that position was about to change."

Addressing an Islamic conference in Tehran in 1992, the Iranian vice president, Sayed Ayatollah Mohajerani, said, "Since Israel continues to possess nuclear weapons, we, the Muslims, must cooperate to produce an atomic bomb, regardless of U.N. efforts to prevent proliferation."

In the celebrations following Pakistan's 1998 nuclear tests, the decades-old religious party Jamaat-e-Islami paraded bomb and missile replicas through the streets of Pakistani cities. It saw in the bomb a sure sign of a reversal of fortunes and a panacea for the ills that have plagued Muslims since the end of the Golden Age of Islam. In 2000, I captured on video the statements of leaders of jihadist, right-wing political parties in Pakistan who also demanded a bomb for Islam.

It is impossible, however, to conceive of any Muslim state risking retaliation by declaring that it has an Islamic bomb that would be used for defense of the ummah -- the Islamic community of believers -- against the United States or Israel. The danger of a nuclear conflict comes from radicalized individuals within the states.

Although Pakistan's military government insisted that there was no danger of any of its nuclear weapons being taken for a ride by some radical Islamic group, it wasn't taking any chances. Shortly after the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001, several weapons were reportedly airlifted to safer, isolated locations within the country, including the northern mountainous area of Gilgit.

This nervousness was not unjustified -- two strongly Islamist generals of the Pakistan army, close associates of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had just been removed. Dissatisfaction within the army concerning Pakistan's betrayal of the Taliban was (and is) deep. Almost overnight, under intense U.S. pressure, the Pakistan government had disowned its progeny and agreed to wage a war of annihilation against it.

Fears about Pakistan's nuclear weapons were compounded by revelations that a high-ranking nuclear engineer, Bashiruddin Mahmood, and a materials specialist, Chaudhry Abdul Majid, had journeyed several times into Afghanistan in 2000. Both scientists espouse radical Islamic views. Mahmood had even been photographed with bin Laden.

Today, the United States lives in fear of the bomb it created, because the decision to use it has already been made. Pious men with beards will decide when and where on U.S. soil atomic weapons are to be used. Shadowy groups, propelled by fanatical hatreds, scour the globe for materials. They are not in a hurry. They are doubtless confident they will one day breach Fortress America.

Soft spots

The possibilities for nuclear attack are not limited to the so-called suitcase bomb stolen from the arsenal of a nuclear state. In fact, getting and exploding such a bomb is far more difficult than the use of improvised nuclear devices fabricated from highly enriched uranium, constructed in the very place where they will eventually be detonated. Still more likely is an attack on a vulnerable nuclear reactor or spent fuel repository.

Some nuclear weapons experts say privately that it is not a question of if but when the attack will happen.

This may be too pessimistic, but tighter policing and monitoring of nuclear materials (and rapid reduction of stockpiles) and nuclear weapons knowledge must be the first step. There should not be the slightest delay in moving on this. But this is far from sufficient.

If nuclear weapons continue to be accepted by nuclear weapon states as legitimate instruments of deterrence or war, their global proliferation -- whether by other states or non-state actors -- can only be slowed at best. Coercive nonproliferation will only serve to drive up demand. Nonproliferation by cooperation and consent cannot succeed as long as the United States insists on retaining and improving its nuclear arsenal. By what reasonable argument can others be persuaded to give up, or not acquire, nuclear weapons?

So what will happen when religious fanatics succeed in a nuclear attack? The world shall plunge headlong into a bottomless abyss of reaction and counter-reaction in a horror the human mind cannot comprehend.

Who will the United States retaliate against? Will the United States nuke Mecca? The capitals of Muslim states? What will the United States and its allies do as their people fear more attacks? Will they expel Muslims from the United States and Europe, or herd them into internment camps as was done to Japanese Americans in World War II? Hiroshima signaled a failure of humankind, not just of the United States. The growth of technology has far outstripped our ability to use it wisely. Like a quarreling group of monkeys on a leaky boat, armed with sticks of dynamite, we are embarked on an uncertain journey.

Humanity's best chance of survival lies in creating taboos against the manufacture of nuclear weapons -- such as those that already exist for chemical and biological weapons -- and to work rapidly toward their global elimination.

Pervez Hoodbhoy is a member of the Pugwash Council and is professor of nuclear and high-energy physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Source

[Hurricaneman]

Maybe

[streetsoldier]

Inshallah (If God wills it).

[Guest]

There are so many possibilites with nuclear threats. China, NORTH KOREA, India, etc, that one of these days one of those areas will become kind of ticked off with either the U.S. and/or another country. The potential results are ominous if conflict should breakout.

[BEER980]

Like it says though, who will we attack back. I have heard talk recently about the "America's Hiroshima" operation that is supposed to take place when OBL gives the word. I do see lots of stuff on my regular sites so hopefully it is just talk. Predictions come and go, like the one for this Friday.

[stormie_skies]

While it is remotely possible, I don't think its likely that the next terror attack against the US will involve a fully fledged nuclear weapon. If I had to guess, I would think it would involve suicide bombers in public places, a la Madrid & London. They might use dirty bombs, I suppose ...

I don't understand why we are surprised that a country like Iran would seek a nuclear weapon. If you consider the nuclear threat they face in Israel, plus the fact that they made a spot on our "axis of evil" list.... and of the other two nations on that list, we invaded the one without nuclear weapons, and continue to negotiate from a distance with the one that has them.... I would think the basic self-preservation instinct would lead them to seek a nuclear defense option. Thats not saying I think an Iranian nuke would be a GOOD thing, far from it, but it seems logical to me that they would seek to make one....

Its so ridiculous that people even bring up the option of nuking Mecca. What good would it do? We would be doing nothing but playing into the Bin Laden mantra of religious war.....

I hope we, as a nation, are above that.

[kevin]

Do not think that any state when backed into a corner is above anything. Morality is a sugar coating which the powerful apply to politics because they know it will help the public swallow. The only moral guide when states are rational actors is national security and interests. When states are near death they either fold (e.g., Italy in WWII) or fight to the last cartridge (Germany). Since we can deal out as much as we can take (and wouldn't be in a position of complete weakness), I would guarantee that America would fight until the threat of being attacked by a nuclear weapon was forever removed. Doubt it?

I agree nuking Mecca wouldn't happen at least initially.

What we might demand is the complete dismantlement or surrender of nuclear weapons in all unfriendly states or the annihilation of their capital cities. If they agreed a strong inspection regime led solely by American forces would be put into place. That's just an idea short of making this war religious.

[streetsoldier]

"That's just an idea short of making this war religious."

Uh, kevin...the "other side" has already made this a "religious"(?) war. They set the rules of engagement...no rules at all, other than killing every-and-anyone who doesn't buy into their idea of "Paradise on Earth" in the Taliban model.

[kevin]

Yes, I know that and had a feeling you would bring it up.

I will not die for Christianity, or the annihilation of Muslims. I will serve and protect the United States however. That is why I am not for a religious conflict. I understand these mujahadeen want to kill all who refuse to say that the true God is Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, need to die.

Doesn't mean I am for nuking Mecca.

See Jonah for a Judeo-Christian reason.

[azsnowman]

Bring it ON!!! Let's throw one HELLUVA party JUST in CASE it HAPPENS

Dennis

[streetsoldier]

Yes, I know that and had a feeling you would bring it up.

I will not die for Christianity, or the annihilation of Muslims. I will serve and protect the United States however. That is why I am not for a religious conflict. I understand these mujahadeen want to kill all who refuse to say that the true God is Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, need to die.

Doesn't mean I am for nuking Mecca.

That's the point, kevin...THEY don't care if you're a Brahmin, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Mithraist, Jewish, Taoist/Confucian or even Islamic! If you're not one of them (Wahhabi), you're DEAD.

[beenthru6]

Aren't those suitcase nuclear weapons that came up "missing" from Russia still unaccounted for? Call me crazy, but I don't believe for one minute that the Russians don't know where they are. I would not be a bit surprised if they weren't somehow choreographing and setting the stage for a nuclear hit here, but in such a way as to not be the ones blamed. I also don't trust China one bit.

[streetsoldier]

I recall that 47 of those devices have yet to turn up. I doubt that the Russian government has anything to do with it, but there are a number of former Soviet technicians that could and/or have "sold themselves" to anyone who was willing to use their services.

China would be less likely than North Korea, IMHO...but remember than as many as 1/5 of the People's Army's soldiers are Islamic (from the westernmost provinces). And most of the southernmost former Soviet republics are Islamic, as well; some of which may have been warehousing these devices.

[HurriCat]

Recently heard a guy who has written a book on this possibility (nuke attack in the USA). All he has done is COMPILE reports and warnings already issued by a great many sources in governments and intelligence/security agencies - including our own. The book isn't out for some time yet, so this wasn't a promo-tour. I wouldn't mention the title, either (can't remember it). To his credit, the author didn't give out a toll-free number or web-site to get books, either.

Anyways, the warning is that this is a WHEN and not an IF issue. Based on the data gathered, this individual said that such an attack is almost a certainty within one year. He referred to Bin Laden as to having some ultimate decree that 4,000,000 Americans must die, with half being CHILDREN as to achieve "balance".

He also detailed as to how "suitcase nukes" aren't necessarily the small (and missing) devices of Russian origin. Through age and neglect, the Cold-War era devices are likely non-functional by now. There are many types of more modern, small, tactical devices that could easily be carried across the WIDE-OPEN border with good ol' "Meh-hee-ko".

Many official sources have stated that they BELIEVE this has already happened.

See, folks, it's MORE than cabbage pickers that we opposed to illegal immigration "fear"!

I think of a scene from Quigley Down Under, in which there is one shot and two or three henchmen drop. The main bad guy remarks something like "He's been waiting all morning for those idiots to line up." This might be what the real-world bad guys are doing. They might be watching for an opportunity to catch the most people in the most places at once. Possibly getting their devices set up has delayed them. Maybe poor maintenance has taken a toll on the weapons, and this has delayed (or hopefully thwarted entirely) their plans.

I know someone whose life was saved in Iraq, because the enemy apparently couldn't read FRENCH (crates and manuals) and did not arm their RPG weapons properly. Maybe they are just as dense with Russian or whatever, and/or just lack the technical chops to maintain and fire the devices. One immediate thought is that possibly anyone smart enough to baby-sit a nuke and keep it healthy - and to know how to use it - is by default too damn intelligent to blow themselves up in a crazed suicide attack. Cool beans if these dudes dismantled their weapons and joined the millions of other illegals here, just to scratch out a living. I'll take that over nuke-armed sleeper-cell fanatics any day!

So, it comes down to MAYBE it happens and MAYBE it doesn't. You have to decide if you can live in or very close to big population centers and/or places that will attract attention because of their propaganda value.

(REVISED by HurriCat) There has been talk - and I am guilty in my rage, too - of a policy or promise to nuke certain targets if the USA is hit. BAD MOVE. This would then make us the bad guys for real. This is something that the whackos would love for us to do, and it would then be an entire, HUGE religion that we would be fighting. With such reactionary anger, I was wrong, and so are you if you think nuking holy sites is the answer. I will not become "them".

I want more action from the supposedly "not like that" majority of the Muslim community. They know the language, the places and the individuals. They know employers, relatives and friends in ways that our military, police and intelligence ops never will. They can bring the bad guys right to us - IF they will. So far, the weak "statements" and "loud" lack of such actions are just suspect in my opinion.

It has to stop somewhere, and if we won't destroy those trying to destroy us, then we are doomed. We will become a nation of hiders - scurrying about under increasingly tight security measures and the terrorists will still strike at will. We will all be victims, not just those maimed and killed.

Looks like they are winning more every day. Ask the folks riding the subways in NYC as they get patted-down, scanned and probed. I just read that in light of the London bombings, there are calls for more and more video surveillance here in the USA. Two more little victories for the bad guys.

[kevin]

Foreign policy is based on national interest not patriotism, not ideologies, and not knee jerk reaction.

That is why we have a republic!

(edited by streetsoldier)

[Derek Ortt]

if we are nuked, based upon our policy of total destruction to the enemy, the entire middle east may be at risk then

[Comanche]

If this avian flu ever mutates and makes the human to human jump, there may not be much of a Third world left as those with mediocre to poor health systems will potentially see massive fatality rates. Could get bad over here as well even with the more advanced med care. from what i have read and heard, this is one of the reasons the first world war ended when it did, soldiers were croaking in the trenches or too sick to fight.

[BEER980]

From what I have read the number was 20 - 50 million dead world wide and 1 - 2 million in the US. Our problem here is hospital beds. Just like SARS would tie up all our respirators if it ever went wild here.

[HurriCat]

H5N1 (Avian Flu) - Pretty scary letters and numbers. From the constant drumbeat warnings by numerous health officials (and not just we internet "nut jobs"), the possibility of a pandemic is - like the nuke-terror-strike scenario - becoming a WHEN and not IF event. Again, as with the nukes - do you live in a high-population area? Stuff to think about. And no, we don't have to live in caves. Animals in nature are WARY, meaning cautious. It should not be considered extremist-thinking if one supposes "Hmmm, there is a possibility of a highly contagious flu outbreak. How densely poplulated is my home town?" or even "I wonder if certain nearby landmarks or governmental locations would make good targets for terrorists?" Nope - don't have to run away, but you don't have to sit on a bullseye, either. Most folks here (Storm2K) have the brains to prepare for a storm. If it is too threatening, then the option to not be in the storms' path is considered just common sense. There is no difference in considering the possibilities of disease/terror events. Wind, rain and storm-surge have no monopoly on loss.

[BEER980]

I just read an article recently about how it survived on some duck that was processed for eating. There are several cases where the duck had been sent to restaurants. Just a little cross contamination to someone leaving the area on a jet and we have trouble. Once it learns how to jump from human to human it could be bad.