Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.

[banana republican]

Williams claims that al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simulantaneously in U.S. cities.


"They want the most bang for the buck, and that is nuclear," Williams told NewsMax.

"I expect such an attack would come between now and the end of 2005," the author said.

<snip>

Williams' contention is not far from what U.S. intelligence believes, a source close to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has told NewsMax. The source said Ridge claimed that U.S. intelligence believes terrorists already have smuggled into the U.S. actual atomic devices, as opposed to so-called "dirty nukes" that simply are conventional bombs that help spread radiation.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/13/171536.shtml

[MrMonk]

1. "Suitcase Nukes"

Is there really such a thing?

(No data dumps, please.)

[judge_smales]

3. Yes, there are,

BUT- if Al Quaida had them in the US why haven't we been blown up yet? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[RobertSeattle]

5. It's more like Backpack nukes

I saw a example of a backpack nuke while I was in the Army - it was the size of a full size hiking backpack (not a day pack - but one you'd use for a multiday trip)

So a suitcase might be a stretch unless it is a large suitcase.

[TheWraith]

6. Yes.

We know there are such things as suitcase nukes, because we built them.

[bahrbearian]

7. The Soviets made about 100 of them.

They did and inventory and found some were missing.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/
and one from the Freepers www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/552336/posts

[MikeG]

2. Doesn't the nuclear material deteriorate quickly?

[MercutioATC]

17. Deteriorate quickly? Ummmm, no.

[TheWraith]

4. Barking mad.

What a drooling lunatic.

"Williams' contention <snip bullshit> help spread radiation."

Have you ever seen so much weasling in a single paragraph?

[shance]

8. Why create more fear in Americans? Where is proof?

This is not good, discerning policy.

This only ignites Americans feeling powerless and vulnerable to some ambiguous force *out there*.

[TheWraith]

10. Proof? You wanted proof?

You just summarized the Bush reelection campaign.

[happyslug]

9. Bull shit

First problem: If I was bin Laden (and he is NO Idiot) if a Nuke is in the US it is possible for somebody to find it BEFORE all "Eight" would go off. In that case you "lose" the bomb. The better tactic would be to use the bomb AS SOON AS IT IS IN THE US. The simple reason, the sooner it is used the less chance of it being captured (OR turned over for some reward/good times money).

Second Problem: Modern Terrorism is NOT killing for Killing, but a policy of using terror to control a group. A series of Bombs going off at once would have only a few weeks affect on the US population, but a series of bombs going off weeks or months apart would indicate an ability to GET WEAPONS INTO THE US and that is TRUE TERROR. Again this is more likely than eight bombs going off at once.

Third Problem: Suitcase nukes were built to be as light as possible and still work. Given that Nuclear material is constantly degrading, such suitcase bombs may be only capable of going supercritical over a very short life span (May be measured in weeks instead of months or years of larger Nukes). The exact amount of Nuclear material is classified so no one without access to the classified information can give us an Exact life span but we have a rough idea of what is needed from unclassified information. The lead to act as a shield will be the heavier part of the bomb but the issue is NOT how light is the bomb but when does the amount of Nuclear material degrade to a level where it can no longer go supercritical? Given the time for Al Queda to get a suitcase bomb out of Russia and into the USA I believe the time of such a suitcase bomb being still capable of blowing up is long gone. Bin Laden also knows this and will not waste his time of such weapons.

Please note Al Queda may still use such a weapon even if it does not go supercritical. Remember how an A-bomb works, sub-critical amounts of Nuclear material are blown together by TNT into a mass that is Supercritical i.e. goes nuclear. Even the mass is NOT capable of going Supercritical the explosives use will still spread the Nuclear material all over the area where the bomb was set off. I suspect the story of the "Dirty Bomb" of a few years ago were the product of fears of such an explosion of such no longer fully effective suitcase bomb.

[sofa king]

13. I agree with your last paragraph.

But such a device wouldn't just be a "dirty bomb," it would be a big-ass radioactive explosion. Deuterium and tritium are purportedly used to improve the cross section of the reaction, but the devices themselves still require what's basically an A-bomb to work. As a rough guess, a non-accellerated suitcase nuke would create an explosion somewhat larger than that which leveled the Khobar towers.

I remember reading that the very smallest Soviet nukes were around 90 kilograms, used both as a mine and as an artillery shell, with dimensions small enough to fit inside, say, a tube about two feet long and six inches in diameter. Supposedly, the President of Chechnya approached the US in 1993, claiming he had one or more 30 kg nuclear devices.

I should think that such a device would use minimal shielding, and thus should produce enough gamma radiation to rise above the background wherever it goes. If our Department of Homeland Security isn't placing sensors for such a thing in every city and strategic point in the country, the department doesn't deserve to exist at all.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Isn't contamination any other big issue

with these types of weapons? This stuff isn't easy to handle and you're not going to get through customs with one, at least I hope not.

Certainly, if someone did want to use a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb, they're not gonna sit on the darn thing for a couple of years, waiting for just the right moment, to give Bu$h a little boost in the polls.

[Birthmark]

11. No they don't.

[hansolsen]

12. I post four ideas to deal with this thread -- reposted here

I assume that some time in the next ten years the so called "Terrorists' will get their hands on usable nuclear weapons. They will most likely get them (existing, old models) on the black market rather than build them from scratch in a "rogue" state like Iraq or Iran. If they get them, they will use them, and a million Americans will die so that old Mullahs and old Priests and old Rabbis can dither to their heart's content over old books that were written by men long ago. I don't want that to happen. That is why I am here talking to you now.

e. If competent radicals try to smuggle ten nukes (broken down into component parts and reassembled in place) into the U.S. today, 9 out 10 would get in. After all the committees and legislation and tightening of borders and Homeland Security, after say 5 years of improved security, 8 out of 10 would still get in. Just my best guess. So static defense is worthless.

f. Wars of aggression to fight terrorism are also worthless. George Bush is proving that in spades every day. So what will work, you ask?

Bold, creative new ideas that have not been tried before, that are based on dealing with the fundamental root causes of Islamic terrorism, that is what will work. I have such ideas, and I assure you they are bold and radical.

So here are four ideas. Let me introduce them.

The first one is intended simply to buy time -- to avoid the dreaded escalation to the use of WMD.

The second is intended to spread one of the great institutions of democracy without demanding that countries implement democracy. The hope is that democracy will follow of its own accord.

The third is intended to restore some fundamental fairness and equity to the situation on the ground. This will do two things, IMO. It will put U.S. troops on the ground in Israel to help maintain the peace and enforce the original U.N. mandate establishing the state of Israel, and it will give Palestinians the best chance they have had to form a separate state they can be proud to call home.

The fourth is a call for universal sacrifice. It is time to tell the American people the truth -- there are immense costs associated with our policies in the world. We must step up to those costs now.

Are you ready? Here we go.

1. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION:

George Bush has said this is not a war on Islam. He might have better said this is not a war on Islam yet. Maybe John Kerry can say it for him. I urge him to announce the next Presidential Doctrine declaring that the use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil, if ever perpetrated by Arab fundamentalists, and if ever done in the name of Islam, will be met with war on Islam. What we need now is the twenty first century equivalent of "Mutually Assured Destruction." That policy during the Cold War, however grotesque in enunciation, had the sublime beauty of being effective on the ground. It concentrated the mind. We now need to concentrate the Arab mind.
Put this in effect by dispatching the Marines to deliver this Presidential doctrine to every city and village on the Arabian peninsula. Have them nail it to the door of every Mosque. Include the message that in the event of war, every Mosque and every Mullah will be declared an enemy command and control center, and dealt with as such.
Drop a billion leaflets on the Arabian peninsula announcing that if a weapon of mass destruction is deployed against America in the name of Islam, no man will stand in Mecca for a thousand years. Go on Arab television and say the same thing, and say it in a tone of voice so they know you mean it. And say it in such a way that you clearly mean no disrespect for Islam.

2. WORLDWIDE SUPPORT FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Announce another, and even more important Presidential Doctrine. Declare every journalist in the world to henceforth be a United States citizen. Extend automatic dual citizenship to every journalist in every nation on every continent. Declare your intention to defend freedom of the press as a universal human right. Declare it your intention to protect these new citizens of democracy with the full force and might of American military power. Stand up and say it so they know you mean it.
Make it our business to know how every journalist in the world is treated. Make the spread of democracy the highest national priority, higher, for example, than trade, and GDP. Explain this new fact of life to our friends in international business. Explain it in a tone of voice that convinces them we won't forget our new doctrines in the morning. Threaten to sink a few of their ships on the high seas just for emphasis if they demur. Tell the CIA to stay out of the business of killing leaders we don't like and picking new leaders of our choice. Let democracy work its magic. Support universal freedom of the press and most importantly, be open to the outcome.
Immediately cease and desist from any further financial and moral support for authoritarian regimes in that region, or any other region for that matter. Announce that if regime changes on the Arabian peninsula disrupt the flow of oil, we will infer that to be a breach of legal contract and will then take whatever oil we need at a fair price. Smile when you say that.

3. ESTABLISH U.S. MILITARY BASES IN ISRAEL AND ENFORCE the ORIGINAL U.N. MANDATE

Declare a ten year moratorium and cooling off period for the Arab / Israeli dispute. We cannot allow this protracted religious argument to cost a million American lives for nothing. This is no time for four eyed geeks in Foggy Bottom to dither away to their heart's content. This is no time for dithering. This is no time for timid politicians to bow and scrape to the Israeli lobby. This is no time for bowing and scraping. This is a time for bold action.
Stop sending blood money to Israel and Egypt. Instead send the U.S. Army to reestablish and defend the pre 1967 borders. Send the Army Corps of Engineers to bulldoze the Israeli settlements level with the sand, every one of them. Tell Yasser Arafat that if there is one more suicide bomber we will pick up every Palestinian on the West Bank and relocate them to the caves in Afghanistan.
Declare Jerusalem to be an open city administered by the United Nations. Declare that it will remain an open city for the rest of this Millennium. If the Rabbis and the Mullahs and the Priests complain bitterly and wave their musty old books in your face, round them up en mass and drop them in the Mediterranean sea.

4. IMPLEMENT A UNIVERSAL DRAFT

Tell the American people the hard truth. Tell them that their safety and security is now not only dependent on the Marine Corps, but also on the Peace Corps. Make it our highest national priority to make friends with the world, and by that I mean the people of the world, not the regimes of the world and not the religious nut cases of the world. The weed of terrorism can only thrive in an unplowed field. We must plow every field, sow it thick with democracy, and pray that God rains freedom on the world. In freedom lies our safety.
In support of this goal, ask American families to make a great personal sacrifice. Institute a universal national draft. Require all young American citizens to give two years of their lives to national service. Send them throughout the world to every town, hamlet, and field. Set them to work outside under God's blue sky. Let them feel the sun and the rain on their face every day. And let them spread democracy and freedom every evening over dinner and conversation. You have a unique opportunity, Mr. Kerry, to ask this nation for sacrifice, sacrifice in support of a great goal. Do not squander that opportunity; do not be afraid to ask. Do not let the moment pass. If not this, what?

[struggle4progress]

14. Newsmax? Foaming drooling rapid newsmax? Yawn! eom

[Zynx]

15. They exist, but a lot of "buts" are involved

Other than the fact that this guy has no credentials whatsoever (investigative journalist that has worked as an FBI "consultant"-please), there are a few issues with suitcase bombs.

The weapons are called ADM's. However, while these are nukes, they are not all that powerful, because there are still significant physics issues. You can't get a very large blast from an ADM. So you aren't going to blow up a city with a suitcase. You can however handily destroy a very large building or a building well removed from the street (Pentagon, White House, Capitol, Empire State, etc).

Second, there is a large issue of if the Russian ADM would still work. The only two countries with the technology to make something this size are the US and Russia. Neither has done so since the Cold War ended, and thus these weapons have probably decayed. Whether they would even work, or be safe to handle, is an open question.

Third, there is a very large plausibility gap. A suitcase nuke can't be defended against because the area of destruction is gigantic relative to what conventional security measures are supposed to stop. Why would al-Qaeda be waiting to use them? You could take out the Capitol and kill everyone there anytime you wanted.

This "book" is fear mongering bunk.

[struggle4progress]

16. It's an old wingnut story from 2002 ...

Does al-Qaida have 20 suitcase nukes? Author claims bin Laden purchased them in '98 from ex-KGB agents for $30 million
Posted: October 2, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

A new book by an FBI consultant on international terrorism says Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network purchased 20 suitcase nuclear weapons from former KGB agents in 1998 for $30 million.

The book,"Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror," by Paul L. Williams, also says this deal was one of at least three in the last decade in which al-Qaida purchased small nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear uranium.

Williams says bin Laden's search for nuclear weapons began in 1988 when he hired a team of five nuclear scientists from Turkmenistan. These were former employees at the atomic reactor in Iraq before it was destroyed by Israel, Williams says. The team's project was the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used "to transform a very small amount of material that could be placed in a package smaller than a backpack."

"By 1990 bin Laden had hired hundreds of atomic scientists from the former Soviet Union for $2,000 a month – an amount far greater that their wages in the former Soviet republics," Williams writes. "They worked in a highly sophisticated and well-fortified laboratory in Kandahar, Afghanistan."
<snip>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29109

If anyone could prove "Clinton let Al-Qaida get nukes," the Clinton bashers would have drummed it into our ears. Now that we've been in Afghanistan for several years, why can't anybody point to the "highly sophisticated and well-fortified laboratory" that supposedly employed "hundreds of atomic scientists from the former Soviet Union"? And if Al-Qaida really has owned "20 suitcase nuclear weapons" since 1998, why would they bother crashing planes into the Twin Towers? Mr. Paul L. Williams has a credibility problem.

[Zynx]

19. Ex-KGB Agents would spit on $30 million for 20 nukes

These are serious capitalists-just look at who runs most of the Russian Mafia (and government). They'd demand at least $30 million per suitcase nuke. And then probably provide dummy weapons anyway and sock the $600 million they got in the Caymens.

This guy just makes shit up.