From Reuters, via Yahoo England (with thanks to Religion of Pieces)
Al-Qaeda seeking nuclear kit attacks.
LONDON (Reuters) - Al Qaeda is trying to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack against Western targets including Britain, a senior official said on Monday.
"We know the aspiration is there. We know attempts to gather materials are there, we know that attempts to gather technology are there," the senior Foreign Office official told reporters.
Thecomments at a briefing came days after the head of MI5 said Muslim extremists were plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain which could involve chemical and nuclear devices.
The Foreign Office official, asked whether there was any doubt that Al Qaeda wants to gather nuclear material for use against Western targets, said: "No doubt at all."
Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, said last week young British Muslims were being groomed to become suicide bombers and her agents were tracking some 1,600 suspects, most of whom were British-born and linked to al Qaeda in Pakistan.
14 comments:
I hate to say this and it may sound insane ... but a nuclear attack is what it may take for the world to wake up and take real, concrete steps to fight what is staring us in the face.
Not to worry, folks, they already know what the real root cause is:
The root of terror is clear, Peter Preston, Al-Ghardyan.
The first target of Al-Qaida's nuclear attack is the USA. They will probably hit New York because it is so well known around the world as the background in movies, for a global shock effect. Only if they have nukes to spare they will attack secundary targets such as Britain.
Al-Qaida has nukes from the break-up of the Soviet Union and they have Soviet and Pakistani experts for the necessary, constant maintenance that nuclear weapons require.
They will use the existing people and drugs smuggling networks to move the weapons to their targets. No need for capital intensive transport devices, such as rockets.
Regards,
Snouck
Oddly enough, this story doesn't seem to have been covered by the BBC, and this may be the reason why:
"The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has accused the BBC of bias against Christianity and says the broadcaster fears a terrorist backlash if it is critical of Islam.
The archbishop, the second most senior figure in the Church of England's hierarchy, said Christians took "more knocks" than other faiths at the hands of the BBC.
"They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims," he said. "We are fair game because they can get away with it. We don't go down there and say, 'We are going to bomb your place.' That is not in our nature."
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/nmuslim14.xml
While prescribing to the idea of Nuclear bomb attack, I think it is more likely that it will be a dirty bomb. They are far easier to make and disguise. 10,000 tons of Ammonium nitrate delivered by a Freighter with a couple of canisters of radioactive Caesium which should be easy enough to get you hands on. If my memory serves me correct two containers containing the stuff was found on a rubbish dump in Brazil a few years back it caused the death of 57 people. This exploded in the harbour of Rotterdam or Antwerp would put paid to Europe, especially if there was a good protestant wind blowing at the time (westerly) approximately 100,000,000 people live in a radius of 200 miles of either of these ports.
MI5 gave a public interview, they do not do this unless sanctioned by the Government. This only goes to show that the British Government is preparing the country for an attack. I do not agree with Snouck. If I was going to attack I would attack the weakest link and that is Europe. This would mean the death of Islam as nuclear retaliation would be swift an sure. Israel would see themselves as next in line and launch a pre-emptive attack. France and Britain would do the same. Unfortunately the MAD doctrine does not deter muslims as most of the sexually frustrated followers expect to end up in the Heavenly brothel with 72 virgins and fornicate for the rest of eternity. I only hope that the virgins are made of rubber have slow punctures and they have to blow them up themselves.
Then why do something that would mean the death of Islam? Wouldn't their more likely strategy be to cripple as much of the West as possible to minimize retaliation for as long as possible? I'm somewhat inclined towards Snouck's scenario but adding a strike at Israel at the same time. The weakest link would probably respond by assuming the position and could be mopped up at their relative leisure.
I'm still confused about the effect of various types of radioactive devices. Are dirty bombs capable of killing at that level?
I also disagree with Snouck. The first and easiest target will be en Europe. London is in my opinion the obvious choice.
A dirty bomb will only be used if a real one cannot be made available. I believe the Islamist prefer the shock effect of a real nuclear bomb.
Check out this doument National Planning Scenarios it is a US Department of Homeland Security leaked report outlining the effects of a dozen hypothetical - but devastating - terrorist attacks.
The dirty bomb scenario only causes around 200 fatalities and around a total of 500 direct casualties and 20.000 with superficial radioactive contamination.
Granted, it is not an explosion of a ship loaded with explosion and radioactive material - but just a truck bomb. But still, I dont't believe I have read any scenario with dirty bombs with more than 10.000 fatalities.
The cleaning up efforts may be expensive though.
No, the first devastating terrorist attack will in my opinion be nuclear and the target a large city. London is the obvious target.
A biological attack is also possible, if the terrorist happen to manufacture a nasty virus before they manage to aquire an a-bomb. They probably will not even bother to manufacture an anti-virus.
I doubt fears of any form of retaliation will keep terrorists away from any target or means of attack. They are not exactly rational. We can only be sure of one thing when trying to discern terrorist plans. They do not think like human beings governed by morals or ethics. Therefore we must think outside the box and examine all possibilities.
Dried food and duck tape, VS. And my 2nd amendment right.
But nevermind, the problem with retaliation is against WHO?
Pakistan? (Sounds good to me)
KSA? (Sounds good to me)
Iran? (Would do the most good)
To be effective in response (which is bad enough) conventional ideas of retaliation and war will have to be left behind.
IMHO we win the war when imams all over, especially morons in chief such as Tantawi and Qaradawi and the Al Sheikhs start saying that the muslims are losing because they have lost hold of the rope..are poor in faith.
We start by obliterating Mecca. Complete and utter glass. Of course there is no point of that unless Medina goes, and Qum, and Teheran, Karbala, Najaf, Karachi, Quetta..every meaningful symbolic and objectively important target, and..well you get the picture.
You can't just go do this because a ton of Cesium has been blown over Antwerp, or because 25 million are at risk from anthrax, you have to have such plans prepared and agreed to.
Think the Russians need to be informed if 35% of their souther border areas are going to be irradiated?
There is no way Europeans are going to arrange this ahead of time. If they would, then their birth rates would be above replacement.
That is why we are in a time when only american resolve, and unilateral action is left. Would america destroy all that for Paris? Would I be willing to be personally responsible for supporting the carrying out the incineration of 5 or 600,000,000 for Paris?
No.
Now Toulouse.... or London..
It seems that people don't realise that 10,000 ton of fertiliser is equivalent to approximately half the strength of the Hiroshima explosion Urea can also be used and it is manufactured in the Middle East. If this was exploded in Rotterdam harbour it would destroy Rotterdam and close the Rhine. It would also send a cloud of Radioactive dust in the direction of Germany, if there was a good westerly blowing. It doesn't really matter which way the wind is blowing which ever way would mean the death of European trade. Rotterdam is Germany's biggest port along with Switzerland. Antwerp and Hamburg however much they tried could not take up the slake. France for all its Dimmi status has re targeted its submarine missile fleet it did it earlier this year. What I am saying is that there would be a phase change in Europe's perception of the muslim world. It would be forced to retaliate one because if it didn't it would lose any right it had to represent the people of Europe and secondly, even if France and Britain escaped the governments of those countries would realise that they were next on the list the same goes for Israel. When you get down to the nitty gritty that is only what a Government is for to preserve the country it represents. A few well placed bombs on certain muslim targets would certainly concentrate there minds mecca especially. Not being able to go on a pilgrimage to mecca would rock Islam to its foundations. It is one of the pilers of there faith. It would make muslims world wide reappraise there faith because it would show that Allah was not almighty if he could not protect the holy places. That is what I mean when I say that an attack like this would mean the death knell of Islam. The same would happen if they attacked America.
Yorkshireminer,
Interesting thoughts. I absolutely agree with you.
the only thing is, 10,000 pound fertilizer bomb is only four times the size of the bomb that hit the Oklahoma City building, if I recall correctly.
I'm not sure if it is nearly as big as you think it is.
I just looked it up, and actually, the Oklahoma City bomb was 5000 pounds of fertilizer.
Epaminondas, you are right a long way. Without American resolve and ressources - Europe just seem lost.
But I wonder what would happen if a major city was lost.
Would the French just standby after loosing Paris?
Would the English?
Would we risk loosing another city? Just turn our cheek to the other side? A de facto surrender?
Would it be morally defensible to counter attack by using nuclear weapons on civilians?
Would America just stand by?
I know we would not just do nothing. But also I do not think we would start bombing indiscriminately.
We would try to to find the responsible, which we won't be able to (except for a few helpers).
But, we would disarm the entire Islamic world. Missiles and nuclear installations would not be permitted.
A few nuclear weapons might be launched against non civilian targets.
Islamists would become mighty unpopular in the West. I would foresee internments and deportations of Muslims and eventually a total isolation of the Middle East.
If we should start bombing - then I like your list of targets.
We could do it with little bloodshed. Give the civilians 48 hours to leave and then BANG. Unfortunately the Imams would be the first to leave.
Yorkshireminer, the survival instinct is very strong.
We would have to retalitate.
I am afraid it will be tested one day in a future not too far away.
The truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon used 12,000 pounds of TNT. I keep reading that this was the largest non-nuclear man-made explosion ever on earth. I have my doubts (Texas City? Halifax?), but if that is true it was done with a truck, not, say, a fully loaded ship in NY or Boston Harbor or the Port of Los Angeles. And of course it was not a dirty bomb. And I do agree with Phares that an attack using a true nuclear device would alter the state of world politics in an instant.
I can't remember having to read so many discussions of the actual procedures for decontamination since I was a kid. Literally a kid. Civil defense publications from the 50s are much more optimistic about the effectiveness of decon. By the 60s there was a prevailing attitutde that any sort of nuclear confrontation would destroy the world as we know it and therefore must be avoided at all cost. Of course this was part of the debate over MAD vs. Ban the Bomb. But the most frightening scenarios I've read (including here) focus on the impact of multiple nuke attacks on financial and goverment centers, key ports, communications, etc. In these scenarios chaos and social/political/economic breakdown are much more deadly in the long run than radiation. I still think it makes the most sense fot the Islamists to take their strongest opponents -- the US and Israel -- out of the action before they go after the weaker links. That, of course, was the intention of Japan in 1944. Inconveniently for them they had no way to prevent our comeback after much of our fleet was destroyed. In any mass attack on the US it has to be asked how much retaliatory capacity will we have left?
In the event of a nuclear attack by Islamists, the most rational choice of targets starts with Mecca and Medina. Somebody should have put that word out to the enenmy via back channels long ago. You nuke New York and you can kiss the Kaaba goodbye. Unfortunately, nothing short of nuclear catastrophe is likely to break the taboo against destroying religious sites enough to allow for that.
Post a Comment