Well Isn't this lovely...

Nagilum

FRIDAY OCTOBER 26 2001

Bin Laden's nuclear threat

BY PHILIP WEBSTER AND ROLAND WATSON

OSAMA BIN LADEN and his al-Qaeda network have acquired nuclear materials for possible use in their terrorism war against the West, intelligence sources have disclosed.
The Western sources say that the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks on America does not have the capability to mount a nuclear attack but fear he would do so if he could.

They believe that he obtained the materials illegally from Pakistan, which has a nuclear capability.

The knowledge that bin Laden has components for a nuclear weapons device in his arsenal is believed to lie behind the regular warnings from President Bush and Tony Blair that he would commit worse atrocities than the suicide assaults on New York and Washington if he were able to.

They may also explain the speed with which the decision was taken to go after bin Laden and his terrorist network, even if that meant toppling the Taleban regime in Afghanistan first.

The disclosure comes as MPs prepare to learn today the details of British troops earmarked for deployment to Afghanistan. They will include a commando group of about 1,000 Royal Marines, currently on exercise in Oman, as well as a large contingent of special forces and specialist support units. The force will be based on ships that have also been participating in the huge tri-Service exercise. They are expected to include the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, stripped of her Harrier jets so she can be used as a platform for helicopters, or HMS Ocean, a dedicated helicopter carrier, two anti-aircraft destroyers to protect the carrier, the assault ship HMS Fearless, and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels.

Yesterday Mr Blair sought to reassure Muslim leaders that the military action in Afghanistan should be over as quickly as possible. He told the Islamic Response to Terrorism Conference in North London: “I hope you understand that what is important is that we make sure at the same time we take the action necessary now in order to hold to account those who committed the actions of September 11.”

There has been clear evidence for several years that bin Laden’s agents have been trying to buy, steal or smuggle nuclear systems in order to attack the West. He has said that it was his “religious duty” to seek to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

An informed source has told The Times that bin Laden appeared to have amassed a “terrifying” range of weapons although he was insistent that he did not have the capacity to launch a nuclear attack.

Intelligence sources, however, have voiced concerns about bin Laden obtaining radioactive material for a “dirty bomb”. Rather than being used in an atomic weapon, the material would be dispersed in a way that would seriously contaminate a small area. In an urban environment hundreds of people could die and thousands more be exposed to radiation poisoning.

In 1993 a senior bin Laden operative, Jamal al-Fadi, met a Sudanese military commander in Khartoum to try to negotiate the sale of a cylinder of enriched South African uranium for a black market price of $1.5 million (£1.2 million). A separate al-Qaeda attempt to buy weapons-grade nuclear material through the Russian mafia was foiled in Prague when several kilograms of highly enriched uranium were seized, according to a German TV report last week.

Earlier this week two former government nuclear scientists in Pakistan were detained amid fears about their links with the Taleban. Bashir uddin Mahmood was project director in Pakistan’s nuclear programme before its 1998 tests. Since retiring from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission three years ago, he ran a group which carried out relief work in Afghanistan, and was known to be supportive of the Taleban. Chaudry Abdul Majid was a director of the commission in 1999.

Intelligence officials have long been aware of the potential for contraband uranium to be turned into an atomic “suitcase bomb”. An easier outcome is a radiological weapon — a conventional weapon with a radioactive core — which has the ability to contaminate large areas.

George Tenet, Director of the CIA, told the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that bin Laden was trying to obtain nuclear materials.

However, some are convinced bin Laden already has a nuclear capability. According to a book about the terrorist leader, The Man Who Declared War on America, Chechen rebels facilitated the sale of nuclear suitcase bombs in the late 1990s from a range of former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Russia.

Quoting Russian and Arab intelligence sources, the author, Yossef Bodansky, says that bin Laden’s go-betweens paid the Chechens $30 million in cash and gave them two tonnes of heroin with a Western street value of up to $700 million for a number of bombs.

In 1998 bin Laden issued a statement entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam”, which said: “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God.”

London Times Link

Magwitch

*digs deep hole in back garden and throws in tinned food*:eek:

bonkey

Originally posted by Nagilum
FRIDAY OCTOBER 26 2001
OSAMA BIN LADEN and his al-Qaeda network have acquired nuclear materials for possible use in their terrorism war against the West, intelligence sources have disclosed.

<snip>

There has been clear evidence for several years that bin Laden’s

<snip>

An informed source has told The Times that bin Laden appeared to have amassed a “terrifying” range of weapons although he

<snip>

In 1993 a senior bin Laden operative, Jamal al-Fadi, met a

<snip>

George Tenet, Director of the CIA, told the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that bin Laden was trying to obtain nuclear materials.

<snip>

capability. According to a book about the terrorist leader, The Man Who Declared War on America, Chechen rebels facilitated the sale of nuclear suitcase bombs in the late 1990s from a range

<snip>

In 1998 bin Laden issued a statement entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam”, which said: “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God.”

So, what we have here is a news article telling us that it has been known for the past few years that bin Laden has been buying (or trying to buy) weapons of mass distruction.

Which means its hardly news...its more a history lesson.

If its been known for several years, then telling the world about it now seems a bit sensationalistic. Either the press would have jumped on this years ago, or it would have been trotted out as part of the justification to go after bin Laden.

While the content is scary, it is couched in suitably vague language to avoid definitely saying that bin Laden actually has any serious kit.

To be honest, this hasnt changed the world I lived in since yesterday, because even if its true, its no more than I would expect.

My personal take on it being reported is that the news was getting full of "Allies bomb innocents" stories, and it was time to remind us just how right the allied forces actually are in going after this monster.

Whats that word again? Oh yeah - porpaganda.

jc

Shinji

Well quite. The Western administrations know that they're losing the propaganda war... It's only six weeks since the World Trade Centre came down, and the atmosphere has changed massively in that time.

This is meant to be a war of justice, yet a lot of moderate, reasonable people are getting their hackles up and saying "not in my name" - much more so than ever in the Gulf War, for example. The rest of the West seems not to care much; 50% apathy, 40% disagreement, 10% agreement isn't a great basis to start a war from.

As far as the governments are concerned, the west does need reminding of how much of a danger Bin Laden poses. That's why the Anthrax scare has been blown out of all proportion - a relatively low-risk, treatable disease which is nigh-on impossible to use as a weapon and not contagious in the traditional sense, yet people are downright terrified of it.

A nuke is a nice scary one. Sure, those of us who bother following these things KNOW that Bin Laden and his ilk could build nukes or radiation seeding devices with relative ease, but the tabloid reading masses don't - and the governments want to scare them again, before the loss of the propaganda war turns into an embarrassingly forced U-turn on the military war.

bonkey

Originally posted by Shinji
As far as the governments are concerned, the west does need reminding of how much of a danger Bin Laden poses. That's why the Anthrax scare has been blown out of all proportion - a relatively low-risk, treatable disease which is nigh-on impossible to use as a weapon and not contagious in the traditional sense, yet people are downright terrified of it.

From what I have read (and it may well be wrong) I understood that only "skin anthrax" was treatable. Inhalation Anthrax, once seated in the lungs, is untreatable, and 90% fatal.

But even at that, it is almost non-transmissable, difficult to make in large quantities, and so on.

Yes, an air-burst of this stuff over a city would be scary, but several envelopes of powder do not an airburst make. This stuff is very hard to manufacture to the right particle size in order for "inhalation Anthrax" to be contracted.

So, yeah, definitely overhyped....

A nuke is a nice scary one. Sure, those of us who bother following these things KNOW that Bin Laden and his ilk could build nukes or radiation seeding devices with relative ease, but the tabloid reading masses don't - and the governments want to scare them again, before the loss of the propaganda war turns into an embarrassingly forced U-turn on the military war.

Agreed.

I wouldnt be too surprised, though, if it turned out to be counter-productive. It may reinforce public opinion that ObA is a madman who needs to be stopped, but this may not lead to the public encouraging the war.

I'm just waiting for some paper to run an article farily soon where some "military expert" is trotted out to condemn the war, saying that the best chance of actually stopping bin Laden is via covert ops, not by bombing runs and other obvious military intervention.

Doesnt matter if its true or not....its the tabloid-reading masses who are targetted by this stuff anyway, and they sure as fsck arent going to question a military expert.

Then the public will have it real easy....the papers will have told them that the right thing to do is to stop the war in order to get bin Laden, and the whole thing will become even more embarrassing.

Yo Mamma

I agree with Shinji on this one !

And just to label the point, take a look at these old war posters !

They might be old and dated but it is exactly the same thing that the States is doing today !! (With only a little bit more subtlety)

Gargoyle

Great idea! We should just wait for bin Laden to nuke a major city, then we'll finally have public support to take him out, and it'll only cost us several hundred thousand productive citizens!

Hobbes

I see Albania have a suitcase nuke and have sneaked it into the US over the canadian border.

Clintons Cat

i hear America are starting work on a new more deadly strain of Anthrax one which can remain airborne for longer and is more deadly and more resistant to medicine (cite BBC radio4 news)
This is not for bad reasons you understand it is so they can develop more effective medicines to counter further Biohazzard threats.
State secrets being so secret theres no chance this new research will fall into the wrong hands.And i am sure those research institutions have learned not to sell samples to just anyone.

Typedef

Yeah right.

Picture this. Osama Bin Laden sitting in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere, innocent blown to bits red-cross workers lying around yet, Bin Laden and his followers with the 2 grams of uranium235 pakistan gave him
Develops his own Nuclear weapons production facility and builds a bomb, something Nazi scientists seemed unable to do.

Next Bin Laden and his army of Nuclear Physicists and Rocket Scientists/Islamic Extremists retrofit some fireworks to become ICBM's then they launch a decisive attack against the USA, even though as much as 70% of Afghanistan's population has been "displaced" by this war.

WOW I thought I'd be scarcastic and troll on about propaganda but it looks as if the above well thought out argument has actually convinced me. Oh well I guess it was the Taliban propaganda that had brain washed me , I mean after all our side is reasonable and their side is not and white people are the only people who should own Nuclear weapons, white people and Israel. duh.

Gargoyle

What party do you vote for Typedef?

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Great idea! We should just wait for bin Laden to nuke a major city, then we'll finally have public support to take him out, and it'll only cost us several hundred thousand productive citizens!

Now this has to be one fo the silliest comments I can imagine.

The US do not believe the Taliban kept bin Laden "isolated", and yet somehow beleive that he must still be in Afghanistan despite any evidence supporting this

There is no evidence (known) at all about where bin Laden might be storing such a nuke. If it was in Afghanistan, bin Laden had so much advance warning of there being a retaliatory strike he could easily have relocated it. Of course, I wouldnt have stored it in Afghanistan in the first place.

Why do all the "war advocates" have the opinion that there are two options : attack Afghanistan or do nothing?

Do you somehow believe that all of Al Qaeda were in Afghanistan on their annual terrorist retreat, and were completely caught unawares by the US invasion and are now trapped there waiting to be caught or killed?

Or do you believe that getting bin Laden will somehow make the entire network of international terrorist organisations fold and become ineffectual?

You cant have it both ways....bin Laden is either the mastermind behind all of this, or he isnt. If he is, then you have to credit the man with some modicum of intelligence.

If he masterminded it, then he would have been aware of the probability of US involvement before the attacks. With all the noise made afterwards, he was most definitely aware of it. Unless of course we assume he is cut off from the world as the Taliban claimed, in which case he cant be responsible.

So, assuming he knew about the international reaction, do you honestly believe he would then be so careless as to store all his major assets in Afghanistan in the blind hope that the US would not find them? Hell, I'd be surprised if bin Laden himself was still in Afghanistan.

Do you also believe that his continued threats are nothing but empty air because the attacks on Afghanistan have him penned down so he can do nothing? That as long as the US keeps attacking, there will be no reciprocation?

Because if not, then how can you make a ludicrous claim that sitting back will get a city nuked, implying that attacking (and sorting him out) will somehow prevent it.

jc

Shinji

Is anyone else utterly confused as to what point Typedef is trying to make, other than forming some kind of effective anti-drugs advertisement?


Bonkey is quite right. If I'd got a radiological or nuclear device (and they are NOT difficult to build; if I had 50kg of low-grade uranium, I could build one with enough yield to take out the City of London from bits lying around in my room and a couple of bits and bobs from the local chemist) I sure as hell wouldn't be storing it in a cave in Afghanistan.

If Bin Laden has the materials for a bomb, or a bomb itself, it won't be in the middle east. It'll be in a rented shed somewhere in the USA or the Home Counties of the UK, or maybe in a lock-up outside Tel Aviv...

Typedef

Yeah sure all you have to do is dig up the Uranium, process it to weapons grade, find your "Making Nukes for Dummies" and hey presto WW3.

Errm no Bin Laden has no nukes and to suggest otherwise is propaganda that is used to justify bombing a third world country with upwards of 7.5 million people being made refugee's of for the sake of revanche for an attack the US clearly provoked by it's dictatorial foreign policy.

QED

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Yeah sure all you have to do is dig up the Uranium, process it to weapons grade, find your "Making Nukes for Dummies" and hey presto WW3.

a) You can buy a nuke from several sources, including the Russian mafia.

b) You can buy/steal plutonium, uranium, or any other fissile material at or close to weapons grade on the black market, and make a bomb fairly easily. While not as destructive as an "industrial" nuke would be, it will cause large damage and be very messy.

Weapons-grade is a misnomer. It descibes the quality you need for a sustained chain-reaction which yields maximum devestation. Non-weapons grade will "fizzle", causing a much smaller explosion and a much higher radiation count.

If you think fissile materials are that scarce, go to google, type in 'missing plutonium' and hit search. Look at the figures which come out in the first couple of hits.

c) There are several books, and web locations where you can get exact specifications for making nuclear missiles.

Errm no Bin Laden has no nukes and to suggest otherwise is propaganda that is used to justify bombing a third world country with upwards of 7.5 million people being made refugee's of for the sake of revanche for an attack the US clearly provoked by it's dictatorial foreign policy.

There is no definite proof either way about whether or not bin Laden has a nuke. The possibility exists, and should not be discounted. I also very much doubt that the US intelligence can state for a fact that they know he doesnt have a nuke, when they dont even know for definite where bin Laden is.

On the other hand, I would agree that it is still propaganda, used for exactly the reasons you put forward

jc
jc

Hobbes

c) There are several books, and web locations where you can get exact specifications for making nuclear missiles.

like here?

Despite what you believe it's just a tad bit harder to make or get then you might believe.

bonkey

taken from here

Interestingly enough, the United States government conducted a controlled experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how much effort was actually required to develop a viable fission weapon design starting from nothing. In this experiment, which ended on 10 April 1967, three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years. In the years since, much more information has entered the public domain so that the level of effort required has obviously dropped further.

This was the top hit from google on "instructions building nuclear weapon".

The site itself does not provide full details on how to do the whole shebang, but it contains quite an amount of starting material. It also notes that the missing material is also freely available in teh public demain.

So getting the information is not a problem. This leaves two issues - the equipment, and the fissile materials.

Lets take them in reverse order...

As I have previously stated, there have been huge amounts of plutonium and uranium "lost" over the years from various sites - typically from power plants. There have also been a number of nukes lost from what used to be the Soviet Union. I'm not saying that this stuff is easy to lay hands on, but for a terrorist organisation given credit for its massive network, ties to criminal organisations, etc. They have the contacts and the resources - it is not unthinkable that they could acquire the material, even if they couldnt buy a nuke itself.

So finally, the equipment.

The equipment is probably easier to get than the fissile material. However, bear in mind that tech existed over 50 years ago to manufacture a low-yield inefficient bomb. The same level of technology today is *not* hard to obtain.

Now, to be realistic, I would agree that the probability of bin Laden having nuclear capability is relatively low. I would not, however, feel comfortable ruling it out unless I had very very good intelligence. Of course, with intelligence of that level, I should also have been able to "predict" the Sep 11 events.

jc

Typedef

c) There are several books, and web locations where you can get exact specifications for making nuclear missiles.

like here?

Despite what you believe it's just a tad bit harder to make or get then you might believe.

Not true I banged together a small cold fusion reactor with some deionized water and two fridge magnets.

Hobbes

Of course getting instructions is easier then actually getting the parts or actually building one for that matter.

The amount of work that would be involved to then slap it onto a missle delivery system (let alone make the missile) or smuggle it into a country would be just as hard.

It would be much easier to create a handful of compost car bombs around a city to cause much the same effect.

Shinji

Regarding the actual difficulty of building a nuke - getting hold of the Uranium is literally the only problem. We're not talking about a suitcase bomb here - more a filing cabinet or panel van bomb; and we're not talking about anything particularly high-yield either, maybe a kiloton at most. It'd be very messy though, lots of radiation.

This comfortable belief that building nuclear weapons is difficult is ludicrous. Building BIG nuclear weapons is tricky; it involves a lot of careful work on lensing effects of explosives and **** knows what else. Building small, dirty bombs is easy; all you need is a critical mass and a trigger.

Putting one in a missile delivery system would be tricky. Smuggling it into a country... *shrug* - depends where you made it really. Is it that hard to drive a panel van from the Middle East or Eastern Europe to central London?

Hobbes, the difference between some nasty car bombs and a small dirty nuke isn't the damage done, it's the propaganda. A spate of car bomb attacks would scare people and anger them and do a lot of damage. Say the word "nuke" though; let people see that mushroom cloud over their city, and you will scare them shítless. It's that simple; and the terrorists know that, you can be certain of it.

I don't honestly believe that Bin Laden or Al Quaeda have a nuclear weapon. I don't disbelieve it either though; bear in mind how many Al Quaeda supporters there are in Pakistan, a "rogue state" with nuclear capability...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

There's one small thing we're forgetting here...and that's the main reason that nuclear weapons haven't been armed outside a testing theater since 1945- MAD- or Mutally Assured Destruction. The theory, (though slightly dated) is the main reason why I would expect even "rogue states" (oh, how I detest that bon mot) to show restraint when it came to using WMD. The only reason Saddam Hussein didn't use the WMDs at his disposal was the fear of retaliation, and that would only be the start of it. Whoever uses such a weapon will isolate almost all of global public opinion against them. While western governments would like to think that such a situation exists already, I don't share their optimism. A vast body of international opinion is sitting on the fence here, as abhorrent of the attacks of 11 September as by the US-led response to them.

And let's not forget- a significant number in the Arab and muslim worlds are strongly opposed to further western injustices in the region, including this "war". OBL can still count on the assets provided by this measured (if in some cases guarded) support. Use a WMD- and then they risk losing all that support. Many in the Arab world who would desert him in the event of such an action were largely ambivalent about the 9/11 attack- several saw it as a redressing of the balance, centuries overdue.

It's not a view I subscribe to, but I can certainly appreciate why it exists, and on such a wide scale. The recent brutal Israeli occupation of Bethlehem and the Tel Aviv regime's mirroring of US rhetoric about "terrorism" was quite frightening. They were livid over the targeting of an ex-cabinet minister, yet staunchly back their own state-sponsored "targeted killings", many of which assassinate community and religious leaders on the Palestinian side on the mere suspicion of "deviant" behavior. That a recognized government which employs such barbarous and duplicitious policies can be fully supported as a major ally by the world's most powerful nation rankles very sourly with the Arab world. As do the several other foreign policy blunders made by the west- from the British bungling in the Suez crisis, to the Iran Contra scam, to the Soviet invasion and backing of the Taleban by US forces, covert and notsocovert.

It all adds up to a base of popular support for the rationale behind the actions of september 11 (if not the actions themselves) In other words, most in the region agree with the terrorists' world view, but not with the manner in which they set out to achieve it. To now have to endure an outside nation attacking one in their midst, effectively "sneering" at their world view, and pressuring their governments to do the same, carries with it a very real and scathing humiliation to many in the Middle East. Hence the thousands of foreign fighters gathering near refugee camps in Pakistan, all ready to help the Taleban fight off a land invader. Up to 65,000 soldiers are battle-trained and ready- a sizeable army that isn't going to be crippled by a few night-time spec-ops raids, or the surgical bombing of red cross humanitarian warehouses :P

In other words, the West is losing the public relations battle, at least in the middle east, if not at home. That too can't be far off...saying that this is going to be a long campaign, reiterating that statement parrot-fashion ad infinitum is only going to get you so far. A long campaign shouldn't mean that its progress cannot be measured or measured publicly- it's not going to take people long to realize this. The other harsh reality is that winter is almost upon Afghanistan, compounding the suffering of innocents, and making life a living hell for combat forces attempting to continue operations. "Surgical" strikes are unpredictable enough as it is, without the addional spectre of inclement weather to add to their difficulties.

I don't see this as an issue to be resolved by military means- I think jc is absolutely right- it isn't a dichotomous choice of "do nothing" and "go to war". There's this little thing called intelligence, not to mention negotiation. And no, negotiation isn't "turn him over because we say so, else we bomb you to kingdom come". Negotiation would involve taking a chance, showing the Taleban leadership evidence of OBL's guilt, communicating through moderates loyal to the Taliban to see how the situation could have been resolved without a shot being fired. Had the move succeeded, then I am certain results would have followed. Openly declaring intent to topple a government that they themselves set up, the US administration are destroying one puppet, only to install another. I predict, hardly suprisingly, no military victory of measureable worth, and increased bloodshed in the decades to come, whatever government we leave behind us if military action by some miracle succeeds. I'm not sure about this at all, and I suspect few of us truly and honestly are.

Occy

DeVore

The amount of work that would be involved to then slap it onto a missle delivery system (let alone make the missile) or smuggle it into a country would be just as hard.

Such as ooh, I dunno, a plane.

1. get nasty ****.
2. Put nasty **** in plane.
3. Explode plane over city.

Its called a dirty bomb and its not too hard to do in all honesty.

Does anyone think if OBL had HAD anything nastier, he wouldnt have used it???

DeV.

Shinji

Al Quaeda planned and began work on the Sept 11 attacks over a decade ago. They're nothing if not patient - several of the pilots and hijackers were moles operating under very deep cover in the USA, and had been there since the very early nineties, taking flying lessons and examining airport security.

If Al Quaeda has a nuclear weapon right now, it will wait till the time is right before using it, rather than being hurried into doing so by attacks on Afghanistan. Lets not forget just how little Al Quaeda is threatened by these attacks; it's an international network, not an Afghan one, and we don't even have proof that Bin Laden is *in* Afghanistan right now... Not to mention that I'd imagine that the Afghans are actually relatively confident of victory. It's not so long since they slaughtered the "other" superpower on this territory, and less than a hundred years since they routed the British...

As to the PR of the thing... Occy, do you seriously believe that a nuke in Tel Aviv would somehow "anger" those factions who already support Bin Laden and didn't condemn the Sept11 attacks? Or even a nuke in London - the ruling city of the country held responsible for the foundation of the Israeli state - or in Washington or NY or LA, the cities held by arab extremists to be the "spiritual homes" of the West?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Shinji- I was not referring to the (relatively small, let's face it) number of factions that support the actions of OBL. Quite clearly, these factions see him as everything from a hero, to a saint, to a deliverer, and as such, would support almost any action he might take.

I was referring to the vast majority of moderate public opinion in the Middle East. This huge silent majority, while hugely disapproving of the attacks themselves, are in total agreement with the reasoning and world view behind the attacks. For example, they would agree entirely with OBL that the US's support of Israel in the region is unjust, and makes for a one-sided peace process (amongst other things). The simple truth is, that while the attacks are condemned by the majority of the Arab public, the asserted rationale behind them isn't condemned at all. That rationale is laudable to most people, and that is what I mean by the threat of alienation. So far, OBL has conducted a brilliant strategy public-relations wise. I think the use of a simple pair of jets on long-haul flights as a suicide attack demonstrates to many in the Middle East the desperate plight of those who would go so far as to throw away their own lives in this manner. It's a powerful message alright.

If a WMD attack were carried out, even a suicide one- the suffering caused by radiation, and the sheer impact of being associated in any way with a "mushroom cloud" would drive most moderates away from even a philosophical association with Al Q'aeda. Not to mention the threat of retaliation- that would scare people in the Middle East to the point of panic. To anger the only nation who has actually used a nuclear bomb on civilian targets would bring anger and hatred upon Al-Q'aeda from the silent majority. Many more qualified than I have commented upon the fact that the use of nuclear weapons and their consequences, brings a lot more political and military baggage than anyone has dreamed of. The rally of support of September 11 would be nothing compared to the freezing isolation in every way that would befall an organization that carried out even a low-grade attack.

My point simply was, that the broad supported aims of Al-Q'aeda which many agree with- even those will be turned against them if they are as "evil" as the enemy. They might be angry, and a large number of them might be suffering, but people in the Arab world know a hypocrite when they see one. If Al-Q'aeda perpetrate such an act, they'll be turned on even faster than the Americans. Because despite all this, a large number of Arabs admire and respect Western democracy, and are doing their best to mimic these power structures as best as they can. But at every turn during the Cold War, the US interfered in the free choice of government. These acts of hypocrisy, because of several people's admiration for the state that committed them, took a while to sink in. Whereas it won't take long at all for hatred of Al-Q'aeda to sink in. Several people are incredibly uncomfortable that they share the same world view with terrorists, others see it as proof that everyone, terrorist or not, wants unjust western foreign policy to come to a halt in the Middle East. But even those people would be forced to reconsider this view in the event of a WMD attack.

Simply put, a WMD attack on a Western city would almost certainly alienate this moderate public opinion that has so far been able to seethe at the excellently shot footage from Al-Jazeera, and at the global injustice of 12 men who were forced to (from their perspective) to throw away their lives, betray even Islam (which forbids suicide and homicide as mortal sins) to do what they thought was right. This current climate of silent anti-US sentiment suits OBL right down to the ground. It's paying off in spades- thousands of Pashtun and Arab fighters are ready to cross the border into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban forces. The battle for public opinion in the Arab world is firmly in the grasp of Osama, he wouldn't throw it all away for the sake of a few more headlines. He's shown remarkable political and PR acumen up to this stage, from the way the attacks were planned, to the way he's converted moderate arab opinion, it certainly is a clever piece of work.

We talk about the possibility of a trial, or "justice". Whether OBL is shot, captured or tried at a court of law in a neutral country, the end result is the same in practical terms for the US administration. The PR capital gained by the capture of a terrorist, and the blow, while certainly not a crippling one to terrorism, would be an incredible support booster for further military action against terrorism. Jc is right- OBL and Al-Q'aeda[tm] are not the same. However, the capture of their leader would expose at least some of the assets in Al-Q'aeda's possession- I'm sure of that. However strongly he believes in his cause, I've noticed that leaders tend to make poor martyrs. After a few hours at the tender mercies of the NSA CI squads, I have no doubt in my mind that assets will be exposed that can then be tapped, and exploited by western intelligence. It's all incredibly brutal and immoral, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that you can win a war like this in a just or moral fashion. To be ultimately successful, you've got to be just as ruthless as your foe in some ways.

Occy

Sharkey

Originally posted by DeVore


Such as ooh, I dunno, a plane.

1. get nasty ****.
2. Put nasty **** in plane.
3. Explode plane over city.

Its called a dirty bomb and its not too hard to do in all honesty.

Does anyone think if OBL had HAD anything nastier, he wouldnt have used it???

DeV.

The only way to put a hot apple in a plane and fly it to the US would be from Mexico. Lots of drug-runners make it up to as far as Kentucky by flying low.

However, I believe an air-burst is not a "dirty-bomb". A dirty-bomb refers to a ground or subterranian explosion, which scatters more radioactive debris.

bonkey

I pretty much agree with Occy's assessment of the probability that WMDs would be used if they even have them.

However, here is the rub. Lets, for just one moment, assume that the pro-war side are right in all of this - that the US will pretty much wipe out Al Qaeda.

In such an event, they reverse the logic of MAD - their destruction is all but assured by their agressor. If they have a WMD, they no longer have anything to lose by it. Considering that this is a group who have shown their comittment, it is entirely possible they would take this final step as a last gesture of defiance.

I could be wrong. They may not have WMDs. Hell, I dont even believe their destruction will be all but assured.

However, to the "go-guns" side, I say that you cannot be certain about Al Qaeda not being in possession of WMDs. Can you cover the possibility outlined above?

If so, how?

If not, then isnt this yet another good reason to indicate that the war is a bad idea - either doomed to failure, or courting true disaster through success.

jc