Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

"Dav1936531" wrote in message
...
From: (BUFDRVR)


There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.

What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were
never
any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
western nations.
BUFDRVR

We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to
assume
that the Soviets had/have them too.

Big suitcase. SADM, with its W-54 warhead, was not something you could drop
into your American Tourister and waltz into some hotel with it. Did the
Soviets have small ADM's? We don't really know--Lebed's claims have been
pretty much discredited, though, so if that is what you (or the originator
of this "news" story) are basing this on, it is not much.


If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a
good
way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for
negligent
management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror
attack.

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK, the
smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).

Brooks


Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
Dave

In article ,
says...
If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK, the
smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).


Definitely as the un maintained shelf life of a bomb is only a few years
and the longer that they sit on the bomb the more likely it is to be
found.

--
The freer the society, the more expensive the elections.

Observations of Bernard - No 55

In article , says...

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots.

Not especially.

Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.

Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
jihadists against the West.

However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
their image with the typical man on (their) street.

It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.

In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.

No SPAM wrote:

In article , says...

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots.

Not especially.

Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.

Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
jihadists against the West.

However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
their image with the typical man on (their) street.

It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.

In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.

Good insight! Just like 9/11. Vot?

Grantland

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK,
the
smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).

An ideal target would be a Presidential Political convention. Decapitation
and the destruction of a substantial part of NYC would be a possible result
of exploding a SADM at the republican convention. But you have to consider
the democratic convention in Boston as a target since Bush is such an
effective recruiter for AQ


Brooks


Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
Dave