[lit-ideas] Al Quaeda and Suitcase Nukes
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:33:54 -0800
Teemu: In regard to the potency of a suitcase bomb, I have no special
knowledge. George Friedman has it at 10 kilotons and you at 200 pounds. If
you are right we have far less to fear than if Friedman is right. However,
that Friedman could be wrong would surprise me. He is head of Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/ Surely such a person should be expected to know
about suitcase bombs. What source do you have for the size of these bombs?
I just did a Google Search on suitcase bombs and found the following:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76990,00.html which describes suitcase
bombs as being in the 10-20 kiloton range. It describes coffee-can sized
bombs as being in the 3-5 kiloton range. The following seems to be the same
information provided on a site associated with Homeland Security:
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm
You write that Bush's reaction (if Friedman is accurate about it) in regard
to the possibility of Al Quaeda having suitcase bombs bothers you, but
perhaps this matter should be contingent upon the potency of the suitcase
bomb. If you are right and such bombs could do little more than blow up a
single building then Bush was indeed overreacting. But if Friedman,
Homeland Security and others are right and these bombs contain 10-20
kilotons of potency then Bush wasn't overreacting. He was being responsible
in doing everything possible to make sure every nation's nuclear weapons
were secured. Again if Friedman is right, Musharraf took measures to assure
Bush that Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technology were secure. Qhadaffi
during this period made the decision give up his nuclear weapons. He also
did everything possible to get cooperation from states that supported or at
least tolerated Al Quaeda in tracking down Al Quaeda members. In retrospect
he did about all he could do. He did (if Friedman is correct) intrude
himself into several nations with enough threats to get the assurance he was
looking for. I tend not to be unhappy with him for doing that. I realize
others might have a different opinion.
As to the "intelligence" providing definitive information to Bush so that he
wouldn't have to act on mere possibility, Friedman indicate that definitive
information was not acquirable. Intelligence had done its best and could
only tell Bush that there were sources that said Al Quaeda had suitcase
bombs. While it was not probable that they had them, it was possible. If
suitcase bombs are in the 10-20 kiloton range then Bush acted responsibly.
If they are in the 200 pound range then he did not, but I can find no site
that supports your view of suitcase bombs.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Teemu Pyyluoma
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:11 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: That Al Queada had or has nukes
Lawrence, thanks for the extensive quotes. Couple
points:
First, I haven't seen the 60 minutes interview myself,
but it is the commonly acknowleged as the only one
public source of information pointing to existence of
suitcase nukes in the first place.
Second, I don't know the British film you are
referring to, but in the end of the movie Peacemaker,
Nicole Kidman removes the Cobalt core from the bomb to
disassemble it (I am not quite sure you can remove
Cobalt by hand and not get radiation poisoning, but
anyway...) This was used in some Soviet Nuclear
warheads to maximize radiation, that is to produce a
bomb with massive radiation relative explosive yield.
The plot of the movie is about a stolen nuclear
warhead, but in reality no such warhead could be
carried by a single man.
Third, ten kiloton device while relative small for a
nuclear bomb, would certainly not be a suitcase nuke.
Fourth, as Friedman concludes, ISI was propably
playing the CIA for some reason.
Fifth, this quote if true troubles me greatly:
"Analysts at the CIA could take all this from a calm
distance, but the President felt he couldn't. If the
story was true, he was about to lose New York. More
important, no one could assure him that the world's
nukes were nailed down."
What little we know of intelligence information points
to it being slightly more reliable than gossip. While
it is humane to be alarmed by the possibility of a
grave threat, we can envision doomsday scenarios from
here to eternity and unless we have some good evidence
they are nothing but bad dreams. To insist that the
intelligence agencies get to the bottom of it is
prudent, to act upon such information is
irresponsible. Citizens can get hysterical, leaders
have no such luxury.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________________________
Other related posts:
