Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents. A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11". Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West. Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe. At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan. As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years. The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb". http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qaida brink using nuclear bomb/4205104/story.html
So the question of the day is, Would you object to the USA nuking one of our allies if it prevented a nuclear attack on the united states?
He who produces death should not be surprised at his own by the hands of others. When we dropped the bomb, it became a matter of when not if.
And Japan launched a failed biological attack on the US mainland. Dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan actually saved Japanese lives and more importantly American lives.
Although the bombs had an impact the entry of the Soviets into the war and the existing bombing campaign had just as much influence on the Japanese decision to surrender.
Although I see your point, I disagree. It was when it was developed, not necessarily used. Also, do not forget that other countries were working on their own N-bombs. All this was a matter of time. I wonder how Homeland Security will react.
Yes I would. I think there's too high of a chance of bad intelligence and the world's reaction would be terrible. As terrible as it would be to have a nuke hit somewhere in the US, it seems inevitable to me and I don't think that preemptive strike against a state actor will help. We might need some medicine in the form of having a nuke go off to get the national will to do the terrible things that might be necessary. Ed O.
I actually think that (purely academically) it would be interesting to see how ANYONE reacts: another president, the American people, our allies, our enemies... It would be a new world, for sure. Ed O.
It reminds me of this (please forgive me not giving the language; copying and pasting is all but impossible). Bottom of page 225: http://books.google.com/books?id=6V...&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Ed O.
Yep. I think there's a real chance we would turn parts of the Middle East into a glass parking lot. Ed O.
I used to wonder what would have happened after 9/11 if McCain had been president. I think things would have gone better. He wouldn't have waffled on Tora Bora like GWB did and we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. I also don't think Pakistan would be our buddy anymore. But then again I don't think they really are now.
Is it easy to detonate a nuclear bomb? Can you just hammer a nail into the back end? Confused. Confused as to how they could detonate. How they could transport. Aren't there logistical reasonings involved here? I may be wrong. Honestly curious.
Are you saying that our President shouldn't be more concerned with American lives than the lives of our enemy who attacked us? If so, I'll just say I disagree.
Calm down, I'm just trolling. nobutseriously it just looked like he was saying an American life is more important than a Japanese life.
There is a lot that isn't covered here. Al Quaida is just as likely to use a bomb on a middle eastern country as they are on us. It seems a lot of folks are forgetting the Sunni vs Shiite angle here. Al Quaida is just as likely to use it against a Shiite group as they would against civilized western nations. Sure we are a desirable target. But you have to remember that Al Qaida's primary goal, originally, was to overthrow the Sheiks running Saudi Arabia. That is also why the turmoil in Egypt is so interesting right now. If the Egyptions and some other countries revolt and form their own governments, and turn their econommic situations around, they will prob Al Quaida of a lot of the base for recruiting. Their base for reruiting is younger ages who are in an economic hardship situation and do not have a lot going for them. If some of those countries turn it around, and get their people some basic rights, and give them some hope, that recruiting base can fade.
Of course it is/was, considering we were at war with Japan at the time. I would argue that American lives are much more important than ANY other country's citizens lives... at least to the US government. That's the way it should be. Ed O.
