Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:25 PM
Original message
Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could
Source: AP

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - If al-Qaida acquired nuclear weapons it "would have no compunction at using them," President Barack Obama said Sunday on the eve of a summit aimed at finding ways to secure the world's nuclear stockpile.

"The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said. "This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come."

"If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating," the president said.

"We know that organizations like al-Qaida are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them," Obama said.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100411/D9F1521O0.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. No doubt; they have nothing to lose and we have no place to retaliate at
and any retaliation is in their favor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That would provide justification for their actions. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yes, I can't imagine any problems that could ensue from that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. MAD as a strategic policy worked well for many decades
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Against another country, yes. Not against a terrorist group.
And not by virtue of targeting cities regarded as sacred by over a billion people, only a tiny fraction of whom have any relationship to al-Qaeda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. A group of people who believe these cities to be the heart & soul of their being
An the matter of innocent vs. guilty vs. innocent is irrelevant to the strategy.

On either side.

If I were president and an islamic group hit London, New York or Houston- that's EXACTLY what I would do with no hesitation once the proof was in.

I'd make Mecca a glassy crater- uninhabitable for decaes.

And I'd make it known beforehand through proper channels that that's EXACTLY what IO would do.

That's how you keep the peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Yes and turn one billion followers of Islam into our sworn enemies
Brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. All they'd have to do
is double to 144 virgins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. It would more effective a warning if he could provide some evidence for that comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Seriously?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It's pretty easy to say isn't it. Do you have any idea what he bases it on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Concern that the fear level among the American public is dropping
and more people might start paying attention to what's actually going on rather than worrying about terra-ists killing them?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prometheus Bound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. That's about what I was thinking.
It has proved to be a fairly successful strategy after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Water is wet. Why is this shit propaganda news? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drops_not_Dope Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
13. I call bullshit. How many bomber jets are there in the Al Qaeda air force?
I'm so fucking sick of this FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. They don't need
bombers or missiles, how many cargo ships come into east or west coast ports every day? How hard do you think it would be to smuggle one aboard a cargo ship? Amazing how many people just want to stick their head in the sand and deny it could ever happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InkAddict Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Ah, I don't know - How many American jets did it take to fly a
nuke to Louisiana, a port city, destination as reported in 2007?????? The heck w/Al-Queda #2 ad nauseaum, let's find and reveal, and hold accountable "The Database"'s #1 American leader(s) and conspirators who order "accidents". Does anyone need any help pointing the middle finger at....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. Moral Highground: The US would NOT nuke Al-Qaida if it could
Yes, its true. After all, that would eliminate the US's excuse for perpetual global war & occupation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Nah,
We'd find another. Been doing it for over a century. Could always kick Hugo around a bit or rile up the N. Koreans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. What if some of the governments in Europe went Far Right (could happen)
and someone sold them nukes (could happen). What then?? Maybe we're looking in the wrong direction as usual. Just throwing this out to add an another scenic vista to the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-10 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Far, far less likely than the fearmongers would have us think.
A retaliatory strike on Mecca would not be on the cards.

I strongly suspect that the immediate response to Al Qaieda detonating a nuclear weapon, would be thousands of uncoordinated attacks on anything and everything perceived as Islamic in the Western world. And I think enough people would believe they deserved it (at least in the immediate aftermath) that very few Moslems would remain outside historical Islamic boundaries.

Israel would quite probably take advantage of the general antipathy towards Islam and make a huge land grab and about half the world would try to carve off their own pieces of Islamic Africa looking for resources.


I really can't see it playing out any other way. There would be no stopping the redneck, survivalist and ultrafundamentalist elements of America getting their revenge in and the skinhead types of Britain are stupid enough to touch off chaos there with its proportionately much larger Middle Eastern population there. Germany's neo-Nazis would weigh in with who knows what results. And so on. Many smaller Islamic islands scattered throughout the non-Islamic world would be anhilated, others rounded up and sequestered for their own safety. Larger Islamic populations will fights back like cornered animals and national militaries will move in with deadly force.

If it continued from there, it would be Jihad, but one in which the technological might of the west would give them an overwhealming advantage. As we have discovered, (and in fact already knew) occupying certain chunks of the Middle East (and South East Asia) has always proven to be impossible in the long run. But with the gloves off, and Dresden as a model simply smashing the Nations of Islam into irrelevancy would be a very simple task, even without using nuclear weapons of our own.

Leaving Mecca & Medina alone would be in the West's best interests. It makes the best possible outcome, a Mexican standoff like that between the USA and NATO forces and the Soviets and other large Communist nations more attainable.


The chances of Islam losing big time if an organisation like AQ detonates a nuclear bomb in a large Western population centre are far to high to be worth taking the risk.

The single most credible danger is the lone wolf nutcase with a dirty bomb made out of scavenged x-ray machines and industrial test gear. And the horror invoked is in fact the most harmful aspect of one of these devices. The radiological harm is there, but quite managable. Cleanup is expensive, but doable. The population affected would be contained, and very little larger than those affected by the direct blast of the device. Timothy McVeigh with an added boogie man factor, NOT the end of the world, despite what certain "environmentally concerned" groups might have you believe.

MAD will I believe keep us safe on an artificially maintained teetering brink for another generation at least. Our final edge being that the geographical Middle East would have a very very hard time feeding itself. Much as we wouldn't like it we could survive without oil for long enough to make the ME very very hungry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Yep. Probably thousands of "surgical" strikes.
A certain portion would be directed at getting the Saudi's to fully commit to our side and have us whittle down some of their own home grown extremists.

A larger response might be to try and seize their oil production and transportation facilities, but there is no sure way to do so before either the local governments or local citizens reduce the West's oil production to a fraction of what it was before the 'response' and the non-rich American tea party types would quite literally be celebrating the response in their cold and dark houses with empty tanked cars littering their driveways.

Even if we don't try and seize the oil facilities we could still cause an embargo the likes of which we've never seen before. This could have dire consequences for America as I've come to believe that far too many Americans are much more ready to accept someone else's kid getting killed for oil than they are will to accept losing said oil due to an embargo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
26. So would Bush have . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
27. "Next verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit worse"
Orange Alert! 45 minutes! 9/11! Nukular missiles!!

Change? Hah ...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Fantasy! Deception! and Fear! Oh My!!!
Deja vu?

Oh please Big Brother USA Leaders keep us SAFE from those super-human evildoers?!?

Here! Take my Civil Liberties and send my teenager to go KILL and DIE for your glorious cause to control the region for our beloved EMPIRE. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
29. Al-Qaida would exist if it could
Sorry, Mr. O -- you're a peach and I love having you as president, but this is one of those places where the mainstream is "mything."

It's bogeyman city -- don't go there.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 20th 2019, 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC