Al Qaeda boast: We have suitcase nukes

[swag]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040321/D81EQT000.html

[tobius]

1. just do what they ask and they wont hurt us. nt

have to remember this tag </sarcasm>. sometimes I forget.

[mistertrickster]

61. BTW, who's the 50's babe?

Just wondering . . .

[tobius]

77. She is the one and only Bettie Page.

Incredible story, she was just a fairly recognizable face to me until just a short time ago. posed for hundreds of pin up magazines and is an icon to both men and women for her ahead of the times approach to sexuality. she posed and was successful at the girl next door look and was also acclaimed for her daring bondage photos.
see www.bettiepage.com (not my site) for info and many links and tribute sites.



Full name : Bettie Mae Page
Birth date :April 22, 1923
Born :Nashville, Tennessee
Height : 5 feet 5 1/2 inches
Weight :128
Marriages : Billy Neal (1943 - 1947), Armond Walterson (1958 - 1963) and Harry Lear (1967 - 1972)
Hair color : black
Eye color : blue-gray
Measurements : 36-23-35
Education : Bachelor of Arts degree from Peabody College
Favorite actress : Bette Davis in Dark Victory

:: In 1955 she won the title "Miss Pin-up Girl of the World."

:: In January 1955, she was the centerfold in Playboy’s January issue.

:: She was nicknamed the "Girl with the Perfect Figure."

[psychopomp]

82. 1 comment off-topic:

(Ms. Page later in life had a change of heart and turned her back on the pinup-girl image that she had nurtured. In an interview in the eighties or early nineties, she refused to even talk about that part of her life and would only acknowledge her new-found life as a Christian.)

[tobius]

91. here is the sept 1998 interview - doesn't look like she refused to talk!

Karen Essex: Sexy Sadie asks: what was the best advise you were ever given?
 
Bettie Page: To have more pictures taken outdoors. In the water and on the beaches. They said I was happier then and I was. And I was. I like being outdoors. I like to go cavorting in the nude in the forests. It is just another world. To take sunbaths in the nude.
 
Karen Essex: Do you think that the photos taken of you outside- cavorting, romping .. are the best ones?
 
Bettie Page: I think so, especially Bonnie Yeager's pictures. I wasn't too fond of her style shooting. She wouldn't let you pose. .........
http://bettieville.com/bp/chat19980923.shtml

.........Karen Essex: EricT asks: Would you recommend posing nude to a young want to be actress?
 
Bettie Page: If you don't flaunt yourself around in front of people. I dont' think God disapproves of nudity. After all Adam and Eve were in the garden without clothes. But I don't think you should flaunt yourself. I never thought I was degrading myself when I was posing nude.
 
Karen Essex: Mike Peterson asks: Do you think as a society we are too permissive about sex, too uptight about it, or just about right?
 
Bettie Page: Yes I do, I think it is a shame that so many girls and even older women that will go to bed with every Tom Dick and Harry that they meet. I think you should be in love with someone. Sex is a part of love. You shouldn't go around doing it unless you are in love with them.

[mac56]

85. Bettie Page

:loveya:

Comic book artist Dave Stevens has created many great images of Bettie.

[rppper]

93. sorry...this is off topic....about betty page......

olivia deberadinas does the best prints of her.....i also have a tribute of sorts to miss page.....


i still have a few hours of tattoo work left to go on her, but i am a betty fan from waaaaay back.....

[boobooday]

2. What? They got them from Pakistan?

Our ally? Not from Saddam, the man in the hole?

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[struggle4progress]

3. If true, probably from FSU ...

* may have botched continuing efforts to secure FSU sites, especially by making clear through 2001 that Administration regarded FSU as continuing US nuclear target.

[peacebuzzard]

4. OMG. Shit.

..

[whistle]

9. Why is George Tenet still head of the CIA?

...Two paragraphs in this article jumped right of the screen at me:

U.S. intelligence agencies have long believed that al-Qaida attempted to acquire a nuclear device on the black market, but say there is no evidence it was successful.

"Dr Ayman al-Zawahri laughed and he said 'Mr. Mir, if you have $30 million, go to the black market in central Asia, contact any disgruntled Soviet scientist, and a lot of ... smart briefcase bombs are available,'" Mir said in the interview.

Tenet needs to step down now! :freak: :wow: :spank:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Neither Tenet nor the CIA is the problem...

...remember, they told the NeoCons repeatedly that Iraq did not have WMDs and got ignored repeatedly.

Remember also that Valerie Plame's global network's primary duty was tracking WMDs and the materials used to make WMDs. Who betrayed them, and why?

[nolabels]

37. They won't let him, he is a political FOOTBALL

Both sides will be kinking him around into the next century. Can't talk about *, but if he quits they can say it was the Clenis's fault because he will be froze out from the inside (this would be after believing any thing was going to happen with it) because Tenet has got the goods on *, but can't spill them (Going to Prison for violation of the National Security Act). The guy sold his soul a long time ago

He is just a worm that shrivels under any light. Tenet and Hover are antithetical to each other in the ways they operated or didn't operate. I'd say there will not be any fallout on this front till and unless there is REAL fallout happening (Hopefully that never happens)

[Zhade]

33. Heh...when I read that, I thought "Florida State University".

My alma mater is helping al Qaeda???

Then I realized, duh, former Soviet Union. :D

[mallard]

102. Re: boasting for profile

At least we know who to blame it on if one goes off.

[Nlighten1]

5. Is this a sign that Bush is failing at the war on terror?

If Al Qaeda has the ability to get their hands on suitcase nukes...obviously this is a sign that Bush is failing...

Now we have to ask ourselves...who has the ability to make such a nuke?

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Only 2 countries I know of....

Me thinks these are homwgrown bombs

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. The short list includes...

...the U. S., Russia, Israel, UK, and China. All have the technology capable of designing/developing such weapons. India and Pakistan may not be far behind.

[papau]

47. The U-32 (?) first suitcase bomb developed in 83 was in China 2 years later

In 1987 China's Tech publications carried a discussion of it, and by 1991 the CIA had finally translated and analyzed enough of the 87/88 publications to confirm that it was Reagan's suitcase atomic bomb from 1983 - the U-32 (actually the number slips my mind at this moment - it may have been called the U-30, or the U-60, but whatever - Reagan/Bush/Ollie and the gang gave China the suitcase bomb - either directly - as in treason - or indirectly through incompetence).

Just like we have the incompetent Bush 43 now.

Post 87 - when the CIA call was that we were not certain they had built and tested such a bomb (later earth movements indicated it likely) - we - the CIA - applied the same "not certain" language to Russia. I have never heard of the UK, Israel, or any other country or group chasing this form factor bomb. We now know Russian sources say they had that form factor, and that some were made - but the CIA still says it is not certain they are telling the truth.

I agree Tenet should be fired - but he bought the GOP love by spying on Clinton for them - so I doubt he is in much trouble.

God, it is good to have the "adults" in charge - folks with the gravitas of Cheney and Rummey and the Iran-Contra gang.

I think I will write a letter of appreciation to our media for the accomplishing of the feat of putting the "adults" in charge.

[EdGy]

6. how convenient...

just in time for UK and US elections.

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. So this is how the admin plans to impose martial law.

Blame the terrorists...lock us down...suspend elections...military dictatorship. It all fits.

[Karenina]

11. HALLO!!!

:hi:

[Andy_Stephenson]

70. Wie Gehts?

sind sie Deutsch?

[Just Me]

10. Evidence of this regime's failure to appropriately address "terrorism",

,...in my humble view. This regime just adds fuel to the fire. Why? Well, 'cause they wanna' control the world's resources and they don't give a rat's nuts about exploiting other peoples to do so. "Terrorism" will continue to worsen as long as corporatist exploitation continues.

[fearnobush]

14. If the terrorist have these, the will use them. War on Iraq only

enabled them to get stronger as we diverted our resources away from them. Now we must fight the terrorists as well as the terror enabling Bush Admin.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. I'm thinking that if they had them they would have used them by now.

[swag]

21. You could be right

They would have probably used them in Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. I think they would use them against us

We are unpredictable. If they use them against the U.S., no one knows how we will retaliate.

Nuke Israel and there is a very real possibility that the holy cities of Mecca and Medina will simply cease to exist. Even terrorists don't want to tackle someone who might nuke right back.

[Yemp4734]

46. That would be foolish of Israel

Ever hear of mutually assured destruction? A nuke in mecca and/or medina would insure israel would become a parking lot. Don't forget certain arab nations have nukes, and would go all out on them if mecca/medina were taken out. Of course israel would (if they got a chance) nuke back - still that doesn't change the israel will be dead as well.

In this situation, everyone dies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Yes, I have heard of MAD

And if Israel is nuked, then it will undoubtedly strike back, the only question is where and how much.

Who would turn Israel into a parking lot? Right now, apparently, no Arab nation has nukes and only one Muslim nation -- Pakistan -- does and it may not have the missiles to deliver a nuke to Israel. And, if it did, likely it would suffer far worse.

Ultiamtely, yes, if Israel is nuked, many millions will die which goes back to my point. I don't think THAT is what the terrorists want.

[thebigidea]

54. what would nuking Israel have to do with Mecca?

You'd blame Saudi Arabia?

Would proof be needed in your mind, or do you think it would be a fair trade?

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. If Israel is being destroyed

Likely as not they would strike at their enemies. There is no doubt that Saudi Arabia is one of those -- funding terror and supporting various terror attacks.

And I never think nuking anything is a "fair trade." Perhaps even the terrorists don't think so, otherwise they would have used this "nuke" to attack Israel.

I have little doubt in my mind that the first nuke attack will target a Western nation, not Israel.

[thebigidea]

81. so, would you be upset if in this hypothetical scenario...

Israel nuked Mecca?

Would you condemn it or defend it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. I'd need to know a lot more

Before I could decide one way or another.

I just hope that it never gets to that.

[ProfessorGAC]

105. I Think That's Already In The Plans

I've believed for some time that since Islamism (the political movement only tagentially connected to their religion) reared its ugly head, that MAD was applied to the "allies" in that region.

You know "It doesn't matter who's behind it, who did it, or fault, the capital cities of that region and the holy cities are targeted. So, YOU make sure the U.S. is never hit with a nuke."

I honestly do belive that is the deterrence strategy, whether it's the best idea or not.

Back on main topic: I don't believe they have these suitcase nukes. I also don't believe that these devices are terribly reliable or terribly stable. They could easily spend $30million on a dud.
The Professor

[Just Me]

29. Very, very enlightening point there, MLD!!!!

What is truly fascinating is the fact that, the weird anthrax and ricin "scares" were HOMEGROWN acts. HOMEGROWN!!!

Truth is,...our country has been subjected to twenty-three (plus) more acts of HOMEGROWN acts of terror than "foreign" acts. We seem to be our own worst enemy *LOL*!!!! Yet, this leadership, of course, wants us to buy into another wacko, totally surreal, perspective (and they have been quite successful) which allows them to "profit". Talk about immoral!!!! That kind of exploitation is worse than merely immoral.

[yardwork]

84. al Quaeda is U.S.-grown, for that matter.

We created al Quaeda to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We gave them weapons, trained them, and financed extremist schools to make them eager to fight.

Now, twenty years later, they see us as the enemy.

We did the same thing in South America and Africa. How many more chickens will be coming home to roost?

[devinsgram]

30. I don't agree on that

I think they are waiting for just the right time. Unfortunately, I believe that time will be sometime between summer and the elections.

[Just Me]

32. Have you wondered who "they" are?

Who would most profit by your fortune-cookie?

Think about it.

[mistertrickster]

64. Hell yes . . . just like Saddam and the WMD's

What are they waiting for? Armageddon?

If they had them, they would have used them so everyone would take the threat seriously.

If I were W., this is the kind of disinformation I'd be putting out. Be afraid and vote for me, etc.

It's crap . . .

[Karenina]

15. HALLO to you too, Just Me!!!

:hi:

Exploiting and manipulating FEAR while ignoring root causes IS their modus operandi, eh? Ka-ching!!!!

[Just Me]

20. They have been exploiting peoples and resources for over a century.

I wish our own people knew those exploitations. I wish our own people realized that they, too, are being exploited via (as you said) FEAR. I believe they are starting to taste such realities,...fighting and screaming along the way *LOL*. Who can blame them. It's just, terribly difficult. After all, who wants to awaken from a dream into such nightmares?

[Karenina]

45. Meanwhile, the nuclear materials

in Tuwaitha (sp?) were IGNORED (check Stepahnie's NUMEROUS, informative threads in the archives) as were cultural treasures, whilst the MINISTRY OF OIL received the UTMOST protection... Hmmm... Couldn't be ON PURPOSE could it???? Who could know about unknown knowns? ;-)

[shance]

12. Why would the Al Qaeda admit this?

Is this just more fearmongering?

[missile_bender]

99. Exactly! If "Al Qaeda", whoever they are supposed to be this week, had

nukes, they wouldn't tell US.

This is transparent smeg.

[alcuno]

16. I just asked my mother the other day if she thought someone would set off

a nuclear device somewhere in the world this year. You know they have access to something. There was too much stuff allowed to roam free after the downfall of the Soviet Union.

[AlCzervik]

19. loose nukes

Exactly, chimpco decided not to fund the loose nukes program that entailed rounding them up. Good Job Moran!!!! Way to keep up safe!

[cliss]

22. OK....maybe it's time to review the situation...

shortly after the bombing in Madrid, Al-Qaida or whoever it was that did it, left a message saying that Italy, Poland, Australia, Japan (and of course the US) is next. We should take them at their word. I'm assuming here that suitcase nuclear devices could take out an entire building, like one of the Twin Towers, right?

At this point, I'd like to review the Al-Qaidas demands. What is it that they want? After all these months of Bush's mouth moving incessantly, I forgot what the original demands were.

1) I believe they want the US out of Saudia Arabia and the Middle East entirely.

2) I believe they have a strong dislike for Western culture which includes Frederick's of Hollywood and McDonald's. I think they would like for us to go back to a better way of life, namely the peaceful 1600's.

Fill me in on what I'm missing. Sorry, with all these smoke screens that the BeelzeBush administration has thrown us (like Magica de Spell in the old Donald Duck comics), I've lost sight of what it is we are fighting for, and whose side we're on.

[alcuno]

27. We ARE out of Saudi Arabia. We APPEASED the terrorists.

We've been out of Saudi Arabia for about a year now after giving in to the demands of Al Qaeda. We've now set up shop in Iraq.

[mobuto]

34. We should go back into Saudi Arabia

for two reasons:

1. To stick it to Al Qaeda.

2. To let the House of Saud know where things stand.

[Just Me]

38. I offer merely surmise,...they want us to STOP exploiting their people,...

,...and their resources. The "West" has been exploiting the "East" under the guise of religion and intellectual superiority and all that crap for too freakin' long. "They" (the east) have proven far more tolerance and willingness to engage in quid pro quo agreements that advance all of us. "We" (the west) have behaved worse than animals, taking peoples as slaves and resources as our own, holding ourselves out as being somehow more valuable and superior. Humanity simply will no longer tolerate such arrogance and discrimination and biggotry and elitism. We are one, being interdependent upon eachother for our existence. Until the "west" chooses to own and take responsibility for exploiting others,...peace will escape humanity.

[mobuto]

39. Who's exploiting whom?

We're not exploiting the Saudis - they have a natural resource that we want and we've been paying them enormous sums for the privilege of using it. The Saudis are, however, being exploited - by Wahabbi clerics and by the House of Saud.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mobuto]

43. Blah blah blah

Tone down the rhetoric and answer my question.

How is the United States exploiting the people of Saudi Arabia?

We're paying them enormous sums of money. If the problem is that money isn't getting to the people, then that's a problem with the Government of Saudi Arabia. But we're not the ones doing the "exploiting". That the Saudis themselves.

[Just Me]

50. PUHLEASE,...who is being "rhetorical", mister!!!!

And "WHO" said anything about Saudi Arabia being exploited? Ahem,...that would be your distraction,...not mine. You impose the accusation of "tone down the rhetoric" simply to avoid the fundamental issues, huh? You are being hypocritical to accuse me of rhetoric when you turn about and impose rhetoric.

You are denying that US (and other western)_corporatists have exploited peoples and their lands over the last couple of centuries. Why? Why are you denying the truth?

[mobuto]

57. Who said anything about Saudi Arabia being exploited?

Why, I believe you did:

they want us to STOP exploiting their people

[Just Me]

67. You imposed your definition of "they",...

,...demonstrating your "favor", I guess, towards "they" being Saudi Arabia. I said nothing of that country. And YOU are still denying the fact that the western world has exploited the east. Why do you keep doing that? Are you being so "protective" or "defensive" or "arrogant"?

[mobuto]

69. ???

You're the one who keeps trying to steer this away from specifics. What's the problem? You can make broad and baseless statements referring to "The West" and to "The East" as if they were monolithic structures, and refer to "Exploiters" and "Exploited," as if they went around with signs on their back, but its my fault for trying to question the specifics? Well forgive me.

I thought you were referring to Saudi Arabia. If not, who were you referring to? Which subject of our "exploitation" is the cause of Al Qaeda attacks then?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0007]

62. Your on tract sweetheart!!

[scottxyz]

41. "Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land"

Here is one version of Al-Qaida's demands:

"Stop targeting us, release our prisoners and leave our land and we will stop attacking you."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm

Would we be "appeasers" if we gave in to these demands?

Would we have enough oil to live in the style we are accustomed to?

[ringmastery]

65. more like a chunk of a city

Suitcase nukes can have a nuclear charge of 1kt to 10kt. As reference, Hiroshoma and Nagisaki were about 15kt.

If a suitcase nuke goes off, conservatively, everything within 1 mile radius would either be vaporized or rendered inhabitable from fallout.

[looking glass]

79. I'll give it a shot . . .

They want to destroy the West.

There are no other demands, and they don't want to negotiate. They don't care if we resettle Israel in Nevada, drive hydrogen cars, and forbid the export of any video feeds or fast food chains. We could all colonize Mars, and Al Qaida would still see the Martian West as an enemy to be obliterated.

The only discussion taking place, is the one that is taking place now - what is the best way to destroy Al Qaida, who are the best men and women for the job, and which political party will get us there the fastest without compromising our institutions.

[mobuto]

23. Bullshit

Al Qaeda doesn't have suitcase nukes. If they did, they'd have used them. And the odds of them acquiring working suitcase nukes are infinitesimal. Could they get their hands on a larger nuclear weapon? I suppose its possible. Chemical or biological weapons? Its a near-certainty. But suitcase nukes are just not all that credible.

[ant]

35. "they would've used them already"

I don't really buy this argument. We saw on 9/11 that Al-Q likes to attack the US, at least, in spectacular ways. They don't seem to be into the "just bomb cafes" approach, which I'm quite thankful for. That sort of thing would most certainly make martial law easy, easier than just an isolated, large-scale attack, I think. Anyway, my point is that if they did manage to get one of these things they'd probably take their time in planning to use it in order to minimize having the plan discovered and maximize the impact using it would have.

I agree that suitcase nukes are not that credible, though. Here's some good info:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

First, the probability that any portable nuclear devices were lost prior to or after the breakup of the Soviet Union appears low; the scenarios of loss offered by the special commission in 1996 are actually the least plausible among other possible scenarios. This does not mean that the threat does not exist, but rather that at this moment, it is probably not the most immediate threat to the home security of the United States or to U.S. armed forces abroad.

Second, even if any devices were lost, their effectiveness should be very low or maybe even non-existent, especially if the loss occurred during the period of the greatest risk, in the early 1990s. Without scheduled maintenance, these devices apparently can produce only minimal yield and eventually possibly no yield at all, and can only serve as a source of small amounts of weapons-grade fissile materials.

That being said, open-source information has limited usefulness and can only yield probabilistic analysis instead of definitive answers. Consequently, it is necessary to continue efforts aimed at acquiring better and more reliable information about the status of Soviet/Russian portable nuclear devices, as well as about the parameters of threat they might pose in the hands of terrorists.

I would add that without the proper expertise, there's also the possibility that terrorists attempting to purchase any sort of nuclear materials would just end up killing themselves.

[mobuto]

36. I can think of little more spectacular

than a nuclear explosion in a major American city. If Al Qaeda did have a nuclear weapon, they would want to use it as quickly as possible, to minimize the risk of being caught. I think this has been indicated by their unwillingness to delay attacks to land on important dates (with the possible exception of the Madrid bombing). 9/11 was run as soon as they were ready, for example; Atta didn't feel like hanging around until Christmas Day or July 4.

[ant]

40. right

like you said, "as soon as they were ready." It takes a while to be ready, though. Wasn't 9/11 in the planning stages for over a year or so?

If they have gotten a suitcase nuke - which again, I doubt - they would've gotten it in Eastern Europe or Russia, that area. Getting it from there to here and then into an adequate target would not be easy. (You can't just carry that on a plane, obviously, it would have to be brought into the country through a cargo plane or a ship, so they'd have to set up the connections to do that properly while avoiding detection.) My point when commenting on the spectacular thing is that they wouldn't want to set it off at an ordinary museum or whatever. They like big, symbolic targets, which tend to have more security. So you've got to smuggle the thing halfway around the world and then, once you get into the US, smuggle it into or near the right target.

Planning that sort of thing would take time, and I think rushing an attack would increase rather than reduce your chances of being caught. You're more likely to make mistakes or overlook things.

[Yemp4734]

51. Wrong

Like you say "the odds of them acquiring working suitcase nukes are infinitesimal"

That's why if you got one, and wanted to use it, you don't just make an immediate running jump for the border nuke in hand. You plan for a VERY long time, trying to think of every possible thing that could go wrong. Why? Because as you say it's a once in a life time chance that they wouldn't want to fu** up. It's not every day you would come across a nuke.

[mobuto]

58. Nope

because if you wait for a long time

1) you will be caught

and

2) perhaps more importantly to Al Qaeda, the bomb will stop working. Suitcase nukes, to the extent that they actually exist, have extremely short shelf-lives.

[mike1963]

63. But what if they have already put a few in airport/train station lockers..

(or in a cigarette machine...)?

:eyes:

[WilliamPitt]

24. Here's the thing about 'suitcase nukes'

Take the Russian ones, for example. They are in many pieces: The fissionable material, the trigger, the case itself, and the codes. Each are separated; they are never kept in one place, and never assembled. Often, they are separated by hundreds of miles.

So, to get a suitcase nuke, one would have to get the case, the fissionable material, the trigger, and the codes (which are kept in the brains of the technicians who handle the stuff.

That's very, very hard to pull together. Even getting one is near to impossible. Having several defies imagination. Ergo, I highly doubt this claim.

[mobuto]

31. Another problem

the fissionable material decays very rapidly and since a suitcase nuke uses only the minimum amount to start with, decay makes the bomb quickly unusable. People are talking about ten year old suitcase bombs floating around on the black market - that's complete nonsense. If any are, they're completely useless.

This is not our biggest worry.

On edit: Of course if I'm wrong, I'm located just hundreds of yards from Prime Target No. 1, so I won't be around to eat my words.

[EdGy]

52. exactly!!

even if they have one it does not mean they'd actually be able to detonate it.

The worst case scenario would be a "dirty bomb" scenario, where they basically scatter uranium through using conventional explosives. That is nothing at all like an actual nuclear explosion, though it certainly would not be pleasant.

The more frightening thought is that the Bushies are setting something up. They could "find" some "terrorists" who have a suitcase nuke, claim that they had successfully prevented the nuking of NYC, etc. and claim some huge "victory", knowing full well the media will not have the balls to report the true story.

[nolabels]

55. Here is some more stuff on suitcase nukes, also

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedlg.htm
Are Suitcase Nukes on the Loose?
The Story Behind the Controversy
By Scott Parrish
November 1997

(snip)
The existence of the W-54 and SADM undermines Valynkin’s claim that small nuclear weapons would be prohibitively expensive to maintain. Valynkin claimed that a small nuclear weapon would need to be disassembled every three months for its “nuclear core” to be recharged. However, American physicists familiar with nuclear weapons design consulted by the author have dismissed Valynkin’s argument. A small weapon would probably be a uranium or plutonium implosion device, possibly boosted with tritium to compensate for the reduced amount of conventional explosive used to compress the fissile core in the compact device. Neither the uranium nor plutonium metals used in the fissile core of such a bomb would need such frequent maintenance, and even tritium, which has a half-life of 12.3 years, and must be recharged periodically, would not need replenishing so frequently. While we do not know the details of Soviet weapons design, there is no obvious technical constraint that can account for Valynkin’s claim that small ADMs would require frequent and expensive maintenance. Since the United States maintained a stockpile of several hundred such systems for at least twenty years, it seems unlikely that the maintenance cost for such systems is so high as to have been prohibitive for the USSR.

The Russian official denials are also inconsistent and contradictory. While Valynkin denied that the US or USSR had built such weapons, other Russian spokesmen—like Georgiy Kaurov of the Ministry of Atomic Energy—admitted the existence of equivalent US weapons. General Romanov, of the National Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, tried to discredit Lebed’s allegations by implausibly arguing that any nuclear warhead would need to weigh at least 200 kg, while others, like Valynkin, admitted that lighter, more compact weapons were technically feasible. Although ignorance or incompetence could account for both these inconsistencies and the glaring factual inaccuracies that mar the official denials, the pattern suggests a poorly designed “cover story.” So many of the official arguments explaining why the USSR did not construct ADMs are based on obviously false premises that one is led to wonder whether the denials are false as well. This circumstantial reasoning does not support the claim that such ADMs are currently unaccounted for, but it does suggest that Soviet ADMs may have existed and that the issue of their current disposition is a real one.

Most Russian media accepted the official denials without closely examining their specifics. Thus Komsomolskaya pravda published General Romanov’s claim that a nuclear weapon would have a minimum weight of 200 kg without comment. The most notable exception was the 51% state-owned ORT network, which broadcast a special report on the “suitcase” bomb controversy on 27 September. The broadcast said that information it had uncovered suggested that small nuclear weapons had been manufactured by the USSR, but that although “the Defense Ministry knows this, it prefers to be insincere.” The program reported that some small nuclear devices were built by the Soviet Union for use in geological prospecting and oil exploration. Consistent with the statement by Valynkin, the program said these systems had a “service life” of only a few months, after which they would cease to function.32 Some support for the existence of small peaceful nuclear explosives (PNEs) is contained in a recently-published official history of Russian the nuclear testing program. The history reports that several low-yield PNEs were detonated at a site in Kazakstan during the mid-1970s for "industrial" purposes. The yields in these tests ranged from .01 kT (10 tons) to .35 kT (350 tons).33 While the report does not indicate if these low-yield devices were small in size, it does provide some indirect support for the ORT report and hints at the existence of similar low-yield military systems.
(snip)
(snip)
Conclusion
What conclusions can we draw from this controversy? First, given the secrecy surrounding Soviet nuclear weapons, it is impossible to reach any definitive conclusion about the veracity of Lebed’s claims. There is no convincing evidence that any former Soviet nuclear warheads have been lost, stolen, or misplaced. But since both the Russian and US governments would have powerful incentives to keep any such evidence confidential, and we have very little information about the number of nuclear weapons in the Russian stockpile and the location of the depots where they are stored, we also have no way to disprove Lebed’s claim that some weapons are unaccounted for.

Although there is no conclusive evidence to support Lebed’s charges about the diversion of ADMs, there is a good deal of evidence that small nuclear devices, analogous to known US systems, were produced in the Soviet Union. Internally contradictory official Russian denials that such systems were ever made raise the question of how candid the Russian government is being in response to Lebed’s charges. If small ADMs were made by the USSR, why does the Russian government deny it? Are the denials designed to allow the government to avoid having to answer questions about the disposition of the current stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons? Although it is impossible to answer these questions on the basis of currently available information, they do point out the need for greater transparency of nuclear stockpiles in both the United States and the USSR. Although Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton agreed at their March 1997 summit in Helsinki that the planned START III treaty would address such issues, the controversy over Lebed’s comments underlines how far the two countries still have to go in this respect.
(snip)


Keeping things is perspective, a little comedy, I find here

http://www.luggage-megastore.com/suitcase/nukes-suitcase.html
nukes suitcase
Discover nukes suitcase information
Find top nukes suitcase here today

Looking For The Best Discount Luggage Bargains?

Save up to 70% on top brands!. We continually offer quality products and professional service at low prices. All major brands stocked including Samsonite luggage, Tumi luggage, Hartman luggage, Swiss Army luggage and American Tourister luggage. You will have to travel far and wide to find a more pleasant and complete place to shop.



Review more nukes suitcase information

WorldNetDaily: Does al-Qaida have 20 suitcase nukes?
... Does al-Qaida have. 20 suitcase nukes? Author claims bin Laden purchased them in '98 from ex-KGB agents for $30 million ...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=291

[burrowowl]

71. Maybe there are more reliable

U$ suitcase nukes sold to them by the Carlyle Group:7

[nolabels]

87. Via Pakistan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/weekinreview/08sang.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=0f8e47e3e507ed0d&ex=1080018000
PAKISTAN MIRRORS IRAQ
Confronting the Nuclear Threat America Didn't Want to Be True
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: February 8, 2004
(snip)
And as with Iraq, a critical question is how intelligence was put to use. In his efforts to stem proliferation, Mr. Bush has threatened sanctions against Iran and Libya. He demanded that North Korea accept inspections. But General Musharraf has been allowed to play by different rules.

Few of Mr. Bush's aides believe Pakistan's story that Dr. Khan operated alone. He has the deepest ties to the military, which oversaw the Khan Research Laboratories, and supplied it with a cargo fleet. Pakistan got missiles from North Korea, investigators believe, in return for uranium enrichment technology. Clearly, the Pakistani government must have known something about how its new missile fleet materialized.
(snip)
(snip)
But when Mr. Musharraf struck a deal last week with Dr. Khan - a televised apology that absolved the government, in return for a full pardon - the White House applauded Mr. Musharraf. When the Pakistani president dismissed as "rubbish'' calls that he investigate the military's role, the White House said nothing. In fact, when President Bush on Friday named the members of the intelligence commission, asking them to examine troubles in penetrating countries whose weapons, ambitions or links to terrorism pose a threat to America, he named Iran, Libya, Afghanistan. Pakistan was not on the list.

"Look, it seems Machiavellian, but it is Machiavelli with a purpose,'' said George Perkovich, a Pakistan expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It's worth it if you are secretly getting enough cooperation from the Pakistanis to map the entire enterprise and roll it up. But there's always the possibility that you are being played by Pakistan: that they will give you just enough information to keep the money flowing, but not enough to root out the real problem.''

On Friday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he would remind General Musharraf that the United States needs "a full understanding of what the A. Q. Khan network has done over the years so that there are no remnants of it left.'' But it is Mr. Musharraf who assured Mr. Powell 16 months ago - after The New York Times revealed that American intelligence had concluded that Pakistan supplied nuclear technology to North Korea, apparently in exchange for missiles - that any such activities were in the past. Exchanges with Libya occurred as recently as five months ago.
(snip)

http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php/20021121102254567
Pakistan is a not an ally against terrorism
Matt Thundyil
(snip)
In the context of the attacks on the US, Pakistan's record is extensive. The mastermind of the first attack on the WTC was Ramzi Yousef, a Pakistani national with links to the Pakistani government. The attacks on the US embassies in Africa were masterminded by terrorists based from Pakistan. The finances used by Mohammad Atta (the ring-leader of the hijackers that attacked the WTC-Pentagon) were wired by terrorists with links to Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence - an agency with deep links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. All the 19 terrorists, as well as Zacarias Moussaoui (the suspected 20th hijacker) and Richard Reid (the shoe-bomber) are known to have spent time training in Pakistan in institutions funded by the Pakistani intelligence.

In addition to this are the extensive links between the Al Qaeda/Taliban and Pakistan. The Taliban forces that occupied and controlled Afghanistan were supported militarily, politically and logistically by Pakistan. The links between the Taliban and the Pakistani government were so extensive that all Taliban Ministries could only be reached through Pakistani area codes. It was in recognition of the linkage between the Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and in turn between the Taliban and Pakistan that Richard Armitage threatened the Pakistanis with cooperating with us or being 'bombed back to the Stone Age.' It was only in the face of this threat that Pakistan grudgingly agreed to permit US-over flights.

And then, in order to thwart US military operations, an attack on a State Legislature in India was authorized and conducted by Pakistani directed terrorists. Jaish-e-Mohammad, one of the 12 groups that comprise the Islamic Front led by Al Qaeda, claimed credit for the attack. Jaish-e-Mohammad continued to raise funds and train its men in Pakistani controlled territory. After this gambit failed, Pakistan continued to sustain the Taliban and Al Qaeda with military, financial, logistic and fuel in the midst of the US strikes into Afghanistan. As the pressure grew, Musharraf attempted to get them breathing space by demanding a break for Ramadan. Pakistani officers continued to be directly involved in the fighting in Afghanistan, and were airlifted out of Kunduz as that city fell. Most of the "foreign fighters" that were responsible for the prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif that killed US personnel were Pakistani. Following the fall of the Taliban, in order to forestall the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the upper echelon of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, Pakistan ordered the attack on India's Parliament. This was designed as a classic diversionary attack intended to take American focus away from the terrorists to the threat of nuclear-war on the Indian subcontinent. Even after this, thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban agents are known to have slipped into Pakistan for safe haven.

In addition to the support for the WTC attackers, the embassy attackers, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the Pakistani government?s support of other terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is but one of 12 groups that make up the Islamic Front that has issued a jihad on the United States. In addition to Al Qaeda are Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Tayyba, and Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin. These three groups are classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the US State Department. All four, including Al Qaeda are known to raise funds openly, train openly and receive military and logistic support from the Pakistani government agencies. This support continues to this day. Interestingly enough the website that Lashkar-e-Tayyba uses for fundraising and propaganda is located on a Pakistani Army server. Finally, numerous Pakistani scientists are under suspicion of having transferred nuclear technology to Al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits.
(snip)

Ah, but see what they are doing today

USA to forgive Pakistan's $460 million debt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x433797

[thinkingwoman]

26. I think our response should be

So do we.

Really, despite the fact that Bush is a lousy, dangerous, selected president, and that the US made the bin laden terrorists what they are today, I don't want him or any other president to cowtow to al quaeda (sp?).

The US needs to stop being bullied by a ragtag band of country-less assholes.

[tobius]

28. there are no wmd's! don't worry. nt

[lazarus]

44. You have all missed the key to this article

And that's this bit here:

Mir describe al-Zawahri as "the real brain behind Osama bin Laden."

"He is the real strategist, Osama bin Laden is only a front man," Mir was quoted as saying during the interview. "I think he is more dangerous than bin Laden."

So just ignore bin Laden. Ignore the fact that we haven't caught him yet. We'll be getting this guy real soon.

How many "masterminds" have we caught already?

Oh, wait, here it is:

DNA tests on corpse will reveal if it is Bin Laden's deputy

....(General Safdar Hussain, the Peshawar corps commander) said he believed the “gentleman” (al-Zawahiri) was hurt while trying to escape in one of three armoured vehicles that had attempted to break through a Pakistani cordon on Tuesday.

Two of the cars were shot at and crashed, but a third escaped in a cloud of dust. Safdar admitted, however, that the injured person might also be Thuraya, an Uzbek leader.

A senior American official involved in the hunt for Bin Laden said that al-Zawahiri may already be dead. According to his version of events, the Egyptian was in the escaping car and was shot by Taskforce 121, the shadowy rapid reaction force comprising special forces and CIA agents that had helped to capture Saddam Hussein last December.

The body, he said, had been retrieved from the wreckage and was undergoing DNA tests to confirm whether it was that of al-Zawahiri. In deference to the US forces’ hosts, any announcement was being delayed to make it look as if it were a Pakistani-run operation, as well as to have time to use any information garnered to capture other fighters....


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1046028,00.html

[acmavm]

48. Fine, now start looking for some guy, or bunch of guys, that glow in the

dark.

My bet, if they have one, would be our good buddy Pakistan and Dr. Kahn.

[RainDog]

49. I don't know if they do or not

however, I do think it's entirely possible they have been able to acquire things from Pakistan. Their nuke guy just admitted helping other acquire nuke technology, and all familiar with the nation say there is no way he could have done that without the knowledge of Gen. Musharaff and the ISI, etc.

I suppose this is why we just forgave them their debt and are making them a unofficial ally.

I do not doubt that terrorists want to attack America and other nations in the west. I wonder if the terrorist attack in Spain was from a terrorist franchise in Morocco...not directed by the bin Laden league, per se.

These people are criminals who, because of current technology, are able to perform crimes on a national scale.

They are not nations we can overthrow.

For this reason, it infuriates me that Bush wasted our money, troops, and good will across the world invading Iraq.

Bush has shown, to me, that he is the wrong person to lead the fight against terrorism because he is the hostage to a radical faction in this nation which refuses to make Israel come to terms with the Palestinian issue.

Obviously, peace between Israel and Palestine will not stop terrorism, but our obvious indifference to the suffering of the Palestinians inflames many and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

We are in a position, with the show of force in Iraq, whether right or wrong, to force concessions from Israel to lower the flames.

I cannot see Bush and the neocons ever doing this, especially considering, as Lt. Col. Karen K. noted in her articles in The American Conservative, that Israeli generals had free access to the Pentagon.

In addition, our support of the House of Saud, and our refusal to force reforms from them is another problem.

I think that, even if acknowledgements and reforms were made, there are still some who want "holy war." But if you remove logical reasons for this, you ostracize these people in their own populations as well.

That we have a president, and generals, and advisors who also want "holy war" disgusts me.

Terrorists are international criminals who should be tried in international courts.

By telling NATO to go to hell, by refusing to honor international treaties, by refusing to demand that Israel respond to UN rulings, (which was the rationale for an invasion of Iraq), we have reinforced every bed stereotype of America.

I want my govt to react as a rational body, not as crusaders from the holy roman empire.

On C-Span, I heard a guy who was a former navy seal speak about a book he had written and other issues. He made lots of sense.

He said that he has no doubt there will be further attempts and probably successful terrorist attacks on America, and that we should realize this...

And it doesn't matter who is president for this to happen, which I think both parties realize.

How we respond is the issue. I dread the response from the Bush regime, if such an attack happens during his remaining months in office, because he has already shown that he has such disregard for the Constitution, for our troops, and for the American people if they are not the richest 1%.

[metisnation]

53. what? approval ratings are below 50%

al queda has nukes.

[johnfunk]

56. I don't believe it

Smells like Bushwa from Zawah'ri

[PeanutOne]

66. Let's just hope they don't have a suitcase Dubya

One of those can destroy whole countries.

[johnfunk]

68. Now THAT would be a weapon!

The Suticase Dubya: Weppin o'Mass Distructulation.

WARNING: Do not use if contents show signs of being on cocaine or AWOL. Keep away from pretzels and Jim Beam.

[nolabels]

73. Yea, but who would be stupid enough to use it :-(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1257854

[daleo]

72. This story has made the rounds before

If they really hate us for our freedom and they had these weapons, it seems likely that they would have used them already. Hence, I would put the probability of this at below 0. By the way, if suitcase nukes were obtainable for $30 million on the black market, why didn't Saddam have a few?

[Rex]

74. They meant fruitcake nukes!

No one ever eats the dam things so it was bound to happen!

[Disturbed]

75. Dis-Info

"Taskforce 121, the shadowy rapid reaction force comprising special forces and CIA agents that had helped to capture Saddam Hussein last December."

Of course, I cannot prove this but I have read rom several sources that the Kurds found Saddam.

[The Night Owl]

76. If Al Qaeda had nukes...

... they would have used them by now.

:nuke:

[Kimber Scott]

86. What about the "Winds of Black Death"

Al Qaeda says is coming to the U.S. They said it is 90% done. I think it's big. Nukes could be it.

[MikeG]

80. Don't worry - They degrade fast if not maintained properly.

[name not needed]

83. Even if they have them

Are they trained to use them? We're not talking about operating a vcr here. These were designed to be difficult to operate.

[DrWeird]

88. There's no such thing as suitcase nukes.

At least that's what I've read. The US has been working on it, from what I understand, but the smallest nuke is still several hundred pounds.

[TheWatcher]

90. Ah, but don't let the Facts confuse the Fear Proaganda.....

Bush's Poll Numbers are Below 50%.....

One of his Aides just basically spilled a lot of beans on him.....

That means somebody is ready to attack the US.....

This is all such utter Bullshit.....

And to see some lap it up and get caught up in it makes it even more sickening.....

Once again, when they are in trouble, they use FEAR....It is the ONLY thing they have.....

The only Suitcase this lying, criminal bastard has to fear is the one that he will be taking all his shit back to the Pig Farm in come November.....

Assuming someone doesn't "attack" us, so he can lock the country down and remain Emporer Eternal.....

Will we EVER be Free of these people......

TheWatcher

[sprockets]

92. Aye Watcher

and considering the mass concentration of swirling bullshit
which keeps us most assuredly going nowhere, never really
advancing nor evolving, one must wonder when the earth will
finally be rid *of us.*

[BonjourUSA]

94. the threat is not the explosion but the contamination.

If a nuke suitcase would be activated in the NYC center (or else where), this center could be contaminated during hundreds of years and isolated.

It's the most terrible terrorist threat.

[Nihil]

98. Yes, but ...

... just think about the size of the cleanup operation contract that
will be given to Halliburton & Controlled Demolition Inc. ...

[Beaker]

103. then you haven't read this, apparently-

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

...During May 1997 Lebed said at a private briefing to a delegation of U.S. congressmen that he believed 84 of the one-kiloton bombs were unaccounted for. In the interview with 60 Minutes, conducted in late August, Lebed said he now believed the figure to be more than 100.

Lebed stated that these devices were made to look like suitcases, and could be detonated by one person within half an hour. According to Lebed, he learned of the existence of these weapons developed for special operations only a few years before. While national security adviser to Yeltsin he commissioned a study to report on the whereabouts of these devices. Lebed was fired as national security adviser 17 October 1996 amid intense political jostling while President Boris Yeltsin was awaiting heart surgery. He admits that he had only preliminary results of his investigation at that time, and these results are the basis of his subsequent claims.

The bombs, measuring 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters (24 x 16 x 8 inches), had been distributed among special Soviet military intelligence units belonging to the GRU, Lebed said...


Mock-up of a hypothetical "suitcase" nuclear bomb, made by Congressional
staffer Peter Pry. It is basically a 105 mm artillery shell device packaged in a
large briefcase.

[Ganja Ninja]

95. I have to doubt this claim.

If bin Laden has nukes and has had them for even the last two or three years why hasn't he used them? I just don't see al Qaeda holding back if they have a bomb. Since he hasn't used them already then he either doesn't have them or doesn't have all the components for a working bomb.

[BonjourUSA]

97. It is not a destructive nuclear explosion but a contamination reaction

I am not going to do a complicated explanation. Simply, it is not really an explosion but a reaction. It contaminates an area which is more or less large. The people who was in the direct contact dies immediately or later of cancer, and the area must be isolated for many, many years.

In clear, the threat is not a nuke bomb but a suitcase with a nuclear material diffusion system

The efficiency is better in a confined area like a subway for example or a building

[Ganja Ninja]

101. What your talking about is a dirty bomb.

A conventional bomb packed with radio active material. Perhaps the most damaging way to use a bomb of this type would be in a low flying small plane over a city. Using it in a confined area would make it easier to either clean up or isolate.

[BonjourUSA]

104. Just a suitcase. But this suitcase is not very easy to make.

it's a very difficult technology. But, the AQ network should have it. If they find a nuclear material of good quality they could easily make this shit

[blindpig]

100. agree, mostly

the whole suitcase thing is overblown. Considering that tons of contraband go through US ports on a regular basis how hard would it be to bring in a cruder but larger device in a container loaded with Asian smack? Phillip Dick suggested China starting WWIII in such manner in a 60's novel, Commander One. Don't seem they've got a bomb. Yet, anyway.

[drb]

96. Do you think they would like input on where and when to use them?

We might be able to come up with some viable targets! Personally, I don't think the next Freeper Rally slash Child Molestation Fiesta would be worth it - they can only seem to get a couple dozen people together!