I had to bring it up

[quietone]

It is already known that since the economic collapse of Russia, that the potential for such wonderful items such as plutonium/uranium (can't remember which is the biggie) to find there way to places where we dare not dream, came to be a real possibility.

When I was doing research on this subject, the overall thought was that it took too much money and too much effort to make the kind of lab neccesary to build a nuclear bomb for any ol' terrorist to do.
It was believed that it would be easy to detect if it were attempted because of the technology neccesary and the effort that it would take to put one of these labs together.

Well, you remember how expensive calculators were when they first came out? Not to mention the evolution of computers to desktop items.
Given the determination and the financing of O*!@U bin Laden (as I refer to him), a grim threat may or may not be within the realm of possibility. THis is not even to consider the chemical weapons that are now accessable.

Granted, the attack last week was well coordinated, but not high tech. I still have been considering the potential of our new war to go in this direction. We know Pakistan has nucleur capabilites, as well as North Korea. Are we to assume that Afganistan does not? I don't know much about their capabilities, but coupled with the rugged and diverse terrain, this will indeed be a complicated battlefield.

 

[QM3SS]

It is my belief that Afghanistan as a country does not have any nuclear weapons or capability. They have been too wrapped up in internal fighting (the Northern Alliance) and don't have all that much in the way of export trade to make money (or so i think, i haven't done much studying). But the aforementioned individual (i refuse to speak/type his name) quite possibly has the capital to make such a purchase. But that's even if his family hasn't cut him off from any monetary reserves they share with him.

 

[ACStudios]

I've been thinking about this also... and it is scary.

If I remember correctly (and that can be questionable at times) it isn't hard to make a nuclear device if you have the plutonium or uranium to get it nuclear. In fact, some college kids (or even high school... this is the part I don't remember) designed one for a science project back in the 70s...

It wouldn't be the huge megatonage that the military has... and it would be a "dirty" explosion, but enough radiation to kill off a large chunk of a big city. It doesn't have to be huge to have the desired affect. When you look at the amount of radioactive materials that are unaccounted for these days, it gets really scary. I think it'll just be a matter of time before this gets taken to the nuclear level

Alan

 

[Bill Martino]

If it gets taken to a nuclear level we should be the ones to take it there -- an ounce of prevention....

 

[wildmanh]

I don't like the idea of a nuclear conflict,

Originally posted by Bill Martino
If it gets taken to a nuclear level we should be the ones to take it there

But I do agree with you Uncle.


Heber Ellsworth

 

[Bill Martino]

Nor do I but if and when required we must do what has to be done.

 

[Matt H]

One of the other web forums I frequent is a forum for the New York Rangers hockey team, and alot of the regulars there are from New York. One guy who I trust to tell the truth, said that last week (after the attack) he was walking around Manhattan and ran into a uniformed guy who he stopped to talk to. Turned out the uniformed guy wasn't police, he was from a chemical/biological response unit from Florida. He said they had been training in New York for the past month before the attack, along with some FDNY and NYPD for a potential attack on the WTC, using bombs, that would close of Manhattan's bridges. He didn't say anything else, but the guy I heard it from had the following theory... The terrorists may have originally planned to attack the WTC, which would lead to Manhattan being sealed off. They would then release chemical or biological agents while no one could leave.

I can't say how much truth there is to this idea, and it's only a theory, but it just maybe the CIA wasn't caught quite as unaware as we think, and that while they couldn't predict the use of airliners as weapons, they may have kept a greater tragedy from happening.

I think the use of bio. or chem. weapons is more likely than a nuclear attack, but I wouldn't be suprised if we see such an attack in the future . If they do use such measures, though, I think we should retaliate in kind, and there caves won't save them from chemical weapons.

I just hope beyond hope that it doesn't go that far.

 

[ACStudios]

What is scary about it is that a nuclear attack is actually easier than a chem/bio attack. It isn't as technically difficult to detonate a crude nuke device than it is to transport and disperse an live bio weapon... At least that is what I have read over the years.

I agree though... I hope to never see the day where nukes are involved.

Alan

 

[Bill Martino]

Scary stuff, indeed. We better get some things done pretty fast. I have this uneasy feeling that we may see something else from the terrorists if we don't move quickly.