Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (15045)	12/29/2001 5:55:31 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 281500

In the bad old days of the cuba-turkey-italy missile crises it was already clear that it was easier to have submarines moving all over the place, except that russia didn't have much of a coast. Only some 15-20 years later was it clear that it was easier to plant the bombs within the nation of destination. Most interesting is that it took that many years until the former submarines were used to "find" titanic, and to make that finally profitable production. Ilmarinen Not to forget that little dog Laika, same weight as a little bomb, in that littttle sputnik, 1958?? (long before Star Wars, some 20 years later, yellow dog umbrellas,etc..)

To: KLP who wrote (15045)	12/29/2001 10:19:26 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Clarification on A-Q's nuclear threat: I mentioned that I doubted their nuclear 'capability', not their possession of same. If they possess uranium/plutonium/etc, their capability is likely to be a dirty bomb capable of radioactive damage to a very few cities, putting at risk hundreds of thousands over a number of years (due to the delayed fuse of the cancers it spawns). If they possess actual weapons made by others, the normal breakdowns of fissionable materials could render the destructive power to be far less than a fresh or upgraded weapon. I did not mean to suggest that they don't possess either horror, but that the devices- while still catastrophic- would prove far inferior to the type of weaponry nuclear nations wield. I did mean to suggest, though, that: a) it is questionable that they possess something so catastrophic b) it is questionable that they can deliver it c) it is doubtful they can develop something effective from the raw parts (despite the involvement of Pakistani scientists) unless they did so and have had the weapons in place since before 9-11 , and.... d) there is also a deterrence factor that Bin Laden must be aware of. The use of such weaponry will turn a significant portion of the world - even the Muslim world - against such extremism. So the only way (if he has any sanity) that he could conceive of such use is if he can deliver an unqualified victory over the great nuclear powers. I am doubtful that he can bring down the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Israel simultaneously... even if he had a secret alliance with Iraq and others, to do so. Since he likely lacks that type of capability, going nuclear would precipitate a severe response that would likely create international concentration camps for many millions of innocent Middle Easterners, and rain a few nukes upon the heads of millions more, just to be certain that such leadership is turned to dust. It is hardly a way to build a united Arab/Muslim kingdom. If A-Q has any nuclear capability, we'd be more likely to see: a) a detonation in at least 2 places, probably different capitol cities b) an immediate threat to detonate more in the event of a response on Arab territory c) one or two more detonations to back up his threat and at that point, the ammunition would be gone. Far more likely: intermittent terrorist attacks as before, with a few fresh WMDs deployed (bio/chemical), or joint deliveries using means they've used before (car/truck/trailer bombs), in multiple cities and countries, at about the same time and possibly with some bio/chem in key areas... not the same as taking down the 6 largest nuclear powers but enough to demoralize millions. But again, such an attack would only occur with government sponsorship and the only rogue governments suspected of having enough WMDs to prompt such destruction would be Iraq and North Korea, both of whom would likely perish quickly via the allied response. There is only one way, I believe, that such evil masters and WMDs could be used in a way that has a persistent impact for years to come, no matter what the allied response is: an attack on food, potable water and energy supplies. In rural, agricultural areas, dirty bombs would be harder to defend against and the radiation impact could last for generations, certainly reducing the economies of the recipients. But while such targets still maintain awesome nuclear arsenals, it would be naive to think the targets would not simply go harvest the crops of others. So for all my potential doomsday theorizing, let's just say that there are so many drawbacks to going nuclear that any attempt to go that route is likely to be the last gasp of evil groups who know they've lost and decide to take others with them... as no benefit can be gained by using them strategically with the limited capacity that they , at best, might have.