‘There will be a nuclear attack on a major city somewhere in the world’ »
Posted By jovial 8 months ago in Political News
Osama Bin Laden had a Pakistani nuclear scientist come visit him because terrorists are seriously trying to get a nuclear bomb and use it to kill hundreds of thousands in a particular city, and this is a fact.
Read Full Story at russiatoday.com »
1354 Views Share Story 94 Comments Report
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 93 of 94 Comments (view all)
-
-
50%
hyperbola8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you surprised after 70 years of military and economic colonialism by the west in moslem countries? On the other hand, this may again be the kind of propaganda fear campaign to which we are continuously subjected to keep the military corruption going.
Reply
Obama and Terror as a Tool of Empire
Let's say you were a dedicated imperial militarist who believed that your country's security, prestige and financial interests could best be served by war and the ever-present threat of war. Let's say you had some really hot and juicy operations going on, endless deadly conflicts that were pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into your war machine and entrenching national policy even more deeply in the militarist philosophy – the machtpolitik – that you believe in.
But there's a problem. The general public – the cow-like herd out there that doesn't understand grand strategy the way you and your fellow elites do – is growing weary, and wary, of your Long War. The national treasury is bankrupt, the national infrastructure is rotting, the nation's communities are dying; millions of people are out of work, losing their homes, losing their dreams, spiraling down into want, privation and despair. Yet you have big plans to escalate the war, expand your war machine, and maintain the global dominance that you believe is the right and natural role for your special nation – and its elites. What to do? How to galvanize the truculent, self-absorbed herd into enthusiastically supporting your vital agenda once more?
Well, here's one purely hypothetical approach you might try. You goad and provoke violent extremist groups into retaliating against your attacks, your civilian-slaughtering invasions and incursions into their territory. Being unable to confront directly your war machine – the largest, most advanced military force in the history of the world, sustained by a tsunami of public money that each year surpasses the military spending of the rest of the world – they naturally respond with "asymmetrical" operations. At first, these are directed at nearby targets: your supply lines, the forces of your local proxies and allies, and other chaos-inducing depredations in the groups' own regions, designed to foul the lines of your control and drive you out. Just as naturally, you use these attacks to justify an even greater military presence in their regions. The cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards, until at last the extremists strike at your homeland – either with your connivance, or your covert acquiescence, or, in any event, with your foreknowledge that such an attack was sure to come. This is the moment you have waited for; this is exactly what you wanted. Now you can whip the herd back into a martial frenzy, keep the Long War going, and push aside the rabble's petty, small-minded desires for a peaceful, prosperous life at home, minding their own business. -
-
-
-
-
40%
Hhussk8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its a scary scenario and one that is likely to happen. We've had 8 years of bungling to allow the planning for this to occur,
Reply
No. We had eight years of a President trying to win a war on terror while the liberals tried to hamstring him.
-
-
100%
berkeley8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
after listening to graham allison for longer than i wanted to, i have to disagree.
Reply
he is repeating the lie that iran both is developing nuclear weapons and intends to use them, so we have to stop them, or at least protect ourselves from them. this has been discredited over and over again, both by the UN and by our own intelligence reports.
then he waves the osama bein laden flag. there is almost no evidence that he is still alive. the most recent videos of him, a few years back now, were obvious fakes.
on the other hand, graham also speaks for international cooperation. great. i'm all for it, but not for these reasons.-
100%
Beau78908 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regardless of whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it's been widely reported that there is enough enriched nuclear material missing or otherwise unaccounted for to create dozens of suitcase-sized nuclear bombs. At least some of this blame goes to our government's failure to help protect the former Soviet Union's stockpiles after its dissolution.
Reply
I have no doubt that some wacko will eventually detonate a nuke in a major city. No matter what precautions we may take, they're not foolproof. And yes--international cooperation is essential to at least delay such a catastrophe. -
100%
NoWayMan8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
true. I don't believe Iran's plan is simply to get a nuke and set it off. they have too much to lose as a nation to play it that stupidly, and right now they're positioning themselves as a mid/central asian power for years to come. my guess is that they want a way to keep america out of their yard, and getting a nuke (or even posing like you want or have a nuke) has proven to be the best way to do this.
Reply
that said, we do need to be able to put some controls and tracking measures on the world's high grade enriched nuke material. cause it really isn't Iran that worries me, and I take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric for just that: rhetoric. its pakistan and elements inside pakistan that worry me. they're the ones in this equation who don't really seem to give a rats asss about blowing stuff up. and they've got a guy on the inside, AQ khan, who knows exactly how to set if off.
-
-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
thanks jovial
Reply
It was difficult to load the web page for your story and then the video did not play correctly. Nevertheless, having heavily researched this subject, I believe that I can venture an educated opinion.
As the story goes, Ousama bin Laden offered criminals in Chechnya $30 million and two tons of opium in return for 20 Russian nuclear warheads.
This chilling account was contained in a 1999 Arab-language news report. It is a documented fact that for most of the 1990s, bin Laden has been trying to get materials to make a nuclear bomb. Acquiring weapons of mass destruction, he has said, is a "religious duty" necessary "to terrorize the enemies of God." Some of his associates (now in prison or witness-protection programs) have recounted efforts to obtain weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
For this reason alone, one cannot compare Obama’s present concern in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Vietnam War, which was a war allegedly fought to curtail the spread of communism. As most educated people know, Vietnam like Iraq never presented a legitimate threat to the United States.-
-
Neutral
jimdoze8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Iraq did present a legitimate threat to the whole world and, therefore, to the U.S. Threats present themselves as more than the ability (or even the desire) to launch a military attack against someone or something.
Reply
The whole world, in measures even greater than the U.S., is dependent on the daily flow of massive amounts of oil through the Straits of Hormuz. The disruption of that flow, for as little as a month, would bring the world's economy to it's knees far more thoroughly and more devastatingly than the collapse of the banking system.
Iraq was a clear danger to the flow of oil equally from either the acquisition and use of WMD or from its collapse upon the death or incapacitation of Saddam Hussein. Saddam, just prior to his hanging, said that he maintained the ruse of WMD to keep the Iranians at bay. It was clear to our policy makers that the implosion of Iraq would have been an open invitation to Iran making a move to take the southern oil fields of Iraq... fields which they clearly covet. Whether the Iranians would have moved or not, the Kurds would have opted for independence. There can be no doubt about that. Upon such a move, the Turks would have moved on them and taken the northern oil fields in the process. The Turks will never allow an independent Kurdistan and the Turks covet the northerm fields which are territories which once belonged to them. Either before or after such a move by Turkey, the Iranians would have moved on the southern fields. The potential for such a war cutting off Middle Eastern oil supplies was very very high. Which means that the potential for the implosion of Iraq cascading into a world war was very very high.
That the left (as well as a large number all across the political spectrum) does not understand this I consider to be a failure of imagination far greater than the failure of imagination that became evident as government fiddling with the mortgage/real estate markets created a financial bubble that ultimately collapsed.
-
-
93%
tehranchik8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm afraid I'm not on board with this one. Iran blowing up Israel isn't in the cards simply because of the Islamic holy sites in Israel. On the other hand Israel wouldn't think twice about blowing Qom out of the world.
Reply
AND as berkeley mentioned - the debunking of Iran's nuclear prowess has been quite clear.-
0%
ChefEOD8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who says they have to blow up the whole country in order to destroy either the US or Israel? One bomb in Tel Aviv wouldn't cause any actual harm to any Muslim holy site but its effects would essentially destroy the country. Or more probable, one nuke detonated at high altitude, as Iran has been observed testing with conventional warheads, and the EMP would neutralize the country, including the IDF, leaving the land wide open to conventional invasion.
Reply
And as far as debunking goes, bunk! There is hardly a week that goes by where even the UN steps closer and closer to all out affirmation that Iran’s intention is nuclear weaponry. Where are all those cries of “connecting the dots” with this as we saw after 9/11 and people far & wide wondering why no one could see what was coming?
-
-
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't really have enough infromation to say for certain, but it wasn't too long ago in the news the following story was released.
Reply
http://armiesofliberation.com/archives/2008/11/09/...
But this Novak woman is kind of nutty, so I can't confirm it. I will reserve my opinion on the story until I have more proof. I just thought it might be a story worth considering. -
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's another recent article by Allison. Is he really a war mongerer or does he see something we can't see. Don't jump on me, I'm just stimulating conversation here.
Reply
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123837495311668059... -
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's not forget that the only country thus far that has deployed a nuclear weapon was the United States. I do not believe Israel or any nation (including Korea and Iran) would initiate a nuclear war, however, the likelihood of a maniac like Ousama bin Laden to obtain and deploy a nuclear device is a risk all of us should take seriously. Between his track record and his previous threats, one must take him seriously.
Reply-
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The resulting mayhem would be devastating for the world economy and would intensify wars and hate upon Arab speaking countries. It would be a world that I quite frankly would not want to live in. I hope that no radical person or persons ever becomes successful in carrying out such a tragedy upon the world and humanity. The suffering would be uncalculable.
Reply -
92%
Dionys8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" I do not believe Israel or any nation (including Korea and Iran) would initiate a nuclear war,"
Reply
Israel had solid plans a little over a year ago to use tactical nukes in Iran until the US stepped in and told them in no uncertain terms, "no." -
-
-
-
100%
smithichie8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When there is a terrorist nuclear attack on a city, I suspect that nuke will originate from Pakistan, not Iran. The reality is, that like any technology, nukes are becoming cheaper and easier to produce. The Earth survived a cold war between two nuclear powers last century, it remains to be seen if the Earth will survive similar such wars between dozens of nuclear armed countries we will likely see this century.
Reply -
-
100%
aceofspades18 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dionys, you state-
Reply
Israel had solid plans a little over a year ago to use tactical nukes in Iran until the US stepped in and told them in no uncertain terms, "no."
Where did you get that info from?
But putting that aside it would be foolish to think that any country possessing nuclear weapons does not have a stategy to use them.-
90%
Dionys8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's one link:
Reply
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/articl...
"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources."
-
-
83%
tadair9198 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
having had listened to that boring interview, i'm not sure where to categorize this one.
Reply
under the "alarmist " file?
or under the "scholars-who-pretend-to-know-the-future" file?"
how about "fear-based-crap-without-citing-evidence."
reminds me of when powell gave a presentation about WMD's using a student's plagiarized paper, of all things.-
20%
BB648 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But the nuclear program in Iran was actually funded by the USA for many years. In fact the nuclear reactor behind most of this was a gift from President Kennedy. At that time the Shah was the most stable nation in that region and a very good friend of the west. Looking back, we should have backed the Shah. Much of the problems in this area were failings caused by then President Carter. Let's hope Barry does a better job then his predecessor did.
Reply
-
-
100%
aceofspades18 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
any country contemplating using nuclear weapons against another country who is also a nuclear power must realize the devastation that would result upon their own country. This thought alone acts as a controlling factor.
Reply
Osama however, is a stateless threat & must be taken very seriously.
I for one, cannot fathom how we have not been able to locate him for 8 years, unless his existence furthers certain agendas of our own country.-
-
100%
tadair9198 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I for one, cannot fathom how we have not been able to locate him for 8 years, unless his existence furthers certain agendas of our own country."
Reply
Of course it does. He was probably dead on 9/12, or is already on some south pacific island sipping on tea. In this day in age of technology, we should be able to find a 6 foot 3 tall guy in 8 years Instead we find menacing tapes left over in caves. We are swimming in highly toxic poison. Everywhere you look is another dose.
-
-
-
100%
tadair9198 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
refreshing to see somebody awake.
Reply
don't forget the gulf of tonkin. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 -
67%
BB648 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the USA were ever hit in a nuclear exchange by anyone, the revenge sought would truly be bad. I'm not sure any words from any president would calm the call to all out war. A nation like Iran, North Korea or Syria would cease to exist. Again, I hope I'm wrong and that nations like them are only interested in the peaceful uses for nuclear power. But if it happens and we are hit, may God have mercy on their souls because we won't.
Reply
-
-
-
13%
BB648 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We didn't waste 8 years. Go to Iraq and actually visit with the people you consider a waste. You will find a general population enjoying more freedoms then most have ever known. Instead of hiding from the Iraqi police and army, they welcome them into their communities. Pakistan is a free country, Barry wanted us to invade before and I fear his bumbling in front of a monitor will cause us even more problems. Afghanistan is clearly a problem but this is something the US shouldn't do on it's own. We need to get the Afghans to fight their own war. If they don't put value on their own country, no amount of money nor America blood will get them to take responsibility for their own nation.
Reply
Again on Pakistan, it was better and safer under Musharef . With the "25%" party in power, it's going to go into full civil war. BTW- the 25% Party was what they called Bhutto's party. Her husband, the new leader used to charge bribes, I mean tips or fees to do any business in his areas of control. When they fell from power, things were better for the common people. Too bad they regained power. It's like having the Pakistani mob running things.
-
-
-
-
100%
jovial8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"For Afghanistan to become a unitary state ruled from Kabul, and to develop into a modern, prosperous, poppy-free and democratic country would be a worthy and desirable outcome. But it is not vital for American interests."--Allison
Reply
So the main interest has is twofold in my opinion. First it is to disable AlQaeda and the taliban. Second it is to keep the pipelines open that need to traverse the country of Afghanistan. This nation building effort in Afghanistan is just a means to those ends. Why station troops in areas that have poppy fields one may ask. Well it seems that the poppy fields and drug trade are a major means for the taliban and AlQaeda to make the funds that are necessary to try to procure weapons. The surge of 17,000 troops is woefully inadequate to successfully occupy the country, but it should allow our troops enough control to suppress the opium and poppy trade. If it's one thing that we learned fighting terrorism is that terrorism requires funding. The more massive the attack the more funding needed. At the same time the rural areas that the pipeline would run through would also be secured by the additional troops. The plan all looks good on the drawing board, but there are some problems as well. The 4000 trainers that go in there to train the Afghan police and military. Is that enough? Will it be effective? Or will we have to stay there with a contingency force like we have done in every other major conflict so far? The Ahfgans don't want Americans in their country. How do we deal with that problem? Will we have to kill thousands and thousands of rebels that don't want us there? Will we label the freedom fighters in their country terrorists, just as we did in Iraq? How long will this conflict last? How many more billions are Americans willing to spend? Many questions, many questions. -
100%
CHAM8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I doubt that there will be a Nuclear attack by a terrorist organization. There could be one by the United States or Israel, but I don't see someone in Afghanistan, etc. having the equipment to get a bomb into the US.
Reply
As to Iran attacking someone, as I have said before, many times, since the United States was founded, Iran has never invaded another country, except Iraq and that was in retaliation for Iraq invading Iran.
Someone said we should have backed the Shah. Surely that person was kidding. The Shah was installed by the United States and was the very worst bloodthirsty dictator ever to rule in the Middle East. Probably the number 2 worst dictator would be Hussein, also an American plant.
And the nation that has attacked its neighbors at will and brutalized the population of the Palestinians is Israel.
I saw a documentary film last night about two young girls who died in a suicide attack. One Israeli girl and the suicide attacker, a Palestinian girl. Both very young. Both extremely pretty. The Israeli mother wanted to talk to the Palestinian mother and they finally met on an arranged telecast.
The Israeli mother kept demanding that the Palestinian mother make a statement that what her daughter did was wrong. Trouble was that the Israeli mother didn't think that the Palestinians were justified in defending themselves. She just couldn't undrstand the Palestinian Mother telling her that on even terms they could seek peace, but as long as one is the oppressor and the other is the oppressed, they will never be able to see the world in the same context said the Palestinian mother.
And you know that the words spoken face to face revealed just what is wrong in that part of the world. The Israelis feel comfortable as the oppressors and the Palestinians feel that they are fighting for their country and their rightful place in that area.
It is my opinion that only the oppressor has the ability to bring peace. The Palestinian mother made that perfectly clear. -
-
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
100%
DarkWizard8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Probability and statistics and/or the Law of Averages increase each day toward this scenario regardless of what anyone thinks of the validity of "a nuclear bomb going off in a major city within the next 5 years." I don't much like it, but nuclear materials exist, terrorists exist, hatred exists, agendas exist...
Reply -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
More News
Politics Daily
Chaos Theory - Heckuva of a Jobs Summit, Obama
U.N. Panel Will Investigate Controversial Leaked Climate E-mails
Henneberger and Corn on The Diane Rehm Show: Afghanistan, Jobs, and Much More
Public Option for Congress? David Vitter Says Yes.
Sarah Palin Rebuffs 'Birthers,' but Some Supporters Just Won't Have It
Fox News Politics
White House Approves Expansion of CIA's Drone Program in Pakistan
Hollywood Conservatives Say Gore Should Lose Oscar Over Climate-Gate
GOP Lawmakers Rally to SEALs' Aid in Court Martial
Slowdown in Global Warming Last Year Not Permanent, Study Says
Three Dems Join GOP Bid to Force Congress Onto Any 'Public' Health Plan
The Huffington Post
Harry Shearer: New Tiger Woods Ad Campaign
William S. Lerach: Gentlemen, Failure Is an Option
Linda R. Monk, J.D.: The Credit Card as Company Store: How Congress Let It Happen
Dan Shanoff: Making the BCS Slightly Less of a Mess
Christian Parenti: For Obama the Road to Reelection Runs Through Kabul - Or So He Thinks
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.