Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could

[Omaha Steve]

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.html

[stray cat]

1. No doubt; they have nothing to lose and we have no place to retaliate at

and any retaliation is in their favor

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

3. That would provide justification for their actions. eom

[Unvanguard]

4. Yes, I can't imagine any problems that could ensue from that. n/t

[depakid]

8. MAD as a strategic policy worked well for many decades

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

[Unvanguard]

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.

[depakid]

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.

[harkadog]

15. Yes and turn one billion followers of Islam into our sworn enemies

Brilliant!

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Turbineguy]

24. All they'd have to do

is double to 144 virgins.

[Prometheus Bound]

5. It would more effective a warning if he could provide some evidence for that comment.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. Seriously?

Wow.

[Prometheus Bound]

7. It's pretty easy to say isn't it. Do you have any idea what he bases it on?

[dflprincess]

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:

[Prometheus Bound]

14. That's about what I was thinking.

It has proved to be a fairly successful strategy after all.

[conspirator]

10. Water is wet. Why is this shit propaganda news? nt

[Drops_not_Dope]

12. I agree.

[scarletwoman]

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!

[cowman]

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.

[InkAddict]

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....

[Oregone]

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

[The Green Manalishi]

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.

[Hardrada]

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.

[TheMadMonk]

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.

[beardown]

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.

[defendandprotect]

26. So would Bush have . . .

[Nihil]

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:

[ShortnFiery]

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:

[Terry in Austin]

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.