Nuclear terrorist attack in a major US urban center

[Centre_Left]

There are a lot of insightful people here so I basically wanted to ask, what do you think are the odds of a terrorist group successfully detonating a nuclear weapon in a major American urban center? I have read a great deal of material suggesting that the likelihood is small since the terrorists are not nearly sophisticated enough to acquire, much less operate, those kinds of weapons. On the other hand, we always hear reports of loose nukes and even looser weapons-grade material; plus I never underestimate what human beings can achieve if sufficiently (fanatically) devoted to their cause. Thanks to Bush and his absurd notion that we can actually nation-build in the Middle East, we now know that the terrorists are now more motivated than ever before.

What do all of you think?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. More likely

a 'dirty bomb' - a bomb with nuclear components, but not a bomb like those used at the end of WWII. Supposedly the terrorists were working on such a dirty bomb with Pedia, who was arrested for terrorism

[hang a left]

2. I think that if we see any kind of attack inside American between

now and November, it will take place in a strategic location. Somewhere with a high amount of registered democrats. It will have to be a biggie! Something almost equal in scale to 9-11. Oh and by the way, I think the place and method will change, but not the perps

[exDinosoar]

6. The 911 perps are dead

I guess there could still be sleeper cells of AQ terrorists in waiting.

[hang a left]

9. 'The 911 perps are dead'

I would have to disagree with ya there. I think they are alive and well out there in war-profiteering land.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I've been saying this for a while now..

Imagine a terror attack again in NYC - that bastion of registered Democrats - that results in martial law in NYC. Bush gets on the air - "to honor the dead, the election must go on. While under martial law, NYC will not be allowed to hold elections, but we must not waver in the face of terrorists. The rest of New York will be allowed to keep the same number of electoral votes and the other 49 states will proceed as normal."

How do you protest that?

[ithacan]

3. you are referring to Bush with these words I presume:

what human beings can achieve if sufficiently (fanatically) devoted to their cause.

Bush is who we have to fear. Bush and company is the greatest threat to our security. If anything happens it will be right out of Bush's playbook.

These other scenarios are little more than scare tactics by the right, which knows that the ONLY way they can hope to stay in power is through fear and hatred.

[bowens43]

4. If bushes approval ratings dip to below 40%

we may find out.

[friendofbenn]

5. is it in the carlyle groups economic interest?

nt

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Doubt It

I would suggest that a form of MAD is already been laid out, and not just by Li'l Georgie's gang.

My scenario goes like this: We've told the leaders of the Middle East that if a nuke goes off in a U.S. city, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, no investigation will be done, but missiles will be launched. I'll guess that all the capitals of the Middle East are targeted, as are some of the holy cities.

The MAD approach basically puts the onus on minimizing funding for such an expensive operation on the "allies" we have in that part of the world.

I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that this strategy was developed and warning went out during the 90's, when the Clinton administration recognized the immensity of the terrorist threat.

This is all just speculation on my part. I've got no proof. Just logical suspicion.
The Professor