Excellent quote, SS.




~blood rose~

Anyone else think that this war is gonna escalate into a global conflict?

Just saw a show on Al Qaeda on Discovery. It said they hiding in a lot of countries, gaining support and getting bigger, they have allies, they attacking other countries and probably doing a lot more.

There's no way they can get a hold of a nuclear weapon can they? Because there's no doubt in my mind that they'd use it if they got it... then we're looking at WW3.

Now I've gone and scared myself

Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was bleeding out nuclear weapons in the 1990's and even today. It was said in 1998 that over 100 suitcase sized nuclear bombs went missing during an inventory count at a rundown facility.


Could Al-Qaeda get a hold of a nuclear device? Yes.

Would they be able to? No.

Why? The funding for Al Qaeda has really dried up since the 11th. If you can't afford a nuclear device, then people aren't just going to GIVE it to you.
A lot of what is discussed in this thread is very indicative of how Al Qaeda's funding has diminished significantly. Instead of doing high publicity tactics like running planes into buildings, they are doing high publicity tactics like beheading foreign nationals. Instead of bombing other countries and US military/diplomatic targets, they are bombing Saudi Arabian targets.




~blood rose~

Also, al Qaida would be fucking stupid to instigate a nuclear attack.

Everyone would be affected by the reprocussions of such an event. It's one thing to ram planes into buildings and perform kidnapping/beheadings; the casualties are low (relatively speaking) and once it is done it is done. A nuclear strike would not only have much more lasting implications, but it would push a fear button that would quickly rally previously unhelpful allies to the coalition. Al Qaida would quickly find itself without even tacit support from all but the most heedlessly fanatical. Simply based on escalated retaliatory threat, I would be hard-pressed to believe that any government would harbor them or aid them in any way. They would be totally fucked.

Once you set off a nuclear device, you need to be ready to surrender, dissapear forever or marshall a force of arms that can beat the rest of the world. Any of those options but the last would be contrary to al Qaida's purpose, and the last option is not available to them. A nuclear strike would finish them.

What about the last-minute foiling of the al-Qaeda chemical bomb in Amman, Jordan last month? If authorities hadn't stumbled upon it, it would have killed more people than 9/11. Al-Qaeda is not weak, though I do think they're more disorganized than they were when the Taliban were in power.


I have a different theory as to why al-Qaeda doesn't have those nukes. Between the Soviet-Afghan War and the Chechen conflict, your average Russian hates jihadists even more than your average American does. We all assume that such a nuke would be shipped to NYC or DC, but Russians know it could just as easily end up in Moscow.

I suspect the Russian mafia has most of those missing nukes. And while they're profoundly ruthless, they're also profoundly racist, which at least means that al-Qaeda won't be getting the nukes. China probably has the rest, and so long as Muslims are engaged in separatist movements in western China, it is unlikely that China will sell to al-Qaeda either.

Surly--

If you change "al-Qaeda" to "Muslim extremist terrorists" (many of which are at least unofficially allied), the world IS at war. This IS a global conflict. Try counting the countries aimed at by Muslim extremist terrorists across the world (attacks on their soil, I'm not going to count every country which had companies in the WTC):

USA
UK
India
Russia
Israel
Indonesia
Australia (not on their soil, but their civilians targeted)
Philippines
Thailand
Australia
Spain
Jordan
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Argentina
Kenya
Tanzania
Yemen

And I know I'm forgetting quite a few.

Muslim extremism is to today what fascism was to the 1940s. It is a global crisis. Not everybody who's fighting it is automatically a saint, for sure, but in my opinion all we need for WWIII to exist is for people to admit what's already going on.

SS



Edited By StarvingStudent47 on 1088032498

I think the reason why there hasn't been an admission of this being WWIII is twofold:

First, measured response. There have been thousands of deaths at the hands of the terrorists, but no weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear).

Second, nation vs. nation. This war isn't on any national fronts. There isn't a nation vs. nation mentality here, and it's more nation vs. terrorist cell/individual terrorist.


I definitely agree with you about the Russian nuclear debacle, but if Al Qaeda were to get its hands on nuclear weapons proliferated by a third party, then we coul tactically be fucked.

Of course, in that scenario, I doubt that Al Qaeda would use nuclear devices against the West, since they know as well as we do that we wouldn't hesistate to VX the entire Middle East.




~blood rose~

"Mutually assured destruction" is a shaky proposition against people who believe in suicide bombing and holy martyrdom, though. All things considered, I'd really rather be fighting fascists or communists. Having an enemy who is happy to die really fucks with normal methods of warfare and negotiation.

Also, mutually assured destruction doesn't work nearly as well against international terrorist groups as against nations. If Germany vaporizes NYC, we vaporize Berlin. If Russia vaporizes NYC, we vaporize Moscow. But if al-Qaeda vaporizes NYC, where do we strike back? "The whole Middle East" includes some reliable allies, including Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar...no good. We can't even strike at Mecca and Medina, because if my memory serves me correctly, Muslim Fundamentalist extremists once tried to blow up the Qa'aba because it's "idolatry" and "a dilution of Islam."

Luckily, there's a glimmer of hope in a twisted way. Vladimir Putin may be only slightly more democratic than ol' Joe Stalin, but he's ruthless and efficient. I don't think we're going to see nukes disappearing under his watch like we saw during coke-addict Brezhnev, hospitalized Andropov, weak-wristed Gorbachev or shambling-zombie-Yeltsin. I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to relocate many of those "lost" nukes through *ahem* good ol' NKVD questioning techniques. Due to the Chechen War, he doesn't want them "lost" any more than we do. And the way things are going, Putin is president-for-life, so Russia may be at least "stable" for a long time, if not benevolent or democratic.

I'm much more concerned about an Iranian nuclear reactor. We know Iran loves Hezbollah, and we know Hezbollah hates us. That's pretty darned straightforward--frighteningly so.

SS



Edited By StarvingStudent47 on 1088054629

BR, I think VX would be a little extreme even for President Bush. I've had numerous classes on it and to quote Nicholas Cage in "The Rock," "It's one of those things you wish you could dis-invent." (The effects are all true except for the skin-melting part, that doesn't happen).

Americans wouldn't stand for that, I've seen pictures of the effects of VX... lets just say, I'd rather have radiation poisoning from a nuke and turn into a walking tumor than be anywhere within 1000 miles of any VX attack.

Update on Kim Sun-Il

This is from a Korean news service:


Source

FUCKERS.

SS

ok, in four years I'm moving to where no one has to deal with this shit... Switzerland

If there's ever a nuclear war, they'll be the only people going "Vat vas that noise?" (Robin Williams) (:

You might want to rethink this stance. VX, while horrible, the end will be near. Radiation poisioning is lingering and unassured death. Organs dying in your body, lungs bleeding due to internal burning, postuls of steam and puss forming on the skin as the radiation interacts with your bodies water. VX causes muscle contortions which will break your back along with organs shutting down but it should be over in less than an hour.



Yeah, but the leaders who provide the fundung are money grubbing capitolists looking to ensure there is chaos but not enough to threaten their pockets. Once that first nuclear device detonates, 'the light is GREEN. The light is Green' - Wayne Wayne Wayne, Jr (Happy, Texas). Speculation throws the fear of a nuclear device entering and detonating on US, UK, Russia, or other 'world leading' country. But the most effect of such a device would be to deliver it to India or Pakistan and instigate a WWIII scenario. They are not going to wait for some terrorist cell to claim responsibility. One will push their button; the other their button...and it spreads. Reminiscent of WWI border dispute.



I think we would use a blood or mustard agent. Clean up is cheaper. Blood is actually more humane.

Nuk, mustard gas is some pretty nasty shit too... it's a choking agent which causes a condition called "dry land drowning." What happens is it enters your lungs and causes the Avioli to blister up. The blisters then burst after a few minutes of intense choking and you drown in the fluids. I don't think that's any better than VX... imagine the air IS in reach, but you still can't get it. Really nasty stuff, though it is effective and extremely cheap to make and deploy. The good thing about it is the only thing you need to keep yourself safe is a field protective mask. VX just goes into your skin, so does Sarin.

But to gas the entire Middle East we probably would use VX... we have a big stockpile of it. To get around the legal issues of making such an illegal weapon, we make it for "defensive" purposes. Though clean up would be a bitch... nerve agents are controlled with napalm, so you'd have a really big fire burning for God-knows-how-long in an area where we get most of our oil... wow, that would be a mess.

That's a shockingly inaccurate description of mustard gas's effects and how to protect yourself from it. If that's what the USMC teaches Marines about mustard gas, then I'm Jacques Chirac's gay lover. Surly, you've kept your half of the deal in that you haven't mentioned "being in the USMC" since our last conversation, so as agreed I'm not going to ban you. But don't pretend to be a real-life expert on these things when you clearly are not.

SS

So is Jacques kinky in the sack?
Inquiring minds want to know so we can sell the info to tabloids.
Although they're French, so they might just shrug and say "eh, it bored me... I have done worse".

The French wouldn't care, but the English would be all over a Chirac tabloid expo like flies on shit.





~blood rose~