Nuclear Threat from al-Qaeda

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
1

In a number of posts I have referred to the lack of follow-up attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 as evidence that our military retaliation (half-hearted and tepid as it has been) was effective in discouraging and disrupting bin Laden’s efforts. I have also pointed to his most recent statements that appeared to offer a truce as further proof that our military response was working.

However, a far more disturbing interpretation of these events has emerged. According to Michael Scheuer, bin Laden has been attempting to satisfy Islamic scholars that criticized the 9/11 attacks for failing to satisfy the prophet’s two pre-attack requirements: 1) that a warning be issued prior to any attack and 2) that those to be attacked first be invited to convert to Islam. In addition, the scholars said that bin Laden lacked the religious authorization to kill so many people.

According to Scheuer, the recent communiqués from bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have now satisfied all three conditions. In this interpretation, then, these statements signal that we are in more danger, not less. I hope he is wrong.

Read the complete analysis here: http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=96

In addition, read this analysis about the very real possibility that Iran has been assisting al-Qaeda in acquiring nuclear weapons: http://wordunheard.blogspot.com/2005/03/al…e-complete.html

These are compelling arguments.

Of course, if al-Qaeda succeeds in a nuclear attack against America, this will not prove that a military response to 9/11 was wrong; it will prove that it wasn’t strong enough and that it failed to include the most appropriate target of all: Iran. But how many politicians will interpret it that way?

2

Ummm, not that al-Qaeda isn’t a large threat, but I didn’t see much in the way of compelling evidence from those articles that they could use nuclear weapons (if they even have them) inside the U.S.  Our borders are fairly well guarded by trained customs officials (I went through them once, not too long ago), and it would be quite difficult to manufacture a nuclear weapon within the U.S. without someone in the F.B.I. noticing.

I’d say that a more conventional weapon, such as plastic explosives, would be their more probable weapon of choice.

There is little inspection of cargo containers coming into U.S. ports. So smuggling a weapon in is feasible.

In addition, the U.S. border with Mexico is penetrated routinely. That is how most of America’s millions of illegal aliens got here.

Lastly, why would it be difficult to manufacture a nuclear weapon in the U.S. “without someone in the FBI noticing”? I am not saying it would be easy, and I think a nuclear weapon is more likely to be smuggled in complete, but I am curious as to why you think the FBI has such effective surveillance.