U.S. Energy Department Cannot Account for Nuclear Materials at 15 Locations
lordssyndicate:
Quote
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016881.php
FBI director predicts terrorists will acquire nukes
A Stop-the-Presses Alert from Robert S. Mueller III.
By Jerry Seper for the Washington Times, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
Originally published 10:45 p.m., June 11, 2007, updated 12:00 a.m., June 12, 2007
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday said that it was only a matter of time and economics before terrorists will be able to purchase nuclear weapons and that the world's law-enforcement community must unite to prevent it.
"Our greatest weapon is unity," Mr. Mueller said at the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism law-enforcement conference in Miami. "That unity is built on intelligence and interagency cooperation. It is built on the idea that, together, we are smarter and stronger than we are standing alone."
Mr. Mueller said federal authorities, working with their counterparts overseas, must secure loose nuclear material, share intelligence about those who wish to buy and sell such material, and stop those who do -- adding that by some estimates, there is enough highly enriched uranium in global stockpiles to construct thousands of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Mueller said the economics of supply and demand dictate that someone, somewhere will provide nuclear material to the highest bidder, and that material will end up in the hands of terrorists. He said the al Qaeda terrorist network has demonstrated a clear intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction, noting that Osama bin Laden sought to buy uranium in Sudan in 1993.
But, he said, al Qaeda is not the only concern, adding that the United States faces threats from other terrorist cells around the world and from homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda but who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence.
"Several rogue nations -- and even individuals -- seek to develop nuclear capabilities," he said. "Abdul Khan, for example, was not only the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb; he peddled that technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Khan was one of many to prove that it is indeed a seller's market in the so-called atomic bazaar."
Mr. Mueller said the next terrorist attack is not a question of if, but when.
While the FBI investigates all acts of terrorism in the United States, he said that the prevention of a nuclear attack is a responsibility shared by many and that the necessary coordination to meet the threat begins with training.
"Together, we are training our foreign partners in WMD detection, border security, undercover investigations, nuclear forensics and crisis management. To date, we have trained more than 5,000 participants from more than 23 countries," he said.
Strong intelligence, he said, is the FBI's primary asset, but standing alone is not enough. He said that if the FBI uncovers information about potential nuclear trafficking or a pending plot, it must be able to move at a moment's notice.
"We cannot sit back and wait for others to act. To do so is to continue to feed the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last, as Winston Churchill once said," he said. "Our safety lies in protecting not just our own interests, but our collective interests."
lordssyndicate:
Warnings as far back as 2005 even!
Quote
http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-havent-nukes-in-us-been-set-off.html
Why haven't nukes in U.S. been set off?
It is no longer a secret that the U.S. intelligence community is warning of the existence of suitcase nukes already on U.S. territory under the control of terrorists. Specifically, the estimated number is six or seven such devices, and that the terrorists in control of them are al Qaeda. Some of the rumors are more specific, saying the nukes consist of five 100kt devices and two sub-5kt devices. One of the larger devices could take out most of the people in metro areas like New York or Washington, DC.
The usual question raised by these reports is, "If they have them here, why haven't they set them off?" The standard theory from intelligence sources is that the devices are not operational, due to lack of maintenance, and that we are in a race against time until they can get them operational.
I am skeptical of that theory. The devices are presumably among the 40+ Soviet devices that Gen. Lebed reported were missing from the Soviet inventory, presumably made and last maintained in the late 1980s. However, if those devices are copies of U.S. designs, the word I am getting is that while U.S.-made devices of this kind become less reliable after a long period of lack of maintenance, they don't suddenly cease to be operational, and may continue to be likely to go off, perhaps with a lower yield, for several decades after manufacture. For the purposes of terrorists, it is not essential that all of them go off when planned. A 50% rate of success would likely be considered good enough.
I have a different theory, based on my reading of some of the literature and web sites associated with the Islamic imperialist movement, of which al Qaeda seems to be a part. The announced goal of this movement is not just to defend existing Islamic nations from the corrupting influences of the West, or even to destroy Western Civilization as the source of that corruption. Some of their web sites have put up maps of the world in the year 2100 that have the entire planet converted to Islam, presumably under a new caliphate modeled on the theocratic model of the caliphates of the past, somewhat similar to the Taliban.
Let's take those maps seriously, and ask how the leaders of that movement envision accomplishing that goal. Not by sending out swarms of missionaries, the way Christians would do. Not even by sending out hoards of mujahedin to conquer Western nations and give their populations the choice of convert or die, the way Omar and others spread Islam to much of the Middle East, North Africa, and to the other nations where it is now the dominant religion. They know those methods would not work. So what would work?
The answer is terrifyingly obvious. Beginning with the leading Western nation, the United States, smuggle in suitcase nukes until enough are in place, then set them off in random cities at random intervals, while delivering an ultimatum that they will continue to set them off until all the survivors convert.
The initial reaction to such a plan is that it wouldn't work. Americans would never submit to that kind of pressure. They would strike back, wiping out most of the centers of Islamic imperialist activity.
Strike back at whom, and to what effect? Would we nuke Mecca, or Medina, or Qom? That's not where most of al Qaeda is. All that would do is unite the Islamic world against the West, playing into the hands of the imperialists, who might regret the loss of the people of those cities, and some of the relics, but that might actually be welcomed by the imperialists, who see not just the West, but cities generally, as the source of moral corruption. Their Utopian vision is of a world of subsistance farmers and herders, with no cities and no technology more advanced than firearms. They not only don't mind if all of the Western cities are destroyed, but even if all of their own are. Their thinking is similar to that of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who emptied the cities and killed anyone suspected of being influenced by modern civilization, evidenced by the use of such technology as eyeglasses. The difficulty we have had in just rooting al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan demonstrates the obstacles to effectively responding to this kind of threat, especially if we had to extend it to much of the world, or even within the United States to the terrorists that are already here.
I have another theory, that al Qaeda thinks it needs more than six or seven devices, and that it wants to get all it needs in place before setting off the first one. How many would it take, and how many might Osama or his cohorts think it would take? For the answer to the latter question we would need agents on the inside of their inner circle, but we can make some good guesses about how many cities would have to be nuked before the American people would capitulate. Make no mistake. If enough of our cities and other vital resources are nuked, at random sites and at random intervals, even the proud Americans will surrender. Not all of them, of course. There will always be sone holdouts. But I expect that after 20 or 30 nukes go off, either what's left of the government, or a new government that will emerge, will enforce at least outward shows of conversion to Islam on the entire surviving population. Although many of us don't like to admit it, that actually works, and has historically worked. It might take a few generations of cognitive dissonance for anything like genuine devotion to sink in, and while the majority might always remain hypocrites, they will be afraid to express dissent, even in private conversation. Orwell's classic 1984 remains a How-To manual for doing this sort of thing.
So my theory is that al Qaeda is trying to get at least 20 to 30 suitcase nukes into the U.S. and in place before beginning to set them off. That means we still have some time to stop them, either by stopping them from getting control of such devices, or from getting them into the U.S., or of course, by taking out the imperialists themselves. That is certainly the job of the intelligence agencies, primarily, but they do not have a good record of being effective in operating in the parts of the world that they must operate in to get this difficult job done. Building the network of agents worldwide to meet this kind of threat takes a long time, perhaps more time than we have. It is a job for human intelligence ("humint" in spookspeak), more than for signals intelligence ("sigint").
This means that the current half-hearted window-dressing that passes for governmental border security is not enough, nor is there any indication that the current administration takes the threat seriously enough to commit the resources it would take to seal our borders. The voluntary Minuteman Project shows how it can be done: putting a lot more people on the ground and in the air. Increased funding on the order of 10-20% is not nearly enough. Even a 100-200% increase would not be enough. But the policy of "catch-and-release" (to come right back over the border) is also not sufficient. The illegal intruders who are caught should at least be put to work building a fence or wall along the border, before being sent back.
It is also necessary to take firm action against another form the invasion of the United States is taking: the takeover of land and officials by criminal gangs. We get reports that the drug cartels are buying up large ranches and parcels of real estate along both sides of the U.S. border, both with Mexico and with Canada, especially on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico, and also land to create corridors for the movement of the criminals not only across the border, but from the border to transshipment hubs near major metro areas. The formula is "plata or plomo", "silver or lead". Landowners, officials, and other personnel the gangs seek to compromise are first offered purchase or bribes, and if that doesn't work, killed or threatened with violence. There is some indication that the titles to ranches are not being legally transferred, by deeds of record, but the landowners are being left in place, pretending to still own the land, and instructed to not cooperate with law enforcement or voluntary efforts like the Minutemen Project. There is even reason to suspect that drug money is being used to influence "civil rights" organizations to file lawsuits against such efforts as 'discriminatory". Those "civil rights" organizations might not realize they are working for criminal gangs, or perhaps even for terrorists, but they need to wake up and realize what is going on. It is not about harmless foreign jobseekers any more. It is estimated that at least 20% of the intruders are now criminals, prone to commit not just immigration crimes, but crimes of violence. The criminals and terrorists are using the flow of harmless jobseekers as a cover.
The threat of this kind of terrorism also strongly argues for decriminalizing drugs. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, and prohibition of other psychoactive substances isn't working either. It doesn't prevent acquisition and use. All is does is create a channel of corruption, and worse, now creates a channel of corruption that can be exploited by foreign enemies bent on our destruction. We have enough to do to try to defend our borders against smugglers of suitcase nukes without also having to contend with narcotraffickers that create the underground pathways over which the terrorists can operate.
But this threat also strongly argues strongly for reviving the constitutional militia. When Secretary of State Rice takes the position, as she did in a recent speech, that border security is the "exclusive job" of the government, she is taking a position that is dangerously inadequate. She deserves credit for alerting the public of the danger of the first sign of the threat being "mushroom clouds" over our cities, and of relating how her father once organized a militia to defend their neighbors from violence, but she and others in government need to realize that the efforts that government can make are not enough and can never be enough. Nothing less that the total mobilization of the entire population can hope to significantly reduce a threat of this kind. Yes, civilians are disorganized, untrained, and difficult to control, but so are government operatives. The solution is to organize and train the civilians to function not just as an informer network, which is the opposite of what we need, but as militia, able to meet local challenges locally, even to securing and disarming things like suitcase nukes. There is simply no way government operatives can provide the coverage that is needed. It will take everyone working. There is no really good substitute for requiring everyone to show up for periodic training and organization, if only to break down the barriers of anonymity that now allow criminals and terrorists to operate freely without anyone spotting signs of the threat some might present. Surveillance will require intense socializing and community activity that involves everyone. Many government agencies need to work on this within their own organizations. Could Aldritch Ames have gotten away with his espionage activities if his colleagues had visited him and his wife in their home and noticed he was enjoying a lifestyle his salary could not support? An agency might review the security clearances of its personnel if they don't pay their bills, but does it check up on those who pay their bills too easily?
Finally, I have a theory on why the Bush Administration went into Iraq. Now I am not excusing it as a matter of law. Without a declaration or war, or letters of marque and reprisal, issued to the President and forces under his command, it is illegal, a violation of several clauses in 18 USC Chapter 45, and grounds for impeachment. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the Iraqi policy of the Bush Administration is not a good idea, apart from its illegality, which could have been avoided by getting Congress to issue a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal. I am also aware of many reasons for that Iraqi policy, among which securing the flow of Iraqi oil into world oil markets to keep down the world price of oil is not a bad one. But I find another good reason, one that involves more subtle strategic thinking than this Administration is perhaps able to manage, but which would do them some credit if it was part of their thinking. The theory is this: to give al Qaeda something it wants, a recruiting ground sufficiently rich to induce them to concentrate their efforts on an insurgency there, and to delay setting off nukes on U.S. soil, giving us more time to try to find and secure those devices. The reason I suspect it is not part of the Administration's thinking is because they don't seem to be doing all that it would take to keep more nukes out of the U.S. Perhaps they are doing more, and being more effective, than is apparent from sources of information available to me. I hope so, but I doubt it. They need to be doing so much more for border security and militia activation than they are, it seems unlikely they are pursuing a diversionary strategy that is not combined with such other elements of a complete strategy.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html
http://cns.miis.edu/stories/020923.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25157
Posted by Jon at 10:54
lordssyndicate:
This one is really ties things in and shows you A LOT of the Elite's Mouthpieces are all saying this will happen:
http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/10/21/australian-pm-kevin-rudd-nuke-strike-would-make-911-insignificant/
Quote
Australian PM Kevin Rudd - “Nuke strike would make 9/11 insignificant” and other weird warnings
October 21st, 2008 | New World Order
By: D. H. Williams @ 6:38 PM - EST
Over the last 72 hours there has been a strange melange of cryptic messages leaked from world political leaders about what could be in store for America over the next few months.
These predictions of impending doom come from England, France, Australia and the United States. In each case there has been a press releases or news expose’ predicting huge and building threats emerging from faceless enemies in shadowy places.
Crisis will lead to unpopular decisions by Barack Obama
Joe Biden set the stage at a Seattle fund raiser for VIP’s last Sunday when he told the audience about an “international crisis” that will test Barack Obama’s Presidency should he be elected.
Biden told the top Democratic donors that a “generated crisis” will develop within six months and Barak Obama will need the help of community leaders to control the population as unpopular decisions are made and Americans resist.
Biden speaking at the fundraiser, “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
Colin Powell and Madeline Albright confirm Biden’s warnings
Biden’s ominous language at the Seattle Sheraton are followed with statements by long time establishment insiders Colin Powell and Madeline Albright both say there is a massive crisis on the horizon and Biden was simply making a “statement in fact.”
“The problems will always be there and there’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now.” Powell told Meet the Press.
Premonitions of dire consequences emerge from Europe
Meanwhile in Great Britain were they are trying desperately to pass a draconian measure allowing for the 42 day imprisonment of any citizen without charges or access to bail.
Lord West, adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown on national security says, “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring. It dipped slightly and is now rising again within the context of severe. The threat is huge. We have done all the things that we need to do, but the threat is building - the complex plots are building,”
Lord West like Biden, Albright and Powell does not elaborate on the precise details of the threat or the source of his intelligence information just that the situation is dire.
Across the channel from England you have the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner warning the press that he believes Israel will strike Iran before they can develope nuclear weapons completley ignoring the fact that the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBradei, said that Iran lacks the key components to produce an atomic weapon.
Israel is believed to have 300 to 400 tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment at a moments notice and is under no real threat from Iran who has never attacked another nation and has a defense budget equivalent to 1% of the United States.
It’s a miracle there hasn’t been a nuclear catastrophe
Only a few hours ago Agence France-Presse published a press release about the Sydney meeting of the international Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament presided over by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who said that the world is facing a threat that will dwarf the September 11 attacks.
“The devastation that could be wreaked by one major nuclear weapons incident alone puts 9/11 and almost everything else [in] to the category of the insignificant,” Rudd said.
Members of the commission warned of reaching an avalanche of danger due to the high number and general lack of control over nuclear devices and components.
Former Australian Foreign Minister in the Labor Government Gareth Evans says it’s “really a bit of a miracle” referring to one the 13,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons known to exist not being detonated, presumable by “terrorist” causing a catastrophe.
What are they preparing us for?
Why are there so many high level politicians around the world in a seemingly coordinated effort warning of huge threats and developing crisis’ that may include a nuclear device? Are they preparing the masses for an event or series of events that have been in the making for some time? Is the public being prepared for new and forming enemies with a potential to plunge the entire world into war?
Prior to 9/11 William Kristol’s Project for a New American Century called for a “catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor” to bring about a “transformational” change in U.S. foreign policy and military spending.
Many believe a false flag strike on a major western city involving a nuclear device would be the Holy Grail to those who are working so hard to manifest “transformational” change on the world stage bringing with it the complete political, economic and military transformation toward fascist world government.
dissident99:
If they really want PNAC, I Doubt they will expl0d3 a Nuk3, simply because the affected area would be d00med for hundred's of years. I have my money in that they will explode a D1rty b.0.mb or Release the deadly Flu Virus they stole from themselves from Fort Detrick.
lordssyndicate:
Quote
Bob Chapman Warns Of False Flag Nuke Attack
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bob-chapman-warns-of-false-flag-nuke-attack.html
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Economist Bob Chapman’s respected International Forecaster warns that the events in Gaza are a potential pre-cursor for a false flag nuke attack in America to be blamed on Hamas/Iran.
“Patriots in EU and US intelligence believe that the Gaza operation underway right now might have zero to do with Hamas missiles being fired into Israel—but instead might be an IDF WMD planting expedition—that can then be attributed to Hamas—followed by a “nuclear winter”—type WMD event on US soil which will then be blamed on Hamas/Iran—which will then set the stage for a US nuclear attack on Iran—before Bush leaves office—so we are now in a “the time is now—the match is hot”—nuclear 9-11 threat window either before or soon after barky takes office,” writes Chapman.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page