Received a fair share of emails on my dismissal of the suitcase nuke threat as a non-sequiter. The general consensus seems to be that I’m not taking the threat seriously enough, and am indiscriminately lulling others into a false sense of security.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Nuclear terrorism is very real, and it’s something that we should take very seriously. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nuclear-capable terrorists are the single greatest threat the United States has ever faced. It’s also the primary reason that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a bomb.
There are two logical places that Islamists could shop for a nuclear weapon. The first is the former Soviet Union, as there are weapons missing from their stockpiles. The second is a sympathetic nation state like Iran or Syria. In both cases, the probability of a terrorist group -irrespective of how well funded they may be- securing a small, man portable warhead is low, leaving the traditional cone-shaped ICBM/SLBM reentry warhead as the weapon most likely to fall into the hands of extremists.
That brings up the challenge of mating the weapon to a delivery system.
There are two likely possibilities for delivery and detonation. Container ships and private jets. Here’s why a charter jet is a greater threat than a ship.
1. Jets cannot be stopped and inspected while in flight.
2. Jets have access to the entire continental United States, assuming no one is alerted to their presence.
3. Jets are abundant amongst oil-rich terror financers.
4. Jets allow for the possibility of an airburst, which are exponentially more damaging than ground bursts.
5. Jets can make it to major US cities without being inspected by customs.
6. Jets are faster and allow less time for interdiction.
7. Jets are the weapon of choice for most Islamist terror groups.
I’ve seen a MK-12 warhead up close. Remove a few seats, and it would be very easy to load a nuke originally designed for a Russian ICBM onto a Gulfstream style private charter jet. Declare intention to land at Reagan National or RFK, and all a nuclear armed jet has to do is get close enough to detonate.
Whether or not we’ve received any actionable intel on the Jet Nuke Threat is subject to speculation. But, realistically speaking, it’s only a matter of time before someone in the Middle East realizes the potential of this cheap, effective delivery system and acts on it.
There are no “missing” nukes in Russia from what I’ve read. There are nukes that are “unaccounted” for. There is a difference.
A “missing” nuke means that the Ruskies knew they had one and now they definitely know it is gone. An “unaccounted for” nuke is typically caused by bad paperwork. The nuke isn’t physically missing, but the papework doesn’t accurately reflect its location or status. The latter is the case for all the “missing nuke” stories I’ve read. Either the weapons were mis-inventoried, or transfer paperwork was lost, etc.
That still doesn’t give one a warm-and-fuzzy, but it’s much less bad than what is generally portrayed in the media. Anyone who has ever done any kind of inventory work like computer equipment or classified documents will know what I’m talking about. From the cases I’ve read, audits of the paperwork and a thorough eyes-on inventory corrected the discrepancies.
Although Russian nuclear security is not as good as we’d like it to be, it’s not nearly as bad as the press reports indicate. The Russians have as much to fear from a loose nuke as we do, especially if Chechen rebels obtained one.
I assume and am praying that Washington has very quietly made it known to the leadership of Iran, Syria, and N. Korea that if such a thing were to happen, their nations will be destroyed. Poof!
I concur with your reasoning. Of course I only spent six years in the anti-terrorist business and I only had a little credibility, just enough that Harrison Ford and company consulted with us while making “Patriot Games.”
John,
I know my posting on this subject again is going to piss people (probably including yourself) off, because we’ve hashed and rehashed this argument over and over again, but shipborne delivery is more realistic than suicide jet airburst delivery.
First of all, you don’t need a large container ship to do it. We’re not talker super-carriers here, some tramp trawler or freighter will do just fine, and we know al Qaeda has plenty of those. You weld the nuke somewhere below decks in the engine room. You park the ship in a major port, and then you have all the time in the world. Customs inspects containers, not the physical structure of the ship. They’re not going to be waving geiger counters at boilers and heavy equipment.
There are a couple benefits of this approach over airborne delivery. Would airburst cause more damage? Yes, but we’re dealing with nukes here. A groundburst of the sort of warhead you’re talking about is still going to rip the guts out of a major city. Check out the FAS nuclear effects calculator for the specifics. Al Qaeda’s not necessarily looking to destroy Tenefly New Jersey or Chevy Chase Maryland. Those are secondary targets. Groundburst still accomplishes the primary objective of gutting a city.
The advantages offered by seaburst are primarily in the area of command and control. Plane delivery is time sensitive, from the time you shove the thing into the plane, you need to one way it. You can’t leave a GIV lying on the tarmac in some airport with a nuke strapped in. It’s too big a risk, even if it’s parked in Canada. The chance of someone seeing something fishy and reporting it may not be high, but it is a possibility and terrorists are going to be wary of that kind of chance spoiler. From the moment you decide to do it, it’s gone, and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have no recall function, and there’s no potential for negotiation or blackmail.
Let’s remember that al Qaeda’s main goal isn’t just to kill Americans, it’s the reestablishment of the caliphate. What if they park a ship in DC or New York, then shoot a message over al Jazeera. “Withdraw all American forces form the Middle East and immediately cut off aid to Israel or DC ceases to exist”. A warning like that would bring this sort of massive attack into accordance with Islamic law and would lead to massive political turmoil in this country. The drop in civilian casualties isn’t really that significant. One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic and all that. After 9/11, the first numbers cited were 6,000 dead. When that dropped to 3,000, people didn’t go around saying, “oh, so it wasn’t that bad, was it”. The difference between killing 100,000 and killing 20,000 isn’t that significant, it’s the nature of the attack, not the results that matters.
Air delivery doesn’t allow for this sort of nuclear blackmail, because the second a threat comes through you can bet that air traffic into and out of the country is going to be suspended, and the only way to do this properly would be to one-way the bomb over from another country.
I also think getting hold of a jet capable is tougher than you’re making it out to be. Those oil-rich backers are for the most part not willing to die themselves for the cause. The jet used would be traced back to them, and they’ve got to know that. Using a newly purchased jet is equally touch. Jet purchases and registration have got to be fairly easy to monitor, and I’m sure someone at the NSA is running those records already.
Sorry for the lengthy post.
well, in North’s latest book, the terrorists stole lots of yahts, equipped them with the lead-lined containers and kept the nukes inside for a major sea-borne attack on the US; they also stole several private/corporate jets; and one of the protaganists set off the jet nuke over the Gulf in order to prevent it from going off over the land, thus sacrificing his own life but eliminating all damages to the country…
I would assume that North had an extensive research done on feasibility of such scenario and I tend to believe him that it is very feasible…
but then I am a civilian and Ollie is my favorite man LOL
William, you’re a sharp dude, but you need to study the habits and practices of terrorists a bit more.
These guys look to jets do their damage. Period. Airbursts allow the terrorists to engage in target selection, and doesn’t limit them to the ports.
These guys go after two things: population centers and landmarks. Airbursts allow you to get close to those things. Think football games, NASCAR races, etc.
Your last contention is somewhat obtuse. With literally thousands of jets for rent in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, you don’t think this is feasible? No one said it had to be a Saudi billionaire’s private conveyance dude.
Look, I’m not saying the ship threat isn’t real. But you have to look at it from their perspective. You have the coast guard interdicting suspicious vessels as much as 12 miles out, and NATO/Coalition forces patrolling foreign coastlines.
Risk assessment dictates that airborne delivery is the most viable option.
John,
I appreciate the compliment, couple of replies.
Limiting yourself to coastal cities doesn’t limit your targets too much. New York, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Boston, Miami, etc. Most of the cities they’d want to target are coastal anyway, excepting probably Vegas and Chicago.
I agree that airbursts allow for a greater degree of target selection, but I think it’s only an incremental degree of difference. It’s not the tremendous qualitative advantage you’re making it out to be. Hitting a sports event with a nuke might play badly back home. I think nuclear blackmail is more likely than a nuclear attack without warning.
Agreed that there are thousands of jets available in Europe. If we were looking at an attack on London, I would say jet delivery would be more probable. Jets capable of making the hop accross the Atlantic are more rare, and more easily distinguishable and trackable. The sorts of jet rental agencies with Citations and Gs have got to be at least reasonably reputable places, who are going to try and ensure that their multi-million dollar capital investment isn’t going to go up in smoke. Rented jets like that also come with pilots and crews, who might get suspicious at the big lead-shielded ticking warhead shaped thing.
I have buddies in the Coast Guard, and I have a lot of respect for the work they do. If we were talking about a ship coming in from the Gulf of Mexico I think you’re right, the CG would get it. I think Eastern or Western Seaboard are too tough and long to patrol. Decent planning could get the ship through without raising any flags. How many Middle Eastern or African flagged ships enter every day?
I am with William in agreeing that terrorist would go with the Ship based plan. Cheaper, less traceable, KISS that is their kind of OP.
Although I don’t believe that Iran wants nukes to use them or give them to terrorist. Very simply Iran knows full well that even a LLL pansie president wouldn’t be able to hold back the demands for massive nuclear retaliation on someone the day after New York harbor disappeared. They know this we know this.
I think Iran plans to play to our weakness the LLL’s. The Nukes are a protection umbrella against the US conventional threat. The Iranians know they can’t build enough nukes to go to nuke war with the west or even Israel, but just a handful of Iranian nukes would make a conventional invasion of Iran impossible. How could any leader authorize sending a hundred thousand troops or even a carrier battle group into action against Iran with a high possibility of losing the lot to a nuclear strike? What nation would risk nuclear attack across their cities to allow the US to base/stage in their nation, UAE, Qutar, Kuwait all small handful of cities couldn’t risk it.
Once Iran has their nuclear umbrella they will be free to even more openly support terrorist ehhhh “the resistance” all over the world. The US decimating Iran the day after a nuke or WMD hit on NY is nearly 100% but how many 9-11’s would it take to get that same reaction? Think Intefada on a global scale while Iran supporting and giving umbrella cover to Syria, Venezuela, N Korea as forward staging areas. We would see highly aggressive “resistance” in many of our ally nations across the globe pushing them to renounce the US and a never ending terrorist strikes across the US. These strikes would be small but numerous and continuous, targeted at causing havoc and wide spread panic. 5 terrorist with guns hitting a school or hospital or Mall at Christmas time (imagine the economic impact if in November the terrorist hit malls once a week for a few weeks scaring the US pop out of going to the mall) or hell the grocery stores in weeks before Thanksgiving. Small bombs on busses, school busses, or just random drive bys on school bus stops. None of this would justify Nuclear War with Iran maybe conventional but remember that was taken off the table with the Nuke Umbrella.
This will be both unstoppable without draconian laws on society and will also be impossible to live with the only answer being all out nuclear war their will be a loud scream for sacrifice compromise from the LLL’s. So we will be left with either do the horrible that must be done all out war, surrender or negotiate. You and me both know full well that negotiate part will at the end of the day be surrender but by a thousand cuts in piece meal so the LLL’s can sell it to the people. Look at the historical track record of negotiations with the Radicals S. Lebanon today, Return of Paleos, Intafada, Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah again, Sheba Farms soon, West bank Soon, Syria declaring Golan to be taken, ect… it never ends. The Radicals accept compromise today only to consolidate and make the next drive tomorrow while our LLL’s blindly say this one will be the one this one will be the one this one will be enough while many see the writing on the wall it never will be enough. The only answer is all out war with an “unconditional humiliating surrender in the end” only all out war like WW2 will succeed the Radicals must be undeniably humiliated and defeated without a shadow of a doubt amass.
All the while this intefada is raging they will be crying about how the resistance is a natural response to oppression and depression the west is committing to the world playing right into the LLL’s heartstrings who in their wisdom will feel their pain and want to negotiate while blocking the only option left to the west all out Nuclear WAR.
Is this a horrific senerio YES, is the only way to stave this off from happening all out war and occupation today of Iran maybe Syria YES, will that conventional war HAVE TO BE long bloody and brutal ON BOTH SIDES YES, can we do it YES, can we do it but not be brutal and unforgiving doing whatever it takes to defeat our enemy accepting nothing but victory at any cost NO, will we do it WHO KNOWS.
I think C-Low is painting to dark a picture.
I am not endorsing allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, but just owning nukes will not give it free reign to deliver terror worldwide.
I don’t think the U.S. will defer from conventionally attacking a nuclear armed Iran. The old “Ass to the blast” saying notwithstanding, we trained for 50 years to fight on a nuclear battlefield. If we were willing to do it then we should not refrain now. Particularly since Iran lacks the advanced delivery systems available to the old Soviet Union.
It’s not easy to hit a carrier battle group with anything less then a very fast, stand off missile. A nuclear bomb equipped Gulfstream would not get through. The same holds true for striking ground troops.
In addition, all of the terror attacks mentioned earlier can be done right now without a nuclear Iran.
heh, William…had a thought when I was reading your post.
I really hope Al-Qaeda isn’t having this exact same debate in an Afghani cave somehwere….
No, they’re probably wondering who the rat is that spoiled their Bojinka redux, and trying to figure out what that little red dot on the window that won’t go away is.
slightly off topic, but it was touched on in an earlier comment. Accorind to sharia, you have to give the infidel a chance to surrender. Would the letters that ahmadinajed sent to the various world leaders qualify as the warning shot?
About a year and a half ago, I heard a talk sponsored by the Navy League by the Coast Guard officer responsible for the NY/NJ area. He mentioned the story about a cargo ship getting stopped outside of the 12 mile limit because of a nuclear signature. He went on to say that there were another 6 ships that were stopped as well.
While both scenarios have merit, I’m inclined to side with the airplane scenario.
Extremely interesting — and profoundly disturbing — discussion. I think that a nuclear attack via jet or boat would be catastrophic in many more ways than we can currently imagine. Is there any speculation regarding the yield of the nuclear weapons currently possessed by Korea or under development by Iran?
I think C-Low is technically off subject, but the better prophet, but he omitted oil-blackmail from his dark picture. Nukes would give Iran cred and muscle to establish what you might call the Koran Curtain around the mid east oil reserves. As for poor old, paralyized and shivering Great Satan, guess we could go crawling to our dear friends Putin or Chavez. And stand behind China.
A North Korean or Iranian nuke would probably be fairly small and crude. I’d guess they’d be similar to the early Israeli nukes, 50kt range, no second stage.
A bit off topic, but in the vein of tying up our first response resources…Fire season is here, what if they set out teams to light wildfires – lots of em? Or teams of snipers..a heckuva chore for the FBI to trace down 25 teams of snipers in America taking potshots at the public…heck two guys locked up the virginia area for what…? 4 weeks? If those things were used to tie up our first responders..couldn’t they then do something much bigger and worse even easier?
8-16-06
I don’t care what you say, the NewsMedia is an objective source of information! What the heck is going on in the White House? Isn’t foriegn policy supposed to be the President’s job? Um…what, exactly, are these guys training for?…
Jet Boats
Fishing boats, inboards, outboards, jetboats, river. Aluminum Boats, Custom Alu