Attacco Nucleare Il 6 Agosto

[JackFlanker]

Sono venuto a conoscenza di un fatto molto preoccupante.

Alcuni analisti di politica internazionale e terrorismo pensano che fra 2 giorni, proprio in occasione del Cinquantesimo anniversario dal bombardamento atomico di Hiroshima, ci sarà "The American Hiroshima" ovvero un attacco nucleare su alcune delle più importanti città americane il cui mandante OVVIAMENTE sarà al Qaeda!!!

Credo che per Gianni questa non sia una grossa novità dato che annunci come questi, avvenuti anche da parte dei diretti interessati, ci sono stati negli anni passati ancor prima dell' 11 Settembre. Tuttavia visti i recenti sviluppi una visione così apocalittica del fenomeno terrorismo non DEVE ESSERE ESCLUSA a priori.

 

Vi riporto due articoli:

Il primo, quello più allarmante, da cui è scaturito in queste settimane il dibattito:

CLICCA

 

Il secondo invece che vi riporto qui sotto proviene da un Report di un'importante sito di Analisi Geopolitica: STRATFOR.

Questo articolo è meno allarmista e forse più realistico e accurato ma il punto è che NON ESCLUDE un evento del genere.

 

The Unlikely Possibility of an 'American Hiroshima'

 

The publisher of online newspaper World Net Daily alleged in an Aug. 2 interview with daily political magazine FrontPageMagazine.com that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons within the United States and is preparing to unleash an "American Hiroshima."

 

Publisher Joseph Farah claims al Qaeda has been planning a large-scale nuclear attack for years, and that at least some of its nuclear weapons have been smuggled into the United States over the Mexican border with the help of local criminal gangs. In the same interview, however, Farah contradicted himself, claiming the devices were smuggled into American cities by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

Although it is known that al Qaeda has long been interested in acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the likelihood that the network possesses functional nuclear weapons is remote.

 

From time to time, various groups or individuals have made the assertion that al Qaeda, or groups such as Chechen militants possess nuclear weapons, possibly in the form of "briefcase nukes," compact, portable nuclear devices that supposedly were developed by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

The premise here is that these groups have acquired nuclear weapons from Soviet-era stockpiles. Given Russia's questionable ability to maintain nuclear surety during and after the Soviet period, it would not be impossible for militant groups to have acquired such devices. Russian security sources, however, say Chechen militants and other groups lack the training to properly operate and maintain such weapons. They are, in fact, more intricate than larger missile warheads.

 

More importantly, because of the potentially devastating consequences, the longer the terrorists held on to such a weapon, the greater the chance it would be discovered by authorities and destroyed. In the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has devoted a huge proportion of its recourses to the investigation and interdiction of WMD, even to the extent of failing to fully assess other possible threats. Detection capabilities for potential WMD have greatly improved since the Sept. 11 attacks, with detection systems installed in major U.S. cities and issued to first responders.

 

Furthermore, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and major police departments check storage facility sites and run name checks on storage-space renters, which also helps reduce the probability of nuclear devices being assembled or stored at these sites. Although these checks are mainly an effort to interdict conventional bombs, they could easily uncover the existence of a nuclear device. Of course, some cities are better prepared than others, with New York perhaps the most vigilant of all.

 

Al Qaeda has often said it is engaged in an all-out war with the United States, and that any and all U.S. interests -- from military personnel to civilian non-combatants -- are fair game for attacks. Furthermore, al Qaeda tried to acquire a nuclear capability for many years prior to Sept. 11 -- as Osama bin Laden publicly acknowledged in a Dec. 23, 1998 interview. "I would say that acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty … If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out and I thank god for enabling us to do that ... But how we could use these weapons, if we possess them, is up to us."

 

In light of such statements, security regarding WMD has been tightened considerably since Sept. 11 -- suggesting it would have been easier to acquire such weapons before September 2001. If al Qaeda had had WMD at that time, it would have used them instead of airplanes.

 

The idea that these devices are pre-positioned in American cities and that al Qaeda is awaiting a significant date to unleash them is simply preposterous. First, dates and anniversaries are not particularly important to al Qaeda. Second, such a weapon would be its crown jewel -- and the network would never run the risk of it being discovered by leaving it hidden for long periods.

 

Considering all the resources that would have to be expended and the risk associated with using a nuclear weapon, a terrorist group would get a much higher return from carrying out more conventional attacks, similar to the Madrid train bombings or the London Underground bombings.

 

Farah's theory is that al Qaeda might have sub-contracted the delivery and operation of its nuclear weapons to Mara Salvatrucha criminal gangs and former Soviet KGB agents and Spetznats commandos. If al Qaeda possessed such weapons, however, they certainly would be the most valuable physical assets controlled by the network -- and their operation would be closely coordinated with the core leadership, perhaps even with the direct knowledge of bin Laden. The operatives assigned to deliver and operate the weapon would be drawn from al Qaeda's most trusted inner circles, chosen for their loyalty and commitment to the cause. Because of this, custody and operation of the weapons would probably not be trusted to infidel criminal gangs and former enemies.

 

The very existence of "briefcase nukes" also is questionable. Some have claimed that perhaps 100 such weapons from the former Soviet arsenal are unaccounted for. With so many of these devices supposedly on the loose, it is logical to assume that some trace of at least one of them would have been uncovered by either Russian, U.S., British, French, German, or Israeli intelligence. To date, this has not happened. It is important to keep in mind that these are complex devices that require a great deal of regular, careful maintenance. They do not have an indefinite shelf life.

 

Speculation about terrorists possessing and using nuclear weapons has been making the rounds for years. Because of the exponentially increasing risk associated with holding onto a nuclear device, however, any group that possesses one would use it sooner, rather than later. If al Qaeda had a nuclear device, it would have used it by now.

[danyseal]

Speriamo non succeda nulla

[ale92]

Poco tempo fa ho letto che al qaeda è interessata al nucleare

[Gianni065]

Le cose non sono così drammatiche, per fortuna.

 

Mi sento di escludere che Bin Laden o chi per esso possa essere in possesso di armi nucleari.

 

Le armi nucleari ex-URSS sono tutte rientrate in Russia, e non risulta che ne manchino all'appello.

 

L'acquisto di un'arma nucleare militare è cosa da escludere.

 

Inoltre FBI e CIA provano costantemente a fare di questi acquisti, in maniera clandestina, proprio per verificare se c'è qualcuno disposto a venderle.

 

Voglio essere più preciso: esistono finti commercianti d'armi che in realtà sono agenti della CIA e dell'FBI, e offrono cifre enormi per acquistare armi particolari (bombe nucleari, missili portatili, armi chimiche o batteriologiche, ecc...) in maniera da "ingannare" il mercato.

 

Se ho trafugato un'arma atomica, cercherò di venderla al miglior offerente.

Se uno mi offre 500 milioni di dollari, io la vendo a quello.

E quello è un agente della CIA.

 

Con questo sistema, gli americani hanno già intercettato varie partite di armi sfuggite ai paesi orientali, come missili terra-aria e missili contro-carro.

 

Altri agenti, invece, fingono di voler vendere: utilizzano simulacri di armi sofisticate, e le offrono sul mercato.

Quando qualcuno prova a comprarle, scattano le manette (o il sequestro, o l'eliminazione fisica).

 

Queste sono solo alcune delle tante operazioni di copertura e di intelligence che i servizi americani pongono in essere per controllare il traffico di armi sensibili, ed individuare gli acquirenti interessati.

 

Molto spesso non si tratta di operazioni pubblicizzate: se l'acquirente si trova in un paese estero, e se oggetto dell'acquisto era solo un simulacro, per la legge di molti paesi (Italia compresa) non è configurabile nemmeno il tentativo di reato.

Si fa prima quindi a uccidere il soggetto (o a rapirlo) e buonanotte.

 

Quello che Al Qaida potrebbe tentare di fare, è procurarsi dell'uranio fissile, in quantità adeguata.

Ma anche l'uranio non è merce che si trovi al mercatino sotto casa, e la costruzione di un'arma atomica di dimensioni e pesi accettabili è fuori portata dei comuni mortali.

Ci vorrebbe una tecnologia avanzata, e quindi ci vuole per forza l'appoggio di un governo.

E quale governo volete che intenda rischiare l'annichilimento nucleare della ritorsione americana?

 

Più facilmente, Al Qaida potrebbe procurarsi un po' di uranio misto: qualche chilo di scorie, qualche chilo di uranio esaurito, un po' di materiale radioattivo usato nel settore medico (apparecchiature a raggi X), un po' di uranio grezzo di miniera.

Con questo materiale si può assemblare una bomba sporca.

 

Ossia una bomba contenente alto esplosivo normale, nel quale è mischiato il materiale radioattivo, in maniera tale che la sua esplosione lanci nell'aria una grossa quantità di particelle radioattive che andrebbero a disseminarsi su una zona più o meno vasta.

Il vento potrebbe poi trasportare quelle particelle anche molto lontano.

 

In questo modo una zona che può essere anche di vari chilometri quadrati verrebbe contaminata.

Non si tratterebbe di una contaminazione realmente pericolosa, ma è chiaro che in questi casi scatterebbero comunque le misure di sicurezza previste dai protocolli sanitari: evacuazione, decontaminazione, ecc...

Sarebbe un danno economico molto grave, se fosse interessata un'area metropolitana ad altissima concentrazione di popolazione, o comunque di grande rilievo economico (si pensi a un aeroporto internazionale, a uno scalo marittimo o ferroviario, a una zona industriale, ecc...).

 

Un attentato del genere non è difficilissimo da realizzare, però non è mai stato fatto.

Questo può essere dovuto a varie ragioni:

 

1) Non rientra nella pianificazione di Al Qaida (o chi per essa)

 

2) Procurarsi l'uranio, sia pure grezzo o esaurito, è comunque difficile

 

3) La cosa è in programma, ma è riservata a qualche occasione particolare

 

4) Dietro Al Qaida c'è qualcuno che non intende spostare il gioco sul piano nucleare.

[Washburn]

Cavolo speriamo che non abbiano il nucleare!

[dread]

vedremo domani

[skettles]

oggi ho sentito in tv ke al qaeda potrebbe costruire una testata sporca

[skettles]

non l'avete sentito di quei reduci dall'iraq e oggi ke in alcuni ospedali nel

reparto di radiologia sono mancati al appello dei rifiuti radioattivi?

[ale92]

3) La cosa è in programma, ma è riservata a qualche occasione particolare

E se la usassero su città tipo los angeles, new york, washington, o roma?

 

Potrebbe essere l'occasione che aspettavano.

[ale92]

Per fortuna ieri non è successo niente comunque bisogna stare sempre attenti

[skettles]

il potenziale di una bomba sporca al momento dell'esplosione è basso ma i veri danni si vedono dopo una diecina di anni perché spargerebbe tanto di quell'uranio in giro ke ci sarebbero casi di tumore nel raggio di 100 km per decenni ke persone storte quelle di al qaeda non dovrebbero esistere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ospite intruder]

Sono venuto a conoscenza di un fatto molto preoccupante.

Alcuni analisti di politica internazionale e terrorismo pensano che fra 2 giorni, proprio in occasione del Cinquantesimo anniversario dal bombardamento atomico di Hiroshima, ci sarà "The American Hiroshima" ovvero un attacco nucleare su alcune delle più importanti città americane il cui mandante OVVIAMENTE sarà al Qaeda!!!

Credo che per Gianni questa non sia una grossa novità dato che annunci come questi, avvenuti anche da parte dei diretti interessati, ci sono stati negli anni passati ancor prima dell' 11 Settembre. Tuttavia visti i recenti sviluppi una visione così apocalittica del fenomeno terrorismo non DEVE ESSERE ESCLUSA a priori.

 

Vi riporto due articoli:

Il primo, quello più allarmante, da cui è scaturito in queste settimane il dibattito:

CLICCA

 

Il secondo invece che vi riporto qui sotto proviene da un Report di un'importante sito di Analisi Geopolitica: STRATFOR.

Questo articolo è meno allarmista e forse più realistico e accurato ma il punto è che NON ESCLUDE un evento del genere.

 

The Unlikely Possibility of an 'American Hiroshima'

 

The publisher of online newspaper World Net Daily alleged in an Aug. 2 interview with daily political magazine FrontPageMagazine.com that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons within the United States and is preparing to unleash an "American Hiroshima."

 

Publisher Joseph Farah claims al Qaeda has been planning a large-scale nuclear attack for years, and that at least some of its nuclear weapons have been smuggled into the United States over the Mexican border with the help of local criminal gangs. In the same interview, however, Farah contradicted himself, claiming the devices were smuggled into American cities by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

Although it is known that al Qaeda has long been interested in acquiring or developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the likelihood that the network possesses functional nuclear weapons is remote.

 

From time to time, various groups or individuals have made the assertion that al Qaeda, or groups such as Chechen militants possess nuclear weapons, possibly in the form of "briefcase nukes," compact, portable nuclear devices that supposedly were developed by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

The premise here is that these groups have acquired nuclear weapons from Soviet-era stockpiles. Given Russia's questionable ability to maintain nuclear surety during and after the Soviet period, it would not be impossible for militant groups to have acquired such devices. Russian security sources, however, say Chechen militants and other groups lack the training to properly operate and maintain such weapons. They are, in fact, more intricate than larger missile warheads.

 

More importantly, because of the potentially devastating consequences, the longer the terrorists held on to such a weapon, the greater the chance it would be discovered by authorities and destroyed. In the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has devoted a huge proportion of its recourses to the investigation and interdiction of WMD, even to the extent of failing to fully assess other possible threats. Detection capabilities for potential WMD have greatly improved since the Sept. 11 attacks, with detection systems installed in major U.S. cities and issued to first responders.

 

Furthermore, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and major police departments check storage facility sites and run name checks on storage-space renters, which also helps reduce the probability of nuclear devices being assembled or stored at these sites. Although these checks are mainly an effort to interdict conventional bombs, they could easily uncover the existence of a nuclear device. Of course, some cities are better prepared than others, with New York perhaps the most vigilant of all.

 

Al Qaeda has often said it is engaged in an all-out war with the United States, and that any and all U.S. interests -- from military personnel to civilian non-combatants -- are fair game for attacks. Furthermore, al Qaeda tried to acquire a nuclear capability for many years prior to Sept. 11 -- as Osama bin Laden publicly acknowledged in a Dec. 23, 1998 interview. "I would say that acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty … If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out and I thank god for enabling us to do that ... But how we could use these weapons, if we possess them, is up to us."

 

In light of such statements, security regarding WMD has been tightened considerably since Sept. 11 -- suggesting it would have been easier to acquire such weapons before September 2001. If al Qaeda had had WMD at that time, it would have used them instead of airplanes.

 

The idea that these devices are pre-positioned in American cities and that al Qaeda is awaiting a significant date to unleash them is simply preposterous. First, dates and anniversaries are not particularly important to al Qaeda. Second, such a weapon would be its crown jewel -- and the network would never run the risk of it being discovered by leaving it hidden for long periods.

 

Considering all the resources that would have to be expended and the risk associated with using a nuclear weapon, a terrorist group would get a much higher return from carrying out more conventional attacks, similar to the Madrid train bombings or the London Underground bombings.

 

Farah's theory is that al Qaeda might have sub-contracted the delivery and operation of its nuclear weapons to Mara Salvatrucha criminal gangs and former Soviet KGB agents and Spetznats commandos. If al Qaeda possessed such weapons, however, they certainly would be the most valuable physical assets controlled by the network -- and their operation would be closely coordinated with the core leadership, perhaps even with the direct knowledge of bin Laden. The operatives assigned to deliver and operate the weapon would be drawn from al Qaeda's most trusted inner circles, chosen for their loyalty and commitment to the cause. Because of this, custody and operation of the weapons would probably not be trusted to infidel criminal gangs and former enemies.

 

The very existence of "briefcase nukes" also is questionable. Some have claimed that perhaps 100 such weapons from the former Soviet arsenal are unaccounted for. With so many of these devices supposedly on the loose, it is logical to assume that some trace of at least one of them would have been uncovered by either Russian, U.S., British, French, German, or Israeli intelligence. To date, this has not happened. It is important to keep in mind that these are complex devices that require a great deal of regular, careful maintenance. They do not have an indefinite shelf life.

 

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Speculation about terrorists possessing and using nuclear weapons has been making the rounds for years. Because of the exponentially increasing risk associated with holding onto a nuclear device, however, any group that possesses one would use it sooner, rather than later. If al Qaeda had a nuclear device, it would have used it by now.</span>

 

1° Gennaio 2009. Qualcuno ha notizia di un attacco nucleare in questi ultimi anni?

[Blue Sky]

1° Gennaio 2009. Qualcuno ha notizia di un attacco nucleare in questi ultimi anni?

 

Si Intru stanno venendo a bombardare proprio te, se vedi dei B-52 sorvolare la tua dimora, comincia a preoccuparti! :asd:

 

Buon Anno!