Nuke or Bio Terror Attack in US "likely" by 2013

[lostfan]

Great post, and I agree 100%. Another great "soft" target would be elementary schools. They usually don't have much in the form of security, that is normally reserved for more "dangerous" high schools. Imagine if people were scared to send their kids to school?

That's not really AQ's style. Propaganda, PR, and the "moral high ground" is a pretty big deal to them, as ridiculously ironic as that sounds. They won't score many points in the Muslim world by targeting kids, and they could face a lot of strategic backlash by doing that. It's the same general concept as Hizballah although obviously AQ's line in the sand is further up, ever notice Hizballah doesn't attack civilian targets? Not coincidentally, a lot of people see Hizballah as legitimate resistance rather than a terrorist group. Now, I realize that terrorists have done this in other parts of the world, but we also must remember that "terrorism" isn't a monolith. One group is not like another and there is more than one source. AQ just happens to be the most dangerous.

 

Having said that, you guys are dead-on when you're talking about the "holy s***" factor with AQ, and all the residual effects. That's what they want, it's about more than just body count or total property damage.

[bmags]

Here's the thing that sort of undersells me on that concept...why exactly wouldn't it have been done already if the group was willing to do that? All you need is the manpower and maybe $50,000 and a couple of weeks to go to U.S. gun shows. You could arm an army with that kind of money, without having any ID checks, with the equipment available regularly for sale in the U.S. It could have been done a dozen times by now if the manpower was there.

 

The fact that it hasn't been done I think is an argument that the groups after us just aren't yet that interested in this sort of attack.

 

I think you are underestimating distance. I think that initially this probably wasn't the strategy of Al Qaida as most of their attacks in the 90s were large bombings. But since 2001 the most successful attacks have all been these sieges. They seem to be big on imagery, and the sustained coverage of "martyrs" on the loose in America.

 

That said, I think an attack on an elementary school would be brutal on them. They'd lose a lot of support, basically the world turns a blind eye on Chechnya right now and Russia is doing some pretty brutal stuff there.

[lostfan]

I am not smart enough to answer question 1, but the answer to question 2 is it depends on how the administration reacts. Even though they ended up going overboard with the patriot act and phone wiretapping and so on, the INITIAL reaction of the GWB administration after 9/11 was good, or at least was preceiving to be very good by the public (if you remember, his approval ratings for a while were very high after 9/11). The reason he got re-elected is he was supposedly "tough on terror", and that goes directly back to his administration's 9/11 reaction. Just my opinion, and I agree with Flash's professor who said Al-Qaeda won't act again on American soil until they can top 9/11. In that sense, maybe the lack of activity attackwise on our soil the last 7 years is a byproduct of us preventing "the next big one" and not us preventing terrorism in general. If they wanted to set off a bomb in a mall and kill a dozen people, they could do it even here in America. But they have their eyes on bigger things.

This is called the "paradox of warning." If your intelligence is good, and in fact so good that you are able to project a threat and either redirect your resources or neutralize the enemy to stop it from happening, then of course it never happens, and your everyday citizen wonders if the threat is even real anymore. And on the other hand, if you don't actually catch the enemy but just make them change their tactical plans, it also makes it look like the intelligence was wrong, when in fact it was 100% effective.

[lostfan]

I think you are underestimating distance. I think that initially this probably wasn't the strategy of Al Qaida as most of their attacks in the 90s were large bombings. But since 2001 the most successful attacks have all been these sieges. They seem to be big on imagery, and the sustained coverage of "martyrs" on the loose in America.

 

That said, I think an attack on an elementary school would be brutal on them. They'd lose a lot of support, basically the world turns a blind eye on Chechnya right now and Russia is doing some pretty brutal stuff there.

The sieges are also not necessarily AQ, fwiw. But you are right that they are media whores. Frankly, they are much more advanced than we are at PR and image control.

Edited December 3, 2008 by lostfan

[bmags]

The sieges are also not necessarily AQ, fwiw. But you are right that they are media whores. Frankly, they are much more advanced than we are at PR and image control.

 

I'm aware, but these attacks are relatively easy to coordinate, i'm sure they've seen. I've no doubt they'd one up, but I'm just saying, I don't know if a big explosion is the next big Al qaida thing. An explosion is sort of one and done. Imagine coordinated sniper attacks in cities, freezing the nation for a prolonged period of time. It'd appear they are in power. They'd have an upper hand. The numbers wouldn't matter.

[StrangeSox]

I'm aware, but these attacks are relatively easy to coordinate, i'm sure they've seen. I've no doubt they'd one up, but I'm just saying, I don't know if a big explosion is the next big Al qaida thing. An explosion is sort of one and done. Imagine coordinated sniper attacks in cities, freezing the nation for a prolonged period of time. It'd appear they are in power. They'd have an upper hand. The numbers wouldn't matter.

 

From what I heard this took months of planning and was a fairly complex operation.

[lostfan]

I'm aware, but these attacks are relatively easy to coordinate, i'm sure they've seen. I've no doubt they'd one up, but I'm just saying, I don't know if a big explosion is the next big Al qaida thing. An explosion is sort of one and done. Imagine coordinated sniper attacks in cities, freezing the nation for a prolonged period of time. It'd appear they are in power. They'd have an upper hand. The numbers wouldn't matter.

It's all about the effect, yeah. Body count to them is nice but it's about the psychological impact. But... it'd be something where everything happens really fast. And it would be multifaceted, and complex.

 

As far as symbolic value I'm not a believer in dates having much significance. Like if it can be done on a day like the 4th of July or something, great, but if that's going to diminish the impact or effectiveness of their attack, then no.

Edited December 3, 2008 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

It's all about the effect, yeah. Body count to them is nice but it's about the psychological impact. But... it'd be something where everything happens really fast. And it would be multifaceted, and complex.

 

As far as symbolic value I'm not a believer in dates having much significance. Like if it can be done on a day like the 4th of July or something, great, but if that's going to diminish the impact or effectiveness of their attack, then no.

 

Good point. Can anyone say what was September 11th known for before 2001?

[lostfan]

Good point. Can anyone say what was September 11th known for before 2001?

So many people were asking "well what does September 11th mean?" and "oh they chose 911 that's so devious!" I was like... uh that's the day they bought their plane tickets for. Early in the morning so it'd dominate the news cycle all day. Why's it got to be a significant date? Does it really matter?

[bmags]

From what I heard this took months of planning and was a fairly complex operation.

 

That's what I saw initially but since it seems much more rag tag.

[DukeNukeEm]

So many people were asking "well what does September 11th mean?" and "oh they chose 911 that's so devious!" I was like... uh that's the day they bought their plane tickets for. Early in the morning so it'd dominate the news cycle all day. Why's it got to be a significant date? Does it really matter?

It dominated the news cycle for like 3 years. I dont think they were concerned with what time of day they blew those towers up.

 

As for a nuclear or bio terror attack, its unlikely. Al Queda is too splintered of an organization to pull off getting a nuke without us knowing about. Half these guys cant even answer their cell phones without a smart bomb getting crammed 3 feet up their asshole and you expect them to get their hands on a real WMD?

 

It's cheaper, and quite frankly more effective, for them to keep doing what theyve been doing. Keep the civil war in Iraq going as long as they can with cheap and easy suicide attacks and let the US pour dollars down the drain there. Besides, 9/11 had a rally effect for America while the Iraqi insurgency has done a lot to tear this country apart. Nuke a major US city and 95% of our population will be ready to throw down with nukes of our own.

[NorthSideSox72]

From what I heard this took months of planning and was a fairly complex operation.

But against a target that was much easier and softer than doing the same thing in the US.

 

[Balta1701]

But against a target that was much easier and softer than doing the same thing in the US.

Let's assume you're correct, that this attack took months of planning. That doesn't necessarily mean that it requires months of planning to successfully pull off this level of attack. That could mean that they spent a lot of time working and training, and decided that with the resources they had, the simplest option, running through streets and hotels with guns, was the best.

 

Just because highly trained people pulled off this attack doesn't mean a bunch of lowly trained people couldn't do so if they had the will.

[lostfan]

It dominated the news cycle for like 3 years. I dont think they were concerned with what time of day they blew those towers up.

Yeah, but when you're sitting there buying plane tix and you have a choice on what time you were going to do it, why not pick the morning? That's not like something that required any extra coordination whatsoever. Just take the extra bonus of that day.

[StrangeSox]

Let's assume you're correct, that this attack took months of planning. That doesn't necessarily mean that it requires months of planning to successfully pull off this level of attack. That could mean that they spent a lot of time working and training, and decided that with the resources they had, the simplest option, running through streets and hotels with guns, was the best.

 

Just because highly trained people pulled off this attack doesn't mean a bunch of lowly trained people couldn't do so if they had the will.

 

This wasn't just running through the streets, guns a-blazin'. Several Indian special forces operatives interviewed said that they displayed advanced tactics. Less skilled/ knowledgeable people wouldn't be able to hold out nearly as long.

 

Yeah, but when you're sitting there buying plane tix and you have a choice on what time you were going to do it, why not pick the morning? That's not like something that required any extra coordination whatsoever. Just take the extra bonus of that day.

 

I would think that there would be more people in those buildings during the early work hours on average.

Edited December 3, 2008 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

This wasn't just running through the streets, guns a-blazin'. Several Indian special forces operatives interviewed said that they displayed advanced tactics. Less skilled/ knowledgeable people wouldn't be able to hold out nearly as long.

 

 

 

I would think that there would be more people in those buildings during the early work hours on average.

 

NYT:

 

it appears these terrorists were trained by former pakistani military officials.

 

wah oh

[Balta1701]

I would think that there would be more people in those buildings during the early work hours on average.

Well, not to be too morbid, but honestly, the 2 buildings they hit, they hit too early in the day. Probably they were about 1/2 filled or so at the time. If those impacts had happened an hour or so later in the day, there would have been a lot more people at each level and a lot more people trying to get out.

[southsider2k5]

But against a target that was much easier and softer than doing the same thing in the US.

 

Its hard to say that, because you can look at it both ways. The first big difference is the gun laws in India. NONE of the hotel guards were armed. Also probably none of the patrons were armed. In that respect the target was indeed softer.

 

The other side of the coin is that terrorists wouldn't have to sneak guns into the US to pull off an overwealming attack like they did in Mumbai. They would be able to legally purchase much of their equiptment legally in the US, so that would solve a big logicists problem.

[StrangeSox]

How many hotels have armed guards that could do anything to stop apparently highly-trained (Indian special forces commandos said they were using advanced tactics) and heavily armed attackers?

 

It would also be very difficult for them to legally purchase any sort of automatic firearms. You have to go through an awful lot of red tape for that. They could buy semi-automatic versions and modify them using a few machined parts, though.

[Balta1701]

It would also be very difficult for them to legally purchase any sort of automatic firearms. You have to go through an awful lot of red tape for that. They could buy semi-automatic versions and modify them using a few machined parts, though.

Not in this country. Especially not after the assault weapons ban expired.

[mr_genius]

Not in this country. Especially not after the assault weapons ban expired.

 

when did that expire anyways? i really don't care if assault rifles are banned, just wondering. even with these guns available we haven't seen an a big increase in assault rifle crimes (if you have a source that says otherwise, a reputable source, i would be interested in reading it).

[Balta1701]

when did that expire anyways? i really don't care if assault rifles are banned, just wondering. even with these guns available we haven't seen an a big increase in assault rifle crimes (if you have a source that says otherwise, a reputable source, i would be interested in reading it).

The ban expired September 13, 2004.

 

Unfortunately, the original ban was so weak that actually trying to gather data on the use of legit assault weapons in crimes has always been difficult, because the gun manufacturers rapidly created weapons that were slight variants on true assault weapons to get around the ban, and because assault weapons that were already in circulation continued to be sold in various legal ways. (I can still recall a 60 minutes bit a few years back about how the Kosovar rebels managed to arm themselves with heavy, .50 machine guns by simply buying them at gun shows and shops across the western U.S. and exporting them to that region, for example).

[StrangeSox]

Not in this country. Especially not after the assault weapons ban expired.

 

That is completely incorrect. The assault weapons ban did not affect automatic weapons in any way, shape, or form. It was, primarily, a cosmetic ban (limiting things like folding stocks and bayonet mounts) and a limit on the size of magazines. It did not regulate cartridge size or style. Older weapons were grandfathered in, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

 

Automatic weapons have been under strict control since 1934, and no new ones can be manufactured for private ownership after 1986. The "AK-47's" or "AR-15's" you see people owning are not automatic rifles, but just another rifle no different than any hunting rifle aside from the fact that it looks like a military weapon. I'm sorry, but there's usually a large amount of ignorance behind the support of the AWB.

 

(I can still recall a 60 minutes bit a few years back about how the Kosovar rebels managed to arm themselves with heavy, .50 machine guns by simply buying them at gun shows and shops across the western U.S. and exporting them to that region, for example).

 

Those were not machine guns, as automatic weapons are very heavily regulated in this country. They were .50 rifles, weapons completely unaffected by the ban.

http://trinimansblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/...-hot-topic.html

 

when did that expire anyways? i really don't care if assault rifles are banned, just wondering. even with these guns available we haven't seen an a big increase in assault rifle crimes (if you have a source that says otherwise, a reputable source, i would be interested in reading it).

 

This is going off-track on this thread, but that's because they really aren't used in very many crimes. It's hard to conceal a rifle. They're also more expensive. It's easy to conceal a cheap handgun.

Edited December 3, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

That is completely incorrect. The assault weapons ban did not affect automatic weapons in any way, shape, or form. It was, primarily, a cosmetic ban (limiting things like folding stocks and bayonet mounts) and a limit on the size of magazines. It did not regulate cartridge size or style. Older weapons were grandfathered in, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

 

 

Automatic weapons have been under strict control since 1934, and no new ones can be manufactured for private ownership after 1986. The "AK-47's" or "AR-15's" you see people owning are not automatic rifles, but just another rifle no different than any hunting rifle aside from the fact that it looks like a military weapon. I'm sorry, but there's usually a large amount of ignorance behind the support of the AWB.

I will fire back from Wikipedia on the "Gun Show loophole" which allows people to purchase weapons from anything that can be classified as a private collection at a gun show without a background check and without informing the local governments. Here is an example from last year stating how weapons purchased at gun shows in the U.S. were reportedly a major contributor to the raging violence that is currently tearing Mexico apart.

[StrangeSox]

I will fire back from Wikipedia on the "Gun Show loophole" which allows people to purchase weapons from anything that can be classified as a private collection at a gun show without a background check and without informing the local governments. Here is an example from last year stating how weapons purchased at gun shows in the U.S. were reportedly a major contributor to the raging violence that is currently tearing Mexico apart.

 

The media also tends to be very inaccurate when it comes to any sort of gun report, so I'd be skeptical about their claim that full-automatic AK-47's are being purchased in significant quantities from the US. There is just a ton of red tape to buy one, and they are not sold at gun shows. Also, gun show guns account for about 1% of guns used in crime.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm -> acrobat file on the bottom.