A ‘Nuclear Hellstorm’ In Europe?

By Marcin n® ☼ (CC)

By Marcin n® ☼ (CC)

A story from March 25, 2011 by Christopher Hope, Robert Winnett, Holly Watt and Heidi Blake for the Telegraph hints at what we might have to look forward to now that Osama is fish food:

Al-Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a “nuclear hellstorm” on the West if Osama Bin Laden is caught or assassinated, according to documents to be released by the WikiLeaks website, which contain details of the interrogations of more than 700 Guantanamo detainees…

A senior Al-Qaeda commander claimed that the terrorist group has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will be detonated if Bin-Laden is ever caught or assassinated. The US authorities uncovered numerous attempts by Al-Qaeda to obtain nuclear materials and fear that terrorists have already bought uranium. Sheikh Mohammed told interrogators that Al-Qaeda would unleash a “nuclear hellstorm”…

, , , ,

  • Drinky McGee

    Common sense suggests that if they had a nuke, they would have used it by now. This isn’t a group that’s famous for its restraint. Hypothetically, though, I pity the fool who has to wear the nuclear underwear bomb.

  • Drinky McGee

    Common sense suggests that if they had a nuke, they would have used it by now. This isn’t a group that’s famous for its restraint. Hypothetically, though, I pity the fool who has to wear the nuclear underwear bomb.

    • emperorreagan

      Really? Not famous for their restraint? 9-11, if you take the face-value explanation, was a very carefully planned, long-term operation. The operations against the USS Cole wasn’t carefully planned, or the embassy bombings? Even littering US patrol routes with IEDs is evidence of restraint and a particular direction of strategy.

      • Drinky McGee

        Exactly that kind of planning was necessary because they didn’t have the weaponry of a modern state. You use planes as bombs when you don’t have planes with bombs. You ram a boat filled with explosives into a ship when you don’t have a ship that can launch explosives.

        A nuke brings you on a par with the most modern warmongering nations on Earth. The nuke is the bogey man. You have a nuke, you use it, and it changes everything. Their asses have been getting pounded to mush for years. No way they’d sit on something like that. With their mushy asses. I could be wrong, but I hope I’m not.

        • Threedinium

          Well, I suppose it’s all very fair and well having a nuke or two, but using it on a country that has ten for every person in the country you’re trying to defend might give you cause to reconsider. I would take it as a sign that they *really really* wanted Osama alive if they were bargaining nuclear war for his life.

        • emperorreagan

          You’re incorrect. You use a plane as a weapon not because you don’t have a plane with a bomb, but for many other reasons:
          1. A bomber requires significant infrastructure to support – hijacking a plane requires none.
          2. Getting a bomber into range to attack major US targets is a pretty big undertaking, requiring several complicit airfields across the world in order to move the plane from your location to the point of attack.
          3. You’re hitting your opposition in a blind spot by opting for crashing planes into buildings – the US is looking for military movements, it isn’t particularly careful about monitoring local air traffic (still, apparently).
          4. The places you could get a plane with bombs would also compromise the states that are harboring and supporting you. Afghanistan was still compromised, but other states in the area that have provided financial and material support to terrorism and bin Laden’s organization in particular have actually seen financial benefit post 9-11.
          5.Terrorism is, at least in part, about theater. Hijacking a plane full of passengers and crashing it into a building is much grander theater than a bomber.

          Similar reasons explain why the Cole attack was a much better course of action than say, trying to buy a junked Soviet vessel to attack the Cole.

          I think the place to look for the next attack is to try to identify weaknesses they haven’t exploited yet. Look at the claims in the wikileaks article – setting off gas explosions in apartments, releasing poison in air conditioning systems, etc. They’re not thinking in the box of a military power and attacks alone. They’re thinking in the box of how to cause maximum terror, to make people second guess their governments, to cause economic problems, etc. In that respect, I think the only plane with a bomb they would care about is if they could turn, say, a French Air Force pilot and get them to drop a bomb on Paris.

          As for the possibility of a nuke, if they have material and/or a bomb, it was going to happen whether Osama was killed or not. They likely would be patient with that, though, because that is much harder to come by and building a bomb for maximum effect (if they only had material), getting it into position and timing it for maximum effect would be important. And with al-Zawahiri widely regarded as the one actually planning/calling the tactical shots, the time table for that (or any other major attack really) probably won’t change – unless they actually did have a contingency planned for Osama’s death.

          What could change the time table of any major attack and cause it to happen sooner rather than later, in my opinion, is what documentation al-Zawahiri and the other leadership knew/thought Osama had in his possession. There’s also the possibility that they’ve been moving slowly in deference to support offered by Pakistani security and military officials, but with those ties probably compromised by Osama’s location & potentially by documents in the house that restraint might go away.

    • Haystack

      “Well, we weren’t going to use this A-bomb we happened to have, but *now*…”

  • emperorreagan

    Really? Not famous for their restraint? 9-11, if you take the face-value explanation, was a very carefully planned, long-term operation. The operations against the USS Cole wasn’t carefully planned, or the embassy bombings? Even littering US patrol routes with IEDs is evidence of restraint and a particular direction of strategy.

  • Haystack

    “Well, we weren’t going to use this A-bomb we happened to have, but *now*…”

  • emporrorreagan is a cock

    That’s because 9/11 was the US government you retard.

  • YEHAW

    Team America F**K YEA… let Europe suck on mother f**king balls… Bin Laden is dead. WE RULE!!

  • YEHAW

    Team America F**K YEA… let Europe suck on mother f**king balls… Bin Laden is dead. WE RULE!!

    • Haha

      idiot!! That attitude is why the world hates you!! Your blindness just seems to increase the idiocracy syndrome within…good luck moron the world is enjoying watching the collapse from within..

      • Rwright05

        Look, it’s called sarcasm.

        • SuperGrover

          A bit over the top, don’t ya thing?

          • YEHAW

            Team AMERICA is never a bit over the top! WE ARE WAY OVER! WE MADE THE BOMB!!

      • Markov Cheney

        Continually amazed at the readers of this site taking every comment literally. 12 people liked that comment.. really? Who are you people?

      • Yehaw

        Its called trolling… and obvious troll is obvious…. damn fool. Who is the idiot now!

  • Drinky McGee

    Exactly that kind of planning was necessary because they didn’t have the weaponry of a modern state. You use planes as bombs when you don’t have planes with bombs. You ram a boat filled with explosives into a ship when you don’t have a ship that can launch explosives.

    A nuke brings you on a par with the most modern warmongering nations on Earth. The nuke is the bogey man. You have a nuke, you use it, and it changes everything. Their asses have been getting pounded to mush for years. No way they’d sit on something like that. With their mushy asses. I could be wrong, but I hope I’m not.

  • Haha

    idiot!! That attitude is why the world hates you!! Your blindness just seems to increase the idiocracy syndrome within…good luck moron the world is enjoying watching the collapse from within..

  • Rwright05

    Look, it’s called sarcasm.

  • SuperGrover

    A bit over the top, don’t ya thing?

  • iksanimation

    What about all the unguarded spent fuel rods in Fukushima? Surely obtaining the nuclear material would not be an impossibility for those on “suicide” missions… just pick it up, no one is guarding the 100,000 spent rods that were blown all over Fukushima. It also seems that the US has it’s guard down when it comes to radiation (people from Japan with radioactive luggage are just let right in) coming into the country.

    • ArgosyJones

      The only problem would be dying of radiation poisoning. otherwise, great plan.

  • iksanimation

    What about all the unguarded spent fuel rods in Fukushima? Surely obtaining the nuclear material would not be an impossibility for those on “suicide” missions… just pick it up, no one is guarding the 100,000 spent rods that were blown all over Fukushima. It also seems that the US has it’s guard down when it comes to radiation (people from Japan with radioactive luggage are just let right in) coming into the country.

  • Guest

    Europe already receives daily deadly amounts of radiation from the Russian and Japanese accidents as well as the seafood that is harvested from off the coast of Somalia where a tsunami laid open to the oceans of the world tons of buried nuclear waste.

  • Anonymous

    Europe already receives daily deadly amounts of radiation from the Russian and Japanese accidents as well as the seafood that is harvested from off the coast of Somalia where a tsunami laid open to the oceans of the world tons of buried nuclear waste.

  • Markov Cheney

    Continually amazed at the readers of this site taking every comment literally. 12 people liked that comment.. really? Who are you people?

  • Yehaw

    Its called trolling… and obvious troll is obvious…. damn fool. Who is the idiot now!

  • Threedinium

    Well, I suppose it’s all very fair and well having a nuke or two, but using it on a country that has ten for every person in the country you’re trying to defend might give you cause to reconsider. I would take it as a sign that they *really really* wanted Osama alive if they were bargaining nuclear war for his life.

  • ArgosyJones

    The only problem would be dying of radiation poisoning. otherwise, great plan.

  • emperorreagan

    You’re incorrect. You use a plane as a weapon not because you don’t have a plane with a bomb, but for many other reasons:
    1. A bomber requires significant infrastructure to support – hijacking a plane requires none.
    2. Getting a bomber into range to attack major US targets is a pretty big undertaking, requiring several complicit airfields across the world in order to move the plane from your location to the point of attack.
    3. You’re hitting your opposition in a blind spot by opting for crashing planes into buildings – the US is looking for military movements, it isn’t particularly careful about monitoring local air traffic (still, apparently).
    4. The places you could get a plane with bombs would also compromise the states that are harboring and supporting you. Afghanistan was still compromised, but other states in the area that have provided financial and material support to terrorism and bin Laden’s organization in particular have actually seen financial benefit post 9-11.
    5.Terrorism is, at least in part, about theater. Hijacking a plane full of passengers and crashing it into a building is much grander theater than a bomber.

    Similar reasons explain why the Cole attack was a much better course of action than say, trying to buy a junked Soviet vessel to attack the Cole.

    I think the place to look for the next attack is to try to identify weaknesses they haven’t exploited yet. Look at the claims in the wikileaks article – setting off gas explosions in apartments, releasing poison in air conditioning systems, etc. They’re not thinking in the box of a military power and attacks alone. They’re thinking in the box of how to cause maximum terror, to make people second guess their governments, to cause economic problems, etc. In that respect, I think the only plane with a bomb they would care about is if they could turn, say, a French Air Force pilot and get them to drop a bomb on Paris.

    As for the possibility of a nuke, if they have material and/or a bomb, it was going to happen whether Osama was killed or not. They likely would be patient with that, though, because that is much harder to come by and building a bomb for maximum effect (if they only had material), getting it into position and timing it for maximum effect would be important. And with al-Zahiri widely regarded as the one actually planning/calling the tactical shots, the time table for that (or any other major attack really) probably won’t change – unless they actually did have a contingency planned for Osama’s death.

    What could change the time table of any major attack and cause it to happen sooner rather than later, in my opinion, is what documentation al-Zahiri and the other leadership knew/thought Osama had in his possession. There’s also the possibility that they’ve been moving slowly in deference to support offered by Pakistani security and military officials, but with those ties probably compromised by Osama’s location & potentially by documents in the house that restraint might go away.

  • YEHAW

    Team AMERICA is never a bit over the top! WE ARE WAY OVER! WE MADE THE BOMB!!

21