Al Qaeda has nukes in US
From dKosopedia
AKA The tale of the 7 nukes in US Soil it is an example of fear mongering at it's best
The Urban Legend
Tale: al-Qaida not only has obtained portable nuclear devices , but also likely has [6-7 of] them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future.
Status: False
One line rebuttal: Suitcase bombs are harmless by now, if they ever existed... Besides, radioactivity is one of the easiest things to screen for in ports, planes. trains...
Source: Several e-mails have been circulating describing Al Qaeda's alleged nuclear proficiency. A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaida not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has [6-7 of] them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future. NewsMax.com: Author: Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S
Snopes: n/a Hoax Encyclopedia HOW, WHY AND WHEN TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES]: The faux interview draws heavily from themes found in Tom Clancy books, such as 'The Sum of all Fears' and 'The Peacemaker'. The writing style and questions posed are nowhere near the quality and integrity of journalism found with true Al-Jazeera reporters. This assumption was verified by Omar Bec, head of Newsgathering & Operations for Al-Jazeera, who dismissed the email as being 'totally bogus'. He also noted that 'had the (interview) taken place, jazeera would not hesitate to air it at all' for the sake of journalistic integrity. It also appears that even the name 'Mohammed Al-Asuquf' is a fake, as there is no known person by that name affiliated with Al-Queda
Investigation:The tale builds on old misconceptions about suitcase nukes and on popular fiction books
Suitcase nukes are most likely harmless as of 2005
[ http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm#fn19 CNS - "Suitcase Nukes": A Reassessment - September 23, 2002 - Research Story of the Week]
The paper reaches two main conclusions:
- First, the probability that any portable nuclear devices were lost prior to or after the breakup of the Soviet Union appears low; the scenarios of loss offered by the special commission in 1996 are actually the least plausible among other possible scenarios. This does not mean that the threat does not exist, but rather that at this moment, it is probably not the most immediate threat to the home security of the United States or to U.S. armed forces abroad.
- Second, even if any devices were lost, their effectiveness should be very low or maybe even non-existent, especially if the loss occurred during the period of the greatest risk, in the early 1990s. Without scheduled maintenance, these devices apparently can produce only minimal yield and eventually possibly no yield at all, and can only serve as a source of small amounts of weapons-grade fissile materials.
Without detailed knowledge of the design of Soviet warheads, it would be impossible to know which components needed replacement at what time intervals. Two potential candidates are tritium and the neutron generator, which may use radioactive materials that decay over time. It seems possible, for example, that Soviet designers balanced on the threshold, using only just enough plutonium to achieve critical mass and relied on tritium to generate required yield. In that case, even modest degradation of tritium could have resulted in a significant drop of yield. Thus, it would be safe to assume that without proper maintenance, portable nuclear devices might still produce chain reaction, but yield would be minimal, and with time, possibly non-existent.
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)