On 13 Sep 2002 at 19:52, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2002 at 18:27, Jkr438@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> > [GWB] The first time we may be completely certain he has a --
> > nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.
> >
> > [Jake] Probably not true. I am guessing that as soon as he has two
> > he will test one for everyone to see.
> >
>
> [Joe] But if he develops one or more, and keeps them secret, he can
> have one or more transported, by his own agents or those of Al Quaeda
> or another terrorist organization, into the midst of a US or European
> or Israeli city for detonation, and deny responsibility.
>
> [Jake] You seem to be assuming that Saddam will take a path that will
> lead to more complications for him rather than fewer.
>
He did in Kuwait.
>
> [Jake] I doubt Saddam will be sharing any of this nuclear material
> with anyone. I think the chances are much more likely that Al Queda
> would have better odds of getting its nuclear material from other
> already existing stockpiles through religiously induced lapses of
> competence. Saddam on the other hand surely must know that what ever
> doesn't get blown up in America/Britain/Israel, will likely end up
> pointed right back at him.
>
If he sees his life as nearing its end due to advancing age or illness, he
might well not care, and be more interested in leaving an indelible
Saladinic personal legacy mark upon the world. His historical behavior
has made it abundantly clear that the lives of the Iraqi people will not
deter him. We cannot wait until he has the weapons that would allow
him such an option.
>
> [Joe] A 60 Minutes
> program just last night demonstrated how easy it would be to
> undetectedly transport 15kg of fissile uranium from that region into
> the heart of New York City. The bomb components could be shipped
> separately, and the device assembled onsite. We just cannot risk it.
>
> [Jake] You must forgive me if I don't respond favorably to "A 60
> Minutes program" you saw last night. However, in the latest atmosphere
> on this list, it wouldn't shock me if more humans would respond more
> favorably to that program than to the rantings of this . . . urinal .
> . . for lack of a better descriptive word at the moment. And no, this
> is not a request for better referencing of this latest piece of TV
> programming, or even a request for THAT programs references.
>
The actually transported a suitcase containing 15kg of depleted
uranium, that would still leave radiation signatures and the same mass
signature, from eastern europe to NYC without a single inspection. It
got into the US in a cargo container.
>
> [Jake] Anyway, I'm still sticking with the "he tests one for the
> history books." theory. Either scenario probably doesn't make a lot of
> difference, but I assume whoever is programming GWB probably wants to
> make all future scenarios to seem as frightening as possible, and that
> would be the "he surprises the fuck out of everyone by bombing Israel,
> not just once, but with twenty nukes, and forty more at the US (most
> of which would probably fall in the Atlantic)" with no preliminary
> nuke testing like all other 'civilized' nuclear powers.
>
It is not anticipated that he would use ICBM's even if he had them, for
their plumes make their geographical sources easy to trace via satellite.
>
> [Jake] I'm betting that evil just ain't all that glamorous and
> unpredictable this time 'round. In any case, I really would not bet
> that he is going to get all teary-eyed about the greater Muslim Jihad
> against the Great Satan enough to actually share nuclear
> technology/resources.
>
Given his history, we simply cannot risk allowing him to possess such
weapons.
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > -Jake
>
> Love,
>
> (once again)
>
> -Jake
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:23 MDT