IS - We'll buy nuclear weapon within 12 months.

IS - We'll buy nuclear weapon within 12 months.

Author
Discussion

Langweilig

Original Poster:

4,324 posts

211 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all

Oakey

27,550 posts

216 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
John Cantlie? Is that the Sonic guy? He's writing their pieces for them?

Joey Ramone

2,150 posts

125 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Ex-motorcycle journalist. Was kidnapped by ISIS some time ago. He is in a living hell.

griffin dai

3,201 posts

149 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Joey Ramone said:
Ex-motorcycle journalist. Was kidnapped by ISIS some time ago. He is in a living hell.
Yep poor guy frown

Hope they manage to get him out one day safe.

nelly1

5,630 posts

231 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
Don't worry. This guy will never allow it...


nelly1

5,630 posts

231 months

Friday 22nd May 2015
quotequote all
drivetrain said:
This scenario may not be as far-fetched as it seems at first glance.

Perhaps not a full-blown nuke but certainly a 'dirty bomb' with a large amount of conventional explosive combined with radioactive material is a distinct possibility IMO, these nutters would love to set off a device like that in London or New York.

How many shipping containers are delivered to large ports daily? Even a suicide mission with a dirty suitcase bomb is another possible method.

Food for thought.
Every container to enter a major Port by road, rail or Sea is scanned for radiation by Cyclamen...

jurbie

2,343 posts

201 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
I always understood the dirty bomb to be a bit of an over rated idea because the radioactive particles will get spread over an area but not in a sufficient concentration to do any harm. Anybody getting a dangerous dose is most likely going to be killed by the blast anyway.

Ultimately there will be casualties from the blast and then inconvenience due to the clean up but the idea of a few square miles of a city being dangerously contaminated is pretty wide of the mark.

andy_s

19,400 posts

259 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Joey Ramone said:
Ex-motorcycle journalist. Was kidnapped by ISIS some time ago. He is in a living hell.
...with an excellent survival strategy by the looks of it.

Gargamel

14,970 posts

261 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all

I don't see a problem with Isis having nuclear capability in 12 months.

Provided we use ours in 11.


vixen1700

22,849 posts

270 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Have to say it's one of my biggest fears, nuclear terrorism.

What direction would the civilised world go in relation to major cities being attacked in this way?

Really depressing. frown

Pistom

4,960 posts

159 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Daily Mail scaremongering.

It will never happen.

davepoth

29,395 posts

199 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Gargamel said:
I don't see a problem with Isis having nuclear capability in 12 months.

Provided we use ours in 11.
Use them on who exactly? Nuclear weapons are fine if you want to destroy a nation state, but if your enemy is like militant islam with small groups spread widely across virtually the whole world then they're a bit useless.


eldar

21,699 posts

196 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
jurbie said:
I always understood the dirty bomb to be a bit of an over rated idea because the radioactive particles will get spread over an area but not in a sufficient concentration to do any harm. Anybody getting a dangerous dose is most likely going to be killed by the blast anyway.

Ultimately there will be casualties from the blast and then inconvenience due to the clean up but the idea of a few square miles of a city being dangerously contaminated is pretty wide of the mark.
A dirty bomb with a couple of kilogrammes of the right stuff could render a large part of London uninhabitable for a few years while it was decontaminated. It is a serious threat, and taken seriously.

RedTrident

8,290 posts

235 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Unfortunately we helped create the vacuum in Iraq and Libya for these guys and bar a last minute rebellion in parliament we would have eliminated the opposition to these guys in Syria.

I'd personally have us withdraw from what they claim to be 'their lands' and let them get on with it. I don't really think they want to come our way at all. It's our involvement in 'their' affairs that has them potentially looking our way.

The entire IS confuses me. We seem to be fighting and losing a proxy war with them where their supporters we back in other places. I'm sure there is a plan somewhere in all of this.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

123 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Yes and I'll have a Pagani Huayra within 11 months.

Jokes aside, if any terrorist group could get their hands on such a weapon it would be the Taliban in Pakistan given the influence jihadi groups have in the establishment over there. But even that is far fetched.


Starfighter

4,923 posts

178 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
jurbie said:
I always understood the dirty bomb to be a bit of an over rated idea because the radioactive particles will get spread over an area but not in a sufficient concentration to do any harm. Anybody getting a dangerous dose is most likely going to be killed by the blast anyway.

Ultimately there will be casualties from the blast and then inconvenience due to the clean up but the idea of a few square miles of a city being dangerously contaminated is pretty wide of the mark.
The damage / death / injury is not the primary purpose of this type of weapon. It is a weapon of terror. The mass panic near the scene would likely kill more than the blast and radiation as people try and get away and are killed in the crush, pushed under cars / trains etc. The other impact would be the changes in behavior that it would drive, mainly be security agencies being seen to do something. Think post 9-11 checks at airports.


Grumfutock

5,274 posts

165 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
jurbie said:
I always understood the dirty bomb to be a bit of an over rated idea because the radioactive particles will get spread over an area but not in a sufficient concentration to do any harm. Anybody getting a dangerous dose is most likely going to be killed by the blast anyway.

Ultimately there will be casualties from the blast and then inconvenience due to the clean up but the idea of a few square miles of a city being dangerously contaminated is pretty wide of the mark.
I think you underestimate the propaganda value of such an act!

s2art

18,937 posts

253 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
The articles I have read conclude that there is low (but not zero) chance of terrorists obtaining a nuclear device. Surely a bigger threat is the possibility of them obtaining nerve gas or similar from Syrian stocks. Imagine that being released into the Tube at rush hour.

superkartracer

8,959 posts

222 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Pistom said:
Daily Mail scaremongering.

It will never happen.
If NK ( with little ££ ) can build one, then ISIS with the billions is makes will purchase one, this is OLD tech now... only a matter of time.

Oh.. theres this -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-22/...

Edited by superkartracer on Saturday 23 May 20:46

exgtt

2,067 posts

212 months

Saturday 23rd May 2015
quotequote all
Could Isis provoke ww3 by obtaining "a couple of kg's of the right stuff" from a certain country? Wouldn't it be in Isis interest for the major world powers to blow each other to smitherines? I'll take that tin foil hat off soon....