If al-Qaeda had nukes, where would they use them?

Use of Nuclear devices would not be a good enough excuse to use Nukes. The military and the State department would be opposed and with no real target to attack just blasting someone who supported them in the past would be silly. American can do far more damage with ROV's and with far less negative reaction. The Americans can play victim to the hilt and pound on various enemies conventionally and point out it did not resort to the use of Nuke as it being a good member of the world community
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
No Nuke's would be used on US soil by Al Q'aida as any country with any common sense wouldn't give them to the franchise in the first place as it would involve a full second strike against that nation who supplied the device or devices.

Why? simple.

Have you watched "The Sum of All Fears", "Octopussy" and "The Fourth Protocol"?

Despite the so called "Fourth Protocol" being a fictional agreement between the superpowers, all Nuclear states share each others samples from everyone's reactors and weapons facilities to stop this from happening.

In the "Sum of All Fears" Ryan played by Ben Affleck (I much rather prefer Harrison Ford) after the attack on Baltimore gets samples of the device and after a short process finds out that the weapons core actually came from Israel via Savannah USA.

Although Hollywood might lay it on thick and "jazz it up", this system is actually in place to stop this type of thing happening.

If Al Qaida did get a device to use, lets for sake of argument from North Korea and did use it, you can bet your bottom dollar that in less than 24 hours North Korea would be "glassed"

Regards filers
 

Puzzle

Donor
Well the US wouldn't even pretend to care about nation-building after a nuclear strike. They'd have a list of suspected names, and if any country has one they either give them to the US or special forces and cruise missiles start showing up. Probably fewer American casualties, but a much more brutal response. I don't think there'd be US nukes or even large scale conventional strikes, just people vanishing into black sites and assassinations across the world.
 
No Nuke's would be used on US soil by Al Q'aida as any country with any common sense wouldn't give them to the franchise in the first place as it would involve a full second strike against that nation who supplied the device or devices.

Only if you pretend that the only way for a group to acquire a nuclear weapon is by the weapon being voluntarily given to said group.
 
Only if you pretend that the only way for a group to acquire a nuclear weapon is by the weapon being voluntarily given to said group.
It's sure as hell going to involve the US Ambassador knocking down the door of the leader's office demanding to know how Al Qaeda got hold of a nuclear weapon, what they're doing about it. Failure to give a satisfactory answer doesn't necessarily mean a nuking, though that's an option, but it could easily mean the United States taking over that country's nuclear weapons infrastructure in the interests of security - the question is whether they take that control using smiles and handshakes or M1 tanks and F-15s.

A symbolic use of one or more low-yield tactical weapons against known Al Qaeda leadership targets is reasonably possible, but not guaranteed - it would depend on suitable (low collateral damage) targets existing. The political benefits of doing so are clear, provided that the downsides can be minimised.
 

Puzzle

Donor
Pakistan doesn't have the tech for suitcase nukes and even the existence of Soviet ones is tenuous at best. Logistically, I'm not sure Al-qaeda or any other terrorist could get a hold of a nuclear weapon that they could actually deliver. Unless the asb's magick up a bomber fleet too this is Hollywood action movie stuff.
The classic nuclear bomb in a shipping container seems plausible. I don't know how advanced the infrastructure was in the ports prior to 9/11 but considering people get shipped through Houston still I doubt a heavily shielded nuke can't be brought ashore and trucked up from some random ship.
 
The problem is that the smaller a nuclear weapon is, the more maintenance is required. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Al-Qaeda had nowhere near the infrastructure to

1. Locate a nuclear weapon
2. Steal it without anyone noticing
3. Transport it out of the country without anyone noticing
4. Get it to the west without anyone noticing
5. Debark it without anyone noticing
6. Deliver it to a target

By the time they did, the delicate machinery has degraded. All they've got is a dud. And even if that weren't the case doing all this requires terrorists who are several orders of magnitude more competent than the slapstick fucketeers we have seen so far involved in radical Islam.

Possible 747 used as a delivery system?

747 + small nuke /= Hiroshima. It equals some radioactive scrap at the bomb site. Fewer health impacts than the 9/11 rescuers had in OTL.
 

trurle

Banned
The most plausible scenario for Al Qaeda ending up having several nukes i can imagine is the US crushing the Iran. In the resulting chaos, nearly all Iranian-produced Uranium or even pre-built bombs can "disappear". Also, some now stateless Iranian officers can bring to Al Qaeda even delivery vehicles (like tactical ballistic missiles). In this case, plausible strategy would be to mount several nuclear-tipped Scud launchers on rented freight ship, go around the Cape of Good hope and ... where was the closest target? Florida? With largest cities Jacksonville and Miami? Fire now, may be the US bombers are already homing on us!
On Al Qaeda leaders place, i would not try to attack New York after 9/11. Risk of outright failure (due leaked data or anti-missiles) is too high. It makes a good repeat target several months later as US ABM would be spread along the coasts after attack on Florida.
 
In this case, plausible strategy would be to mount several nuclear-tipped Scud launchers on rented freight ship, go around the Cape of Good hope and ... where was the closest target? Florida? With largest cities Jacksonville and Miami?
Just for reference, using that strategy the target is 'Continental USA', and expected hit rate is about 50%. With an unstabilised launcher firing from an uncertain position and heading, there's a terrifyingly high chance of the missile heading off in the wrong direction. And that's without allowing for the effects of the marine environment on the missile and launcher.

If we're doing this with ex-Iranian gear, I'd almost be inclined to put the weapon in a midget submarine - something like a Ghadir class - and tow it behind and beneath a merchant ship. Put the mission crew aboard well offshore and break the tow, then sail submerged into New York, Washington or Charleston to collect your 72 virgins. The risk of discovery is still there but about as low as it can reasonably get, and the chance of the weapon winding up close to the target is reasonably high.
 

trurle

Banned
Just for reference, using that strategy the target is 'Continental USA', and expected hit rate is about 50%. With an unstabilised launcher firing from an uncertain position and heading, there's a terrifyingly high chance of the missile heading off in the wrong direction. And that's without allowing for the effects of the marine environment on the missile and launcher.

If we're doing this with ex-Iranian gear, I'd almost be inclined to put the weapon in a midget submarine - something like a Ghadir class - and tow it behind and beneath a merchant ship. Put the mission crew aboard well offshore and break the tow, then sail submerged into New York, Washington or Charleston to collect your 72 virgins. The risk of discovery is still there but about as low as it can reasonably get, and the chance of the weapon winding up close to the target is reasonably high.
This is a reasonable plan if you will have a submarine. Plus staff capable of piloting it. Just i estimate what US overlooking to destroy during Iranian campaign something as large as 120-tons submarine (vs. 15 tons for Scud launcher) would be proportionally slimmer, therefore most escaped nuclear warheads would be without a submarine in kit.
 
Top