Ok so it doesn't have to be a b52 it is just the only american thing i could think of that had nukes on it so if it is easier to load a nuke on a lear jet, and accurately hit a target from thousands of feet up then have it that way, Although if you think it would be easier to steal a russian bomber then what if it was a russian bomber?
Nuclear Blast in Mecca
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Xen
Banned
B-52's arent likely to deliver nukes anymore, we'd most likely launch it from a silo somewhere in the mid-west if it comes down to it, God forbid. But if we were to deliver it in a plane, though the B-52 is capable, it would most likely be from the B-1 Lancer or one of our stealths, the F-117 Nighthawk or the B-2 Spirit. I think there was a movie about something similiar to this, its called Broken Aarrow and stars John Travolta and Christian Slater.
Grey Wolf: It was "Linebacker", not "Rickenbacker"
Leaving aside the practicality of hijacking a B-52/B-1B/B-2/etc. (and by the way, firing a nuke from a silo is MUCH tougher - which is to say twice impossible - but lets let that pass), has anyone considered that this would quite possibly change NOTHING. The Muslim world is going to hate us (wow, now that is a big change of pace...), the EUnicks will condem us, and the rest of the world will look politely pained and pretend that they don't know us. Lets see, this is different in what sense than what we face now? Lets be blunt, if something like this occurred, we would apologize (endlessly, I suspect), offer restitution (which would predictably be judged to be inadequate no matter how much we ponied up), and then go about our business. We aren't going to commit national suicide or open ourselves to blackmail in the future by giving up our nukes, and we aren't going to significantly alter our national security priorities. The victims of this sort of tragedy (and make no mistake about it, it would be a tragedy) would be unlikely to forgive us in any event.
Leaving aside the practicality of hijacking a B-52/B-1B/B-2/etc. (and by the way, firing a nuke from a silo is MUCH tougher - which is to say twice impossible - but lets let that pass), has anyone considered that this would quite possibly change NOTHING. The Muslim world is going to hate us (wow, now that is a big change of pace...), the EUnicks will condem us, and the rest of the world will look politely pained and pretend that they don't know us. Lets see, this is different in what sense than what we face now? Lets be blunt, if something like this occurred, we would apologize (endlessly, I suspect), offer restitution (which would predictably be judged to be inadequate no matter how much we ponied up), and then go about our business. We aren't going to commit national suicide or open ourselves to blackmail in the future by giving up our nukes, and we aren't going to significantly alter our national security priorities. The victims of this sort of tragedy (and make no mistake about it, it would be a tragedy) would be unlikely to forgive us in any event.
the entire Muslim world doesn't hate us... the Arab part of it has some extremists who do, but most of them around the world don't. If Mecca was nuked by an American weapon, that would change overnight...
Very unlikely scenario, but...
Here is the laundry list of the consequences:
1. I would think that the world response would be similar to that shown toward Jews after the Holocaust. Essentially, the those within the Islamic community would given a "free pass" with respect to their behavior towards other nations for about 4 or 5 years.
2. The rule of the House of Saud would fall to an Islamic Theocracy. The conservatives in Iran would probably start exherting more influence. Basically any country with an Islamic majority would be on the brink of an Islamic Revolution.
3. The US would be considered a pryah for many years to come. The EU and many of our neighbors would distance themselves from us. I would expect us to forge stronger ties to China and other countries that have secular governments with degrees of police state tendencies. Nuclear proliferation treaties would be scrapped and I would expect many nations to acquire nukes as a deterrant to the US.
Here is the laundry list of the consequences:
1. I would think that the world response would be similar to that shown toward Jews after the Holocaust. Essentially, the those within the Islamic community would given a "free pass" with respect to their behavior towards other nations for about 4 or 5 years.
2. The rule of the House of Saud would fall to an Islamic Theocracy. The conservatives in Iran would probably start exherting more influence. Basically any country with an Islamic majority would be on the brink of an Islamic Revolution.
3. The US would be considered a pryah for many years to come. The EU and many of our neighbors would distance themselves from us. I would expect us to forge stronger ties to China and other countries that have secular governments with degrees of police state tendencies. Nuclear proliferation treaties would be scrapped and I would expect many nations to acquire nukes as a deterrant to the US.
Brilliantlight
Banned
I think this is more then twice impossible, remember all nukes have a launch code. Without knowing that you got a dud. There are a whole of fail-safes up and down the line to prevent it being hacked. I wouldn't be suprised if the thing would self destruct and you would have the equivlent of a radiation bomb a few miles up.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
I don't see it making the US an international pariah. We, or rather our good name among nations, would be seen as being victims of the terrorists as much as the actual dead, much as Saudi is seen by most of the world today. There would be those who would blame us for having bred these terrorists in the first place, just as there are those who blame the Saudis.
The main concern of the world, however, would be the successful use of the nuclear option by terrorists. The war on terror in general would be ramped up several notches worldwide with a lot more security everywhere and a lot less concern for rights.I can see UN resolutions that prescribe the immediate and overwhelming use of force against any nation that does not act quickly and decisively to root out terrorists of any kind within its own borders.
The War on Terrorism would acquire a very big and well publicised domestic component in the US. Anyone even slightly connected with violent right wing terrorism in the US would be facing some hard times.
The main concern of the world, however, would be the successful use of the nuclear option by terrorists. The war on terror in general would be ramped up several notches worldwide with a lot more security everywhere and a lot less concern for rights.I can see UN resolutions that prescribe the immediate and overwhelming use of force against any nation that does not act quickly and decisively to root out terrorists of any kind within its own borders.
The War on Terrorism would acquire a very big and well publicised domestic component in the US. Anyone even slightly connected with violent right wing terrorism in the US would be facing some hard times.
A nuclear explosion in Mecca- it wouldn´t be of any significance if the bomb was really a us-made or not.
For Al-Qaida and the other fundamentalists, it would be clear that the culprits were US/CIA/MOSSAD/Vatican/Evil Crusaders from the west
(pick your favorite)
The same applies to european media.
it would fit into the classic pattern:
The US are guilty if they did anything
or
they are guilty of not doing something.
For Al-Qaida and the other fundamentalists, it would be clear that the culprits were US/CIA/MOSSAD/Vatican/Evil Crusaders from the west
(pick your favorite)
The same applies to european media.
it would fit into the classic pattern:
The US are guilty if they did anything
or
they are guilty of not doing something.
The Arab world's nations are packed with Soviet SAMs bought in response to Israel's air superiority and designed back in the 60s and 70s with the B52 in mind. Not to mention Patriots in Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a number off high-altitude interceptors in the air forces of those countries. If the US send out a message to Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait (and their own forces in the region which, right now, are considerable), I don't think a rogue B52 has a chance of getting through. Even under cover of US fighter squardonas, they don't let them operate over enemy territory much any more. They use cruise missiles as standoff weapons.
However, I think the idea of a Christian Fundamentalist group nuking Mecca is just disturbingly plausible enough. A suitcase nuke could be smuggled in, or a private aircraft used. It would be challenging, though.
- To my knowledge there has as yet been no proven case of weapons-grade fissile material destined for terrorist hands. There have been cases of interception of materioals going into dubious channels, and some material has disappeared, but those were, AFAIR, destined for nation states, not terrorists. If I were a Russian mafioso, or just a colonel inthe Strategic Rocket Forces with a lousy retirement package, I might consider selling a warhead to Saddam Hussein or a few pounds of Plutonium to Kim Jong Il. After all, they just want to have it. But terrorists want to use it - the risk to all involved is much higher. think of the pressurebrought to bear to find the perpetrators after 9-11 and multiply. Al Qaida wouldn't get as much as a phosphorescent watch from me
- Saudi Security is probably not as good as it would like to think, but it is better than its record with Islamic terrorism suggests. A Christian group can not count on sympathisers, even of the 'I don't really want to know' variety. Either they are very good indeed, or they find a method of delivery that does not require any actual preparatory work in the country.
- Methods of delivery do not include just flying it in. THe sky over the Middle East is fairly thoroughly watched. Back in the late 80s, a MiG pilot ejected over East Germany and his leaderless, damaged plane made it all the way to Holland. Even at such short notice (less than 45 minutes for the whole business), the air defenses noticed it from the second it crossed into West German airspace and tracked it all the way to its impact. I would think Saudi Arabia to be a lot more trigger-happy where unidentified aircraft are concerned.
- During the Hajj, it is easy to get to Mecca IF you are a Muslim (if you are not, you need the kind of special permit that only really senior people can obtain for you). Could they set up someone with a convincing Muslim identity? I think it would be possible, but again, not easy. Especially given the kind of interest Western services take in converts these days.
My scenario: A group of anti-Muslim terrorists con a Russian seller into thinking they represent a rogue nation (say Myanmar) intersted in obtaining fissile material. They manage to smuggle it to Western Europe and there assemble a simple nuclear device and a timed trigger. That way, they evade the unpredictable checks at US ports and, with luck, the more relaxed controls at the German-Polish border. Still, this is the most high-risk aspect of the business. They then set up a trading company as a front, delivering machine tools or other technical goods to the Middle East. This will take a good deal of capital, but should not be too hard. They then need to secure a contract that will result in a consignment being delivered to Mecca during the Hajj. THe container is loaded with the bomb and filled up with genuine merchandise and sent out by sea, legit, through Rotterdam or Hamburg (not a smaller port - volume means security). Timed to explode on a certain day, all you need to do now is trust in the punctuiality of your delivery company.
Much more scarily, this method of delivery should also work for places like Liverpool, London, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Singapore, Hong Kong, New York or San Francisco.
However, I think the idea of a Christian Fundamentalist group nuking Mecca is just disturbingly plausible enough. A suitcase nuke could be smuggled in, or a private aircraft used. It would be challenging, though.
- To my knowledge there has as yet been no proven case of weapons-grade fissile material destined for terrorist hands. There have been cases of interception of materioals going into dubious channels, and some material has disappeared, but those were, AFAIR, destined for nation states, not terrorists. If I were a Russian mafioso, or just a colonel inthe Strategic Rocket Forces with a lousy retirement package, I might consider selling a warhead to Saddam Hussein or a few pounds of Plutonium to Kim Jong Il. After all, they just want to have it. But terrorists want to use it - the risk to all involved is much higher. think of the pressurebrought to bear to find the perpetrators after 9-11 and multiply. Al Qaida wouldn't get as much as a phosphorescent watch from me
- Saudi Security is probably not as good as it would like to think, but it is better than its record with Islamic terrorism suggests. A Christian group can not count on sympathisers, even of the 'I don't really want to know' variety. Either they are very good indeed, or they find a method of delivery that does not require any actual preparatory work in the country.
- Methods of delivery do not include just flying it in. THe sky over the Middle East is fairly thoroughly watched. Back in the late 80s, a MiG pilot ejected over East Germany and his leaderless, damaged plane made it all the way to Holland. Even at such short notice (less than 45 minutes for the whole business), the air defenses noticed it from the second it crossed into West German airspace and tracked it all the way to its impact. I would think Saudi Arabia to be a lot more trigger-happy where unidentified aircraft are concerned.
- During the Hajj, it is easy to get to Mecca IF you are a Muslim (if you are not, you need the kind of special permit that only really senior people can obtain for you). Could they set up someone with a convincing Muslim identity? I think it would be possible, but again, not easy. Especially given the kind of interest Western services take in converts these days.
My scenario: A group of anti-Muslim terrorists con a Russian seller into thinking they represent a rogue nation (say Myanmar) intersted in obtaining fissile material. They manage to smuggle it to Western Europe and there assemble a simple nuclear device and a timed trigger. That way, they evade the unpredictable checks at US ports and, with luck, the more relaxed controls at the German-Polish border. Still, this is the most high-risk aspect of the business. They then set up a trading company as a front, delivering machine tools or other technical goods to the Middle East. This will take a good deal of capital, but should not be too hard. They then need to secure a contract that will result in a consignment being delivered to Mecca during the Hajj. THe container is loaded with the bomb and filled up with genuine merchandise and sent out by sea, legit, through Rotterdam or Hamburg (not a smaller port - volume means security). Timed to explode on a certain day, all you need to do now is trust in the punctuiality of your delivery company.
Much more scarily, this method of delivery should also work for places like Liverpool, London, Hamburg, Rotterdam, Singapore, Hong Kong, New York or San Francisco.