Evaluating Al-Qaida’s Nuclear Strategy
I know … I know … It’s NPR.
I read over it. Seems ‘harmless’ enough …
I’m counting on you guys to blow holes in it, however.
[Their] biggest weapon against us doesn’t cost them a thing … not even spent energy.
It’s complacency … and a voluntary naivete of the September 10th mentality.
by Tom Gjelten - (NPR)
Of all the terrorist threats facing the United States, one stands in a category by itself. If al-Qaida set off a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city, there would be hundreds of thousands of casualties and a landscape uninhabitable for years to come.
A nuclear bomb is the one true weapon of mass destruction.
The likelihood of al-Qaida carrying out a nuclear attack involves two questions: First, does the group have the technical capability? And second, would it really want to use it?
As the top intelligence official at the Department of Energy, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is the man in the U.S. government whose job it is to worry about nuclear terrorism.
He does not think al-Qaida has a nuclear bomb in its arsenal yet. Acquiring one would be a challenge.
A Pro And A Con
As for the group’s thinking, Mowatt-Larssen imagines Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders sitting around a campfire somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan, debating whether a nuclear attack on the United States would be a good idea.
“I could hear a pro and a con emerging from that discussion,” Mowatt-Larssen says, with “some arguing that it would enhance, exalt the group’s standing historically, others arguing that it would be a disaster.”
Al-Qaida is sometimes portrayed as a terrorist group with an apocalyptic vision, intent mainly on destroying its enemies, without a focus on long-term goals of its own. But Mowatt-Larssen and other terrorism experts argue that it should be seen instead as acting strategically — at least from its own perspective.
A decision by al-Qaida leaders to carry out a nuclear attack would not be made lightly, he says.
“They would have to come to a conclusion, I believe, where they would justify the use of a nuclear or some other weapon of mass destruction in what they would consider rational terms,” Mowatt-Larssen says. “In other words, how it would help them fulfill specific goals they have, which I think are well established.”
Goals like destroying the U.S. economy, Mowatt-Larssen says, or shattering the United States’ sense of security.
This idea — that Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri and other al-Qaida leaders are proceeding thoughtfully — is gaining attention in intelligence circles.
An Intellectual Debate
Within the past year, Zawahiri in particular has allowed — even encouraged — an intellectual debate about how the radical Islamist movement should proceed. Most of it has been in the form of online discussions.
As research director at the center for combating terrorism at West Point, Jarrett Brachman has been following the al-Qaida comments.
“There have been a number of very important strategic writings, disseminated by the Internet, where they look at current American strategy and then they assess what their interests are and weigh the calculations,” Brachman says. “Does this help them or hurt them? Does it help us or hurt us?”
Some Muslim readers who have weighed in on the Internet debate have actually challenged al-Qaida leaders over their use of terrorism, questioning whether it’s morally acceptable under Islam.
Even those readers who sympathize with al-Qaida have wondered whether terrorist attacks serve al-Qaida’s strategic interests.
There has been some debate within this group, for example, about whether the Sept. 11 attacks were a good idea in hindsight — given that they prompted the U.S. to go to war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and destroy the group’s sanctuaries there.
Brachman says such considerations may influence al-Qaida leaders as they consider whether to hit the U.S. again — and how hard.
“That type of example — that we will react violently if the cost to the United States is high enough — shapes the way they calculate whether or not to use weapons of mass destruction in the future,” Brachman says. “There’s a certain threshold of pain we’re willing to accept, and if you exceed it we will respond aggressively. And I think they are trying to keep the pain that they’re inflicting on us below a certain threshold at this point.”
Acceptable Use Of A Nuclear Weapon
In 2003, a radical Saudi cleric did issue a fatwa, or religious edict, saying that the use of a nuclear weapon against the U.S. would be acceptable, even if it caused mass civilian casualties. But the fatwa has not been renewed in the five years since. Brachman says this may well reflect a deliberate calculation on the part of al-Qaida leaders.
“Using a nuclear device in the U.S., the strategists within al-Qaida know, would cause such a backlash that it may not actually be in their strategic interest to do that right now,” Brachman says.
But neither Brachman nor other terrorism experts who monitor al-Qaida thinking can be certain what conclusions the group will reach.
Mowatt-Larssen says he is operating on the assumption that al-Qaida still intends to acquire a nuclear weapon — and to use it against the U.S.
“I personally think that even a terrorist group using a nuclear weapon would not be able to accomplish any objectives if they think through the problem properly,” Mowatt-Larssen says. “It would plunge the world into a place that I believe ultimately would not serve al-Qaida’s interests any more than it would serve a state who would use a nuclear weapon, but I’ll to leave that up to al-Qaida. I do feel confident they have that intent, and that is the intent we worry about.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
This article gives AQ way too much credit for one thing. Saying they think strategically and sit around wondering if hitting the US with a nuke would be in their best interest. I dont believe they think like this for one second. even referring to clerics issuing religious fatwas and the fact that it hasnt been reissued in 5 years means they thought better of the idea.
AQ is in no position right now to become picky or intellectual about their struggle. they are a group in serious trouble and have been defeated big time in one country already.
Drill, you were right, this article is harmless but the thoughts raised in it are either naive or an attempt by some to downplay the threat.
I would bet everything i own that AQ would use the bomb if they had one, and i dont believe they are sitting in a cave having round table discussions.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:14 am“This idea — that Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri and other al-Qaida leaders are proceeding thoughtfully — is gaining attention in intelligence circles.”
>>That is because we have kicked their ass to Iraq and back to the ’stan. Also because much of the nation of Iraq has seen and rejected the inhuman savagery that is the calling card of alqueeda.
In response to that ass kicking I see them needing the nukes more than ever.
They want it and will use it ASAP. The rallied the masses when they hit the great satan hard on 9/11. Another even greater hit will help raise their stature in the arab world and help restore them in the eyes of the masses.
How would we respond? We will want to but really cannot just nuke the hell out of the areas we think they are in. They likely know this.
It will make the progress in Iraq come to a full stop. To me Iraq is proceeding nicely in the larger picture as envisioned, to have a progressive democracy in the middle of those dictatorships. We have helped empower the people of Iraq to own their own destiny and if we attack their ‘people’ with nukes we may lose most if not all we have gained.
This is not 24 where we can hold a nuke against some nations leaders head and suddenly they help us.
Re the comment:
“Using a nuclear device in the U.S., the strategists within al-Qaida know, would cause such a backlash that it may not actually be in their strategic interest to do that right now,” Brachman says.
I have always found humor in the ‘big brain’ crowd trying to place our conventional reasoning into their thought pattern.
They are like a rabid dog loose in your town. You do not reason with it, thinking it will behave in the manner you wish if you give it a pig ear. You kill it as soon as possible.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:17 amOh Goodie can’t wait to have tea and brunch with them!! I’ll convince them to change their 1400yr old ideology of death and destruction of Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, Black Muslims overnight. You know trade in their thermonuclear ambitions for more humble cave dwelling thermostats. Then we can give them new silky threads after I further convince them to turn down their new found warmth to heal the world’s rising oceans; while I’m at it heck let’s ask them kindly to inflate their tires and agree never to visit wounded Marines ever!! When all is said and done they can then kiss my ring and praise Obama-O-Great-One!! Obama-O..
// channeling Barry-Hussein-Obama Off..
No AQ = zero AQ ambitions or threats. Find em, smoke em, tear these raghead pukes new a-holes.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:25 amThey don’t need “The Bomb” folks.
All they need is several pounds of enriched uranium, steal or charter a plane, and detonate the plane at 20,000 feet upwind of a major US city.
THAT is pretty much how they are going to do it.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:26 amOne Shot is on it. Simple, cheap and a very small footprint for intel to find.
Box cutters took down the WTC.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:46 am“They are like a rabid dog loose in your town. You do not reason with it, thinking it will behave in the manner you wish if you give it a pig ear. You kill it as soon as possible.”
Can’t agree more. You don’t hope you won’t get bit this time, although you were bitten last time. You put the animal down before it can cause further harm.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:02 amI agree … Won’t have to be a ‘mushroon’ cloud …
Just a highly toxic cloud of nuke debris scattered over a crowded and panicked city or two or three …
The WHOLE nation would react with a panic that just might mirror what has been seen in upside-down places such as post-hurricane New Orleans and post-trial riots on the West Coast …
Oh, and air traffic would once again be grounded indefinitely.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:52 amUranium, even enriched, is not very radioactive. You need a much more active element to make a “good” dirty bomb:
August 7th, 2008 at 8:41 amhttp://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/11/oh_no_not_another_uranium_dirt.php
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/non-proliferation%20and%20arms%20control/uraniumdirtybombs.html
Well, what Mr. Mowatt-Larssen forgets is that terrorists do not think the way we all think. Their mind psychologically is turned and twisted around and you can never know what will be the next move a terrorist. That is why it is so hard to disrupt terrorist organizations.
There is so much unsecured nuclear material in the world, so many labs and research institutions have some quantities of weapons-grade uranium and yet, their security and monitoring system is poor. Another scenario often forgotten is a computer system collapse and as an outcome - a launch of a nuclear missile towards or from the US sight. Who can 100% guarantee that US, Russian or Chinese electronic systems are secured enough and there is no a computer genius there, who can break through the system?
How about material (only 55 pounds of HEU = a soccer ball) get from Pakistan to al Qaeda hands and then to the US. A gun-type devise is not difficult to assemble, basic instructions are available on-line and US ports are not secured enough. If one can bring drugs, one can bring a little device as well.
It is critical to talk about nuclear terrorism, promote global reduction of nuclear stockpiles,educate the general public, ask the D.C. decision makers to address the problem. In all that, however, one should not to exaggerated the issue, but think positive, creative and outside the bomb.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:32 am