Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Would Al Qaeda Use Nuclear Weapons?
DGreat1    8/11/2008 3:53:42 PM
Al Qaeda and Nuclear Weapons: Does Acquisition Equal Use? Would the use of nuclear weapons serve Osama bin Ladens overarching goal of rallying the faithful to a new Muslim Caliphate? There are many analysts who are of the opinion that the use of nuclear weapons would alienate potential supporters of Al Qaeda. However, we must remain cognizant of the fact that the support that Al Qaeda enjoys has been obtained through terror and there is no reason to suggest that Al Qaeda could not use a nuclear attack to facilitate capitulation on the part of Muslims. Bin Laden and his immediate lieutenants might, under some conditions, regard nuclear weapons as too valuable to detonate. This assessment is categorically false, as Al Qaeda would be in a position to establish a Muslim Caliphate overnight if they were able to launch a successful nuclear strike. Many Islamic nations would be willing to make major concessions in return for nuclear weapons technology, therefore, putting Al Qaeda in a position to wield significant influence over several Islamic states simultaneously. Additionally, Al Qaeda would be faced with a use or lose proposition in regards to any nuclear weapon they develop or obtain due to the high probability that America would take preemptive action against them in order to separate them from their nuclear arsenal. Nuclear possession but nonuse also could open up new options for Bin Laden Any attempt by Al Qaeda to pursue options based only on the threat of a nuclear attack would give the proponents of the global war on terror time to launch potentially decisive and or disabling attacks against them. Bin Laden realizes that he has gone too far in regards to terrorism to ever be able to deter America from attempting to eliminate him while also destroying Al Qaeda. The acquisition of nuclear weapons will only strengthen the resolve of America. Armed conflict is the only option for both Bin Laden and Al Qaeda if they are to survive. Al Qaeda will have to seize power in at least one Islamic state in order to realize their goal of acquiring nuclear weapons The success of A. Q. Khans proliferation network thoroughly refutes this assessment. In fact, Khans network has made it possible for Al Qaeda to acquire valuable nuclear weapons technology independently from various rogue and terror sponsoring nations that had dealings with Khan. Reference Dunn, A. Lewis. Can Al Qaeda be Deterred from Using Nuclear Weapons? Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction 2008
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
JFKY       8/11/2008 4:27:27 PM
Sure, why not?  As stateless actors they have little to NOTHING to lose if a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb is employed....
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       8/11/2008 5:10:58 PM
I agree with you but you would probably be shocked to see how many WMD experts have been taken in by the idea that muslims wouldn't  support a nuclear attack. Some wouldn't but many of them would. Especially those fundamentalist contingents in Iran, Pakistan and Syria.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/11/2008 5:27:10 PM
There are many analysts who are of the opinion that the use of nuclear weapons would alienate potential supporters of Al Qaeda.
 
Right, because the risk of alienating potential supporters totally stopped al Qaeda from killing tens of thousands of fellow Muslims (sorry, "involuntary martyrs").  Bzzt, sorry, thank you for playing.
 
Any attempt by Al Qaeda to pursue options based only on the threat of a nuclear attack would give the proponents of the global war on terror time to launch potentially decisive and or disabling attacks against them.
 
More decisive than driving them out of every country in which they operate, destroying their funding, killing their leaders, and forcing them into hiding in the mountains of Pakistan?  Al Qaeda doesn't have cities, factories, or infrastructure for us to threaten.
 
Whoever wrote the second half of that article has no idea what they are talking about.  They are trying to ascribe Western values (the fear of alienating others) and nation-like traits (being susceptible to "decisive attacks") to an organization that has neither.
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       8/11/2008 6:59:19 PM
the risk of alienating potential supporters totally stopped al Qaeda from killing tens of thousands of fellow Muslims (sorry, "involuntary martyrs"). 
Not true. Al Qaeda has already issued a fatwa that supports killing an indiscriminant amount of muslims for the greater cause of Islam. That doesn't sound to compassionate to me.
 
Al Qaeda doesn't have cities, factories, or infrastructure for us to threaten.
 
You are very naive. Al Qaeda has taken over quite a few cities and they have their own factories with which they can develop nuclear weapons. We can't be everywhere at once which is why Al Qaeda has gotten stronger. As far as infrastructure goes,when the current controversy with President Musharraf is over whether he is impeached or not, you are going to see that Al Qaeda supporters in the Pakistani government, military and security forces have been behind the scenes for quite a while setting the stage for the current takeover attempt in addition to being  behind the assassination attempts. As was the case in Afghanistan before 9/11, Al Qaeda has ascended to nation state governance behind the veneer of Sunni Islam. When you look at the Pakistani government you are looking at Al Qaeda. Ask any CIA intelligence agent. Al Qaeda is very good at infiltration.It is going to be very difficult to keep the Pakistani Al Qaeda contingent from gaining control over Pakistans nuclear arsenal.    
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       8/11/2008 9:35:59 PM
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  To clarify:
 
I said: the risk of alienating potential supporters totally stopped al Qaeda from killing tens of thousands of fellow Muslims (sorry, "involuntary martyrs"). 
 
I was being sarcastic there.  Obviously, al Qaeda has killed tens of thousands of fellow Muslims, and they clearly do not have any problem killing Muslims or anyone else.  They obviously don't care if they "alienate potential supporters of Al Qaeda".

I said: Al Qaeda doesn't have cities, factories, or infrastructure for us to threaten.

What I meant by that is that they do not have their own factories or infrastructure.  Sure, they may well have infiltrated facilities in other countries, but we can't just go bombing those places in retaliation or in order to preempt an attack by al Qaeda.  In other words, al Qaeda doesn't have large, fixed targets that we can threaten.  So the idea that they could be deterred by the potential for "decisive and or disabling attacks against them" is just plain wrong.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       8/12/2008 3:40:11 AM
Yes, how else are they going to get 50 virgins???
 
Quote    Reply

Zhukov       8/17/2008 8:44:36 PM

If Al Qaeda gained control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and used it against the US , Israel,or India , all of Pakistan's cities would resemble Hiroshima after Little boy was dropped. Even if they had control but didn't use it, the US and India would never tolerate such a situation and IMHO it would be a certainty both would invade Pakistan. As for Al Qaeda's ability to obtain nuclear weapons without assistance from a supporting nation, this could also be stopped.  There are enough people who if they could provide nuclear weapons  to terrorists, would not if  the price of their actions is their own deaths and/or the deaths of loved ones. Israel has proven that even the most fanatical  appearing muslim terrorists leaders become much less fanatical if they genuinely fear for their lives or the lives of their families. It's human nature to be more aggressive and threatening if you aren't the one who will pay with your life.

 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       8/17/2008 10:54:56 PM
"There are enough people who if they could provide nuclear weapons  to terrorists, would not if  the price of their actions is their own deaths and/or the deaths of loved ones."
 
Russia is providing Iran with nuclear technology that could in a peripheral sense lead to the development of nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to be threatening Russia. A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network proved that you don't need a nation state to successfully proliferate nuclear weapons technology. He was just one man.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics