Nuclear attack on UK or US.

[snyder]

If there is a nuclear attack in the U.S., I doubt anyone will take "credit" for it. There will be no need to do so -- res ipsa loquitor. I don't doubt, however, that the U.S. government would invent the taking of credit, just as it invented the WMD and terrorism "evidence" against Iraq to justify that imperial excursion.

[wannabe_bootneck]

I doubt the US would 'invent' someone nuking them, they'd use a pooling of intel the world would no doubt offer rapidly & then hunt the scum who did it down. I just had a thought though, if it's true that Bin Laden has acquired more than one nuke device, then I think one of 2 will happen.
A) Multiple attacks in the US in the key cities & NEw Yorks financial capital, as AQs ultimate goal is the bringing down of America as a superpower.
or B) Attack in the US & against a US ally i.e. the UK simultaneously, most likely New York & London financial district.
Since our nation now relies on the service economy & there's no real product to sell unlike in say mining. Then if the finance district is turned to rubble, we really will be up the creek without a paddle. Quite scary ey.

[goreD.]

I have a contact who has some sort of work with the security services in the UK, and he say, quote, "It is not a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN the UK will have a major terrorist attack."I honestly dont think the general public know the half of what goes on in the intelligence/security services and its a good thing too. For all we know, MI5 could be fighting a secret war on terrorism in the UK preventing near attacks everyday, and the only reason we dont know about it is to avoid widespread panic. James

It IS a matter of 'when' and not 'if'. That has come form our government (I didn't vote for them) and our top security experts.

The UK SIS are fighting these threats EVERY day. I am not trying to scaremonger here. The world is a far more dangerous place. No-one has ever attacked the mainland US by air previous to Al Q (except the Japs).
The cold war was a safe era !!!!

Gore.

[snyder]

If I were the enemy of the U.S. and wanted to destroy its status as a superpower, I would want to destroy a couple of American aircraft carriers on the open seas. I think this would be a lot harder to do than nuking a city. I also think it would be more damaging to the West in general and the U.S. specifically, because it would call into serious question the security of the sealanes and, by extension, the viability of all world trade.

[Redhand]

Could happen...

But most likely not. They've got those aircarft carriers secured up the a*s. Frogmen, Dolphins, you name it. I think they've learned they're lessons over that one.

I've always wondered, if they really want to piss off the American populace, why not start taking out celebrities? Maybe they don't comprehend their importance to alot of Americans.

But I think dropping Eminem or Tom Cruise or some other would have destabilizing affects, I honestly do. And theres no way, even with their money, they can allocate the security institutions can.

[Seven]

Drop Tom Cruise? That's got to be even more difficult than sinking an aircraft carier. Look at what he does in Mission Impossible. Combine that with what he does in The Last Samurai. That man is a killing machine.

[Kat =^..^=]

. . . The expertise and facilities needed are to great for a small number of terrorists to acquire, they would need help from a government . . .

The relationship between the Bin Ladens and the Saudi royal family is quite exceptional in that it not simply one of business ties: it is also a relationship of trust, of friendship and of shared secrets. This is particularly the case with regard to the group's present-day leaders and the Soudairi clan.

Thanks to the renovation of Mecca, Sheik Mohammed Bin Laden (Osama's Father) did not become merely Kin Abdul Aziz' official contractor, but his friend and confidant as well. This friendship has been handed down to their children. The Bin Laden sons went to the same schools as the numerous offspring of King Abdul Aziz and they all followed the same path.

One of the connections which still explains many of the personal ties existing throughout the Middle East is the Victoria College in Alexandria, where the Bin Laden boys attended classes along with schoolmates such as King Hussein of Jordan, Zaid Al Rifai, the Kashoggi brothers (whose father was one of the king's physicians), Kamal Adham (who ran the Saudi [security] services under King Faisal), present-day contractors Mohammed Al Attas, Fahd Shobokshi and Ghassan Sakr.

... Sorry you were saying something about a small group of terrorists? ...

[wannabe_bootneck]

Why would taking out an aircraft carrier ruin the US as a super power, of course not. It would be very damaging to the US & West in general as well as the credibility of the mighty US military, but as has been said, it would be very hard (though not impossible) also, the fact is, far more damaging to the West & US in particular would be destruction of one of the world's major financial centers i.e. New York. Money is what greases the wheels in this world. Without money, US military will fall apart as hardware's sold off etc. etc. Coupled with the fact that it's part of Al Qaeda's tactics against the West to attack financial centres, then expect to see London hit & New York again. A dirty bomb would make these financial centres unusable & largely unaccesible, therefore serverly screwing us.

[MrMitty]

Why would taking out an aircraft carrier ruin the US as a super power, of course not. It would be very damaging to the US & West in general as well as the credibility of the mighty US military, but as has been said, it would be very hard (though not impossible) also, the fact is, far more damaging to the West & US in particular would be destruction of one of the world's major financial centers i.e. New York. Money is what greases the wheels in this world. Without money, US military will fall apart as hardware's sold off etc. etc. Coupled with the fact that it's part of Al Qaeda's tactics against the West to attack financial centres, then expect to see London hit & New York again. A dirty bomb would make these financial centres unusable & largely unaccesible, therefore serverly screwing us.

This is true but all these companies have emegency storage and could be re-started anywhere in the world with a power source and phone lines.

Power sources and transport -thats what they would take out- no electricity for computers and no way to get to them anyway.

M

[wannabe_bootneck]

That may be, but look at the damage to the stock market taking out the WTC did, think about destroying, or making uninhabitable 1 or 2 of the world's major financial centres would do!?I honestly think anohter financial target will be up, plus wealth is a hallmark of the West, especially the US.

[snyder]

Why would taking out an aircraft carrier ruin the US as a super power, of course not. It would be very damaging to the US & West in general as well as the credibility of the mighty US military, but as has been said, it would be very hard (though not impossible) also, the fact is, far more damaging to the West & US in particular would be destruction of one of the world's major financial centers i.e. New York. Money is what greases the wheels in this world. Without money, US military will fall apart as hardware's sold off etc. etc. Coupled with the fact that it's part of Al Qaeda's tactics against the West to attack financial centres, then expect to see London hit & New York again. A dirty bomb would make these financial centres unusable & largely unaccesible, therefore serverly screwing us.

It would be devastating if New York or London or Washington were nuked. However, it would not mean the end of money. Financial markets don't depend on location to the extent that you think. It would take a while to rebuild them, but the rebuilding would certainly happen. Financial systems are much more flexible than you realize.

The reason I'd go after U.S. aircraft carriers is that, by sinking even two of them on the open ocean (doing it in port wouldn't be enough), an adversary would call into question the physical security of international trade. Presently, this security is provided by the United States Navy, and the Navy is built around its carriers. Most people don't think about this issue. They just assume the U.S. Navy, as if by magic.

Without sea lane security, the actual economy would start trembling in a serious way. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan depend almost entirely on world trade. China's new development is linked directly to trade with the U.S. and Europe. Middle Eastern oil shipments depend on the security of the sea lanes. Sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier on the open ocean, and then getting another one about six months later, would be the equivalent of defeating the Spanish Armada.

And yes, I have no doubt that the carriers are protected like crazy. Which means that if someone ever does sink two of them in the fashion I've discussed, the world would change and change quickly. Besides the dimunition of the American role and the consequences it would have for the West and its trading partners, the whole technology of naval security would come into question.

The disruption would dwarf the effect of an attack on a financial center. Frankly, I think the impact of a dirty bomb on NY or London would primarily be cultural rather than financial. On Washington it would be political. Take out a couple of aircraft carriers, and it would be military, political and economic all in one. Finance would follow.

[harry hackedoff]

I cannot ever see any terrorist organisation even contemplating taking out a U.S. Carrier. The whole purpose of a Carrier Battle Group is to provide a safe, mobile, base from which to project enormous Power. They were designed to take the worst that the Soviet Navy could throw at them and still be capable of Power Projection. The Carrier sits at the centre of multi-layered concentric defence, which extends upwards into space, and is virtually indestructable unless engaged by ICBMs in the mega-tonnage range. 747s entering the defensive "bubble" would be warned off by variose means before being shot down many miles away from the Carrier. Carrier Battle Groups have more war-fighting ability than most countrys have. They are not a terrorist target.
After 9/11 the money markets did not even hiccup. All of the senior figures were replaced within weeks and the system was running smoothly within days. Even if the whole of the market in London went, world trading would not flicker. That is the reality. Half of terrorism is in the threat, itself.

[MrMitty]

Harry

Is there much worry in Australia about terrorism etc?

On a more UK note this site is interesting.

http://www.londonprepared.gov.uk/antiterrorism/

M

[snyder]

Harry, I guess I'd have to agree with you, but the attack on the USS Cole had to have been a wakeup call. And yes, I know it would be a whole lot harder to bag a carrier. All I'm saying is that it would be one hell of a big deal if it happened. Now, the one thing I say is that I understand the U.S. Navy had to tell the submariners to quit sinking the carriers so often during the war games. Is it beyond imagining that a terror group could get hold of a submarine and preposition the thing along a route where carriers are known to pass?

[MrMitty]

Does Iran have submarines? Could they sink a carrier with one of them?

My guess is that they know what would happen if they did as sinking a carrier is pretty much a declaration of war isn't it.

M