Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tired of Waiting

Wikileaks: Us And Uk Fear Over Terrorists Acquiring Nuclear Weapons

Recommended Posts

This may end up being the most powerful reason for renting (away from London :D ),

and for keeping most of our savings in Switzerland.

Seriously now, if we remember that Risk = Probability x Impact, then this is serious.

Guardian front page, latest WikiLeaks:

"US and UK fear over security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-pakistan-nuclear-fears

The cable said Leslie thought nuclear proliferation was the greater danger to the world, but it "ranks lower than terrorism on the public's list of perceived threats".

Another senior British official at the meeting, Jon Day, the Ministry of Defence's director general for security policy, said recent intelligence indicated Pakistan was "not going in a good direction".

The Russians shared concerns Pakistan was "highly unstable". Yuri Korolev, from the Russian foreign ministry, told US officials: "Islamists are not only seeking power in Pakistan but are also trying to get their hands on nuclear materials."

Speaking in February in Washington, he called for the problem of Pakistani nuclear sites to be addressed in ongoing missile control talks, claiming: "Over the last few years extremists have attacked vehicles that carry staff to and from these facilities. Some were killed and a number were abducted and there has been no trace seen of them."

Korolev said: "There are 120,000-130,000 people directly involved in Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes … There is no way to guarantee that all are 100% loyal and reliable."

He claimed extremists were now recruiting more easily: "Pakistan has had to hire people to protect nuclear facilities that have especially strict religious beliefs, and recently the general educational and cultural levels in Pakistan has been falling."

These fears are expressed in the secret state department files against a backdrop of Pakistani determination to build more nuclear warheads.

• The ambassador starkly informed Washington that "no amount of money" from the US would stop the Pakistani army backing Islamist militants and the Afghan Taliban insurgency.

(...)

US fears over Pakistan were spelled out in an intelligence briefing in 2008. "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world," the secret cable said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though there is a very "explosive" link with London's property value:

London 'is top terrorist target'

London is at greater risk of a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists than New York or Washington, a new study claims.

Terrorists are also more likely to target the capital than any other city in Western Europe, the report analysing security in 195 countries around the world said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-201787/London-terrorist-target.html#ixzz16qMO0Lku

The only silver lining is that apparently Pakistan's nuclear weapons are still very heavy and big, not suitable for the "nuke in a suitcase scenario". Though a boat up the Thames could carry one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta be frightened of something...

Is a neutral Country, like say, Switzerland, under threat from Islam?

We could easily reduce to defending our borders, become neutral.

Oh, but what about the evil Arab capturing the oil....hold on, for the evil Arab to capitalise on the Oil, he needs to sell it...to us....

better to be impartial and just trade what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta be frightened of something...

Is a neutral Country, like say, Switzerland, under threat from Islam?

We could easily reduce to defending our borders, become neutral.

Oh, but what about the evil Arab capturing the oil....hold on, for the evil Arab to capitalise on the Oil, he needs to sell it...to us....

better to be impartial and just trade what we need.

like for example Tibet ..... well done ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rummy2.jpg

UK/US sells/sold weapons to such oppressive regimes as Israel, Saudi, Uganda, Chile, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Iran, Russia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Pakistan, Turkey etc..

Who gives a crap really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqBOMBSDQsI

If you really want to crow a conscience, do something about your own government and it's support of the death trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta be frightened of something...

Is a neutral Country, like say, Switzerland, under threat from Islam?

We could easily reduce to defending our borders, become neutral.

Oh, but what about the evil Arab capturing the oil....hold on, for the evil Arab to capitalise on the Oil, he needs to sell it...to us....

better to be impartial and just trade what we need.

Not a very reliable source in itself, but if someone is interested, it is a starting point, needing confirmation though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Russian suitcase nukes

In 1997, former Russian National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed made public claims about lost "suitcase nukes" following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an interview with the newsmagazine 60 Minutes, Lebed said:

I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know.[citation needed]

:o

However, the Russian government immediately rejected Lebed's claims. Russia's Ministry for Atomic Energy went so far as to dispute that suitcase nuclear weapons had even ever been developed by the Soviet Union. Later testimony however insinuated that the suitcase bombs had been under the control of the KGB and not the army or the atomic energy ministry, so they might not know of their existence. Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Barbara Walters in 2001, stated about suitcase nukes, "I don't really believe this is true. These are just legends. One can probably assume that somebody tried to sell some nuclear secrets. But there is no documentary confirmation of those developments."

:unsure:

EDIT: I think we will stay living south of the South Downs for a few more years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

UK/US sells/sold weapons to such oppressive regimes as Israel, Saudi, Uganda, Chile, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Iran, Russia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, Algeria, Pakistan, Turkey etc..

(...)

Nuclear is different.

I've found very solid source now. Former USA Secretary of State (1982-1989) George Shultz, in an interview to Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

LINK: http://fora.tv/2008/03/14/Uncommon_Knowledge_George_Shultz

About The Hoover Institution

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, is a public policy research center devoted to advanced study of politics, economics, and political economy, both domestic and foreign, as well as international affairs.

(...)

Main points, terrorists are indeed trying to acquire nuclear weapons (around 6 min into the video); they don't want them as deterrent, but to use them; and deterrence doesn't work with them (around 8 min into the video).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny, they can fear the highly unlikely threat of a "suitcase bomb", but cant envisage a group flying planes into buildings, or bankers blowing up an economy with debt.

Must get our priorities right.

of course, nuclear bombs are very small..just quite heavy for their size, but they do need to fit in a tomahawk or travel 12000 miles in a rocket...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny, they can fear the highly unlikely threat of a "suitcase bomb", but cant envisage a group flying planes into buildings, or bankers blowing up an economy with debt.

Must get our priorities right.

of course, nuclear bombs are very small..just quite heavy for their size, but they do need to fit in a tomahawk or travel 12000 miles in a rocket...

About 30kg.

In a US Congress meeting an "expert" (not sure about him) estimated the probability of an attack against a major western city in the next 10 years as 30%.

My Harvard colleague Matthew Bunn has created a probability model in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science that estimates the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack over a ten-year period to be 29 percent—identical to the average estimate from a poll of security experts commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar in 2005.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/how_likely_is_a_nuclear_terrorist_attack_on_the_united_states.html

Bit high for my liking.

(And "major western city" up there, read "London", the most attractive target for them, considering value x vulnerability - [remember, we are been defended by our public sector after all]. :o )

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 30kg.

In a US Congress meeting an "expert" (not sure about him) estimate the probability of an attack against a major western city in the next 10 years as 10%.

Bit high for my liking.

(And "major western city" up there, read "London", the most attractive target for them, considering value x vulnerability - [remember, we are been defended by our public sector after all]. :o )

.

well any chance is a bit bad for the city so chosen.

then again, who exactly, are the only people to have detonated one on a city?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well any chance is a bit bad for the city so chosen.

then again, who exactly, are the only people to have detonated one on a city?

I remembered it wrongly, as 10%. I've just found the source, it is 30%.

London is the most likely target, considering value v difficulty.

Re. the Americans in the 2nd world war, I am no expert, but I tend to agree with you. I have never heard a convincing explanation on why the Americans didn't just demonstrated the bomb's power first, by for instance donating it on the least populated part of Japan. And why Nagasaki, so few days after Hiroshima. Terrible. Horrible. Incomprehensible. Their domestic racial apartheid was also incomprehensible. Though we are going well off topic here, aren't we? What do you mean? that we need Al-Qa'ida as a deterrent against the USA??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny, they can fear the highly unlikely threat of a "suitcase bomb", but cant envisage a group flying planes into buildings, or bankers blowing up an economy with debt.

Must get our priorities right.

of course, nuclear bombs are very small..just quite heavy for their size, but they do need to fit in a tomahawk or travel 12000 miles in a rocket...

James Burke's BBC TV series, Connections from over 30 years ago. The opening sequence shows the possibility of someone taking an atomic device in a small suitcase into London.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NDvpZErg-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.