While “the Arabs” would probably be suspected I think its too great a leap to conclude they would be blamed.
I keep bringing up the past but the past is an indication of what may happen in the future. When the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed - at that point, the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever - the Arabs were suspected but judgement was suspended, the crime investigated, and it was Timothy McVeigh - whitebread Christian American - who was convicted and executed for the deed. In the case of the anthrax-in-the-mail, which has still not been solved, suspicion has fallen on a researcher who, again, is a native-born, white American.
On a related note - although the vast majority of the 9/11/01 hijackers were of Saudi origins, we did NOT march into Saudi Arabia.
Way too kneejerk to assume that we will scapegoat “the Arabs”, particularly since Al Qaeda - our first suspicion in any terrorist attack these days - is NOT composed solely of “Arabs” but of all races. Even when we do feel justified in accusing Arabs, we do not accuse them collectively but still single out a particular subgroup.
Well, thank you for adding the ethnic slurs, but leaving that aside - the same way we determined that it was Tim McVeigh who blew up a building in Oklahoma City rather than, say, a disgruntled Lybian or Omani or any other particular nationality - by detective work.
Nukes DO leave some structures behind - the Atomic Dome in Hiroshima, for instance, was almost at ground zero. The original test blast in New Mexico left some fragments of the supporting tower for the bomb. The composition of the fallout might give indications of how crude or sophisticated the device was. Outside of the zone of complete destruction evidence might remain - perhaps a rental agreement on a Ryder truck, or a bill of sale for a particular substance in a certain quantity. There might be witnesses to pre-deployment activity. There might be medical reports of people suffering from strange burn injuries. Some of the early atomic bombs utilized beryllium, which is not particularly common and very difficult to work with - a garage machine shop with traces of that metal would be very suspicious and likely part of an evidence trail. Get that far - the location where the thing was built or stored - and it might lead you to WHO built it or transported it. Is this really different from other bomb or arson investigations? Yes, the explosive device is massive in scale, but the means to discover who and what did the deed aren’t that incredibly different.
Like I said before… this italian physicist in another board told me that trace elements and residue of the bomb doesnt help determine origin… so no security camers recording the ryder truck will be availabe after a nuke blast.
Destruction in that scale will make detective work very hard and even of good clues are found… will they be conclusive ? You can’t attack another country on lousy claims that they are only one in three countries that have that type or uranium/plutonioum. Especially since if the nuke is provided by a nation they will make sure it appears cruder than military grade stuff.
I guess that’s been my boggle about this topic; perhaps I assume too much when thinking that a sophisticated terrorist operation would have a bond with some community somewhere, even if it’s only in their own minds. I guess you’re right in that if they’re willing to commit their lives (and deaths) to a cause, they may be willing to sacrifice even something they revere, like the holy city of Mecca. Or maybe they have just stopped caring about anything outside of their goals. And perhaps you’re right that a group may want to force a final showdown between an allied Islam vs. the Wild Wicked West or some such (though I would think the clever ones would realize that such a war would be unwinnable). And perhaps there are some sects that would want to randomly bring about Armageddon, based on some crazy interpretation of their holy text.
I think, when trying to get into the minds of other people, I sometimes put boundaries on what I think is reasonable. In this case, I guess I am imposing the need for a coherent storyline for our hypothetical terrorist, one that has goals, justifications, and reasonable restrictions on how to achieve them, perhaps twisted by ignorance and hatred, but coherent nonetheless. Starting an Armageddon seems counterproductive for most terrorist agendas that make sense to me, save those that are actually devoted to an Armageddon. But really, there’s no reason some fanatics wouldn’t be operating under a non-sequitor methods-goal combination, even the clever ones.
I didn’t say anything about “trace elements”. There will still be important clues. The size of the blast, for instance - is the device 1 kiloton or 1 megaton? Is it a fission or a fusion device? Airburst or groundburst? A 1 megaton airburst fusion bomb is a heckuva lot harder to engineer and deploy than a 1 kiloton fission groundburst, and the pool of potential perpetrators much smaller. If the spot of detonation can be determined and compared to records before the blast we might even get some indication of the size of the unexploded device. In the middle Central Park? Gosh, could be any size. In the men’s room at Bloomingdale’s? Has to be small enough to fit into the doorway.
Sure you can. Certainly our current administration doesn’t seem to need 100% certainty to go to war. Question is, will that happen?
What if it’s a stolen or hijacked nuke? For that matter, an attacker may want us to know who did it. It all depends on their goal and how well they do/don’t understand America. For instance - if they want to start a war, they may let take credit. If it’s a dictator facing a coup or death he may be happy to take others with him and leave his countrymen to be “punished” for daring to oust him. Or, someone could be making that same mistake again: “Take this America! Now stay out of our fight unless you want more.” Which, as we’ve seen, is the one thing that will guarantee this country will attack.
One thing that I might have missed having been addressed, but I think is critical in figuring this out- if the US, or any country for that matter, were to be attacked with a rogue nuclear weapon, the rest of the countries of the world would, almost without question, join together in hunting and destroying the group that did such a thing.
Regardless of their policies or leanings or attitudes toward whichever country was attacked- an unprovoked nuclear attack would result in not only the wounded countries response but a worldwide one, and that has to be a factor in the decision to take such an action.
I don’t know - Saddam Hussein didn’t seem to be deterred from invading Kuwait by the notion that the rest of the world might react badly to it, and he had much more to lose than a terrorist group would have. Nor did ObL say to himself, “Better leave the World Trade Centers alone - I don’t want to put the Taliban at risk”.
Terrorists don’t always think the way the rest of us do.
I agree the use of nukes would trigger worldwide reprisals. The problem again is… reprisals against whom ? I doubt anyone would take credit for such an attack.
