If terrorists got an atomic bomb, what would they do with it?

[Kent_Clark]

This is an interesting war game, even if we can’t come up with a “right” answer. Here’s what I’d do.

Scenario A – I have one bomb.
I can’t test it, because then I’d have no bombs. I can’t threaten to use it, because if I threaten, then the bomb doesn’t go off, I lose all credibility. Therefore, my only choice to set it off without warning.

Scenario B – I have more than one bomb.
I still set the first one off without warning. I make my demands and give a very short deadline. When that deadline passes I set off the second one. Even if I only have two, I can now claim that I have a whole bunch and I’ve shown I’m not afraid to use them.

If you think about it, this scenario worked for the U.S. vs. Japan.

[Autumn_Almanac]

@kunilou

I can’t threaten to use it, because if I threaten, then the bomb doesn’t go off, I lose all credibility.

But is OBL really interested in credibility? He hasn’t been shy about threatening all sorts of hellfire and destruction on the West that hasn’t happened. It doesn’t matter that any single attack or threat fails; as long as he escapes to plan another one, he wins.

[Airblairxxx]

@kunilou

This is an interesting war game, even if we can’t come up with a “right” answer. Here’s what I’d do.

Scenario A – I have one bomb.
I can’t test it, because then I’d have no bombs. I can’t threaten to use it, because if I threaten, then the bomb doesn’t go off, I lose all credibility. Therefore, my only choice to set it off without warning.

Scenario B – I have more than one bomb.
I still set the first one off without warning. I make my demands and give a very short deadline. When that deadline passes I set off the second one. Even if I only have two, I can now claim that I have a whole bunch and I’ve shown I’m not afraid to use them.

If you think about it, this scenario worked for the U.S. vs. Japan.

Both of your scenarios conclude that having just one bomb has no chance of getting your enemy to concede to your demands–once you set it off, a rational enemy will only be hugely motivated to react against you.

So you either have a second bomb, or you bluff that you do.

And if you must set off one bomb, without warning, any military or economic benefits are likely to be vaporous and transitory. Maybe you could disrupt the command structure of the US by detonating it in Washington, but that won’t offer any practical long-term gains; the bulk of our military and economy is located away from away from the capital.

So the practical benefit of detonating one bomb is the fear it will engender. Essentially, the bomb’s value is political. Or emotional, what have you. So you use it where it can cause the most political fallout–where it will scare Americans the most.

In that sense, Washington is still a prime target. But another place to use it might be right offshore New York City. Highly visible, with the added PR benefit of not killing a ton of people–believe it or not, there are plenty of Muslims who would be angered if Al Qaeda resorted to simple mass butchery.

[Happy_Clam]

Osama bin Laden has proven to be more than a kill-crazed religious maniac; he’s a tactically shrewd kill-crazed religious maniac. It seems to this amateur intellegence analyst that if he were to come into possession of a nuclear weapon, he would be presented with a number of problems.

An interesting point, but I think your problem is that you’re approaching this as if Al Qaeda were rational terrorists, like we had in the good ol’ days. It used to be that, say, the IRA or Eta would use terrorism in pursuit of a specific goal- sure, it might be a big one, but it was generally achievable (British out of Ireland; Basque independence), and the terrorism was designed to draw attention to the cause, to try and show the “strength” of the underdogs (terrorism is only ever used by underdogs; it’s called something different when the powerful do it), and to maybe, just maybe, force the foe to the bargaining table.

But the problem is, Al Qeda isn’t like that; sure, they do have a specific goal, but an ultra-Orthodox Wahhabi-based Islamic caliphate ain’t happening any time soon- furthermore, the people that Al Qaeda is targeting* aren’t the ones who can achieve it. What Osama and his cronies act out of is spite, pure and simple. Without a single, achieveable goal (like, for example, driving the Russians out of Afghanistan), their terrorism splinters into no more than serial murders, driven by no more logic than a desire to hurt others.

If Al Qaeda did grab a nuclear bomb, what would they do with it? I assume they’d do whatever they found most emotionally satisfying, not what would help advance their (lost) cause. And what would that be?

Well, actually, I think they might nuke Mecca. I’ll admit to not being anything like an expert on any form of Islam, but according to my daily newspaper, ultra-orthodox Muslims in Mecca are actively destroying religous sites (aided and abetted by town planners) to prevent anything that looks like idolatry- for example, the tomb of the Prophet’s wife has been burned, and anyone praying there is supposedly shooed away by “Security Police”. If someone like Bin Laden got his hands on an a-bomb, what would be more satisfyinng than to send a powerful symbol to the most “corrupt” country in the Middle East, drive idolaters from the site forever (well, at least those not wearing radiation suits), so on, so forth.

On the other hand, maybe everything I just said is bollocks, so please, feel free to rip me to shreds.

*Yes, I know that Al Qaeda attacks other Mulsims, not just the Western states; yes, I know Al Qaeda is active in Saudi Arabia, where any caliphate would have to start. But they are loudest about their attacks on Americans et al.

[A.R.Cane]

I was thinking about this after Katrina. Everyone worries about inspecting containers, but there’s really no need to bring a containerized nuke ashore, just blow it in a harbor, like Seattle/Tacoma for example. In addition to being heavily populated and an important center for commerce, it’s also located where most of the weather patterns enter No. America, which would carry fallout for many hundreds of miles across Canada and the northern U.S.
There are other possible areas, maybe in the Gulf So. of N.O/Houston to take out many of the off shore oil rigs and create a tidal surge causing heavy damage to the Gulf coast.
I also think it would be folly to retaliate w/ nukes as it could easily cause further use of nukes by Islamic governments I seriously doubt our current allies would be able to support our use of nukes. That’s a serious problem, the terrorists have a lot less to lose by setting off a nuke than we do. I don’t know how much of the Islamic world would support the terrorist use of nukes, but I’m positive that if we retaliated on Iran/Syria or any other Islamic state it would further unite them against us.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Grossbottom

Respectfully, aces in the hole don’t get traded on “symbolic” victories. They trade, if at all, to ensure survival or in a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. And to be perfectly frank, using a nuke on Washington or New York might well result in a U.S. response so devastating that there wouldn’t be enough of the Islamic world left to support a radical movement, let alone make wedges.

You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that Al Qaeda is trying to win a purely symbolic victory. I’m saying that they’re committing acts that have strong symbolic weight in order to have a real and concrete effect on how the middle east operates.

Their use of terror is very different from the way its been used in the past by the IRA or the PLO. Those organizations made clear demands on the people they were attacking – pull out of Northern Ireland, or pull out of Palestine – and the attacks will stop. The terrorist acts were intended to put direct political pressure on the British and Israeli governments to behave in certain ways to stop the violence.

Al Qaeda has made no demands. They are not trying to blackmail the United States into taking a particular course of action. “Giving in to Al Qaeda” isn’t an option, even if we wanted to, because Al Qaeda doesn’t care whether we give in to them or not.

What Al Qaeda is trying to do is radicalize the middle east along fundamentalist lines. Attacking the United States helps this goal in two ways. First it makes the United States look weak and ineffectual, weakening any middle eastern politicians who advocate pro-Western positions. If the United States can’t protect itself, the reasoning goes, how can it protect the House of Saud? Second, attacking the United States encourages the United States to hit back. But since Al Qaeda is deeply embedded in the countries where it flourishes, any attack against Al Qaeda is bound to spill over into the surrounding population. This further radicalizes these populations, increases the divide between Islam and the West, and strengthens the fundamentalist cause.

It a classic insurgent technique, played out on a grand scale. Hide among the common people and when the retaliation comes, use it as a recruiting tool.

An all-out war between Islam and the United States is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda is trying to provoke. Right now they’re small are marginalized. But they dream of a world where all Muslims are fighting side-by-side against the West. That counts as victory in their book. They think they would win such a war. They’re wrong, of course. The Islamic countries don’t have the technological or industrial capacity to prevail in such a struggle. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not easy to try – particularly since they’re convinced God is on their side and not ours.

If Al Qaeda gets the bomb they will use it. No threats. No warnings.

[Sunrazor]

@Happy Clam

An interesting point, but I think your problem is that you’re approaching this as if Al Qaeda were rational terrorists, like we had in the good ol’ days…
But the problem is, Al Qeda isn’t like that…

I agree. I’d bet we posters have put more thought and rationalizing into this question than bin Laden ever would. There would probably be the usual vague threats of bringing the wrath of Allah down on the evil West, then “Ka-BOOM!” and we’d be left to pick up the pieces again.

My view of the bin Ladenists is that they don’t really expect the Western powers to actually change, vacate the premises or do anything differently; they condemn us as evil as a pro forma prelude to attacks. In their eyes our arrogance and insensitivity are justification for killing us, randomly and spectacularly. They’re really big on symbolism, but I don’t think there’s really an end to their means – they kill us because (they believe) we deserve it, and no matter what we do, they’ll kill us.

I really don’t think we can understand how the terrorists think – no matter what they do, we still ask, “Why?” and I honestly don’t think there really is a “why.”

[even_sven]

9/11 wasn’t the act of dumb or thoughtless people. They had a plan, and they achived it. They changed America. They threw fuel on the Middle Eastern fire. This may well end with us leaving Saudi Arabia- which is, in fact, their demands that they did, in fact, make. 9/11 was a perfectly executed terrorist act. It’s foolish to write these people off as merely insane.

Luckly, nuclear bombs are very hard to make/get, and even if they should get one, they are unlikely to get another. The materials and expertise are very hard to get. And while former Soviet republics may be corrupt, they arn’t all that interested in arming their neighbors with nukes. If they have one, we can safely assume they do not have many more.

And you can’t fight a war with one bomb. At the most, you take out a city. But then…then what? There really isn’t anywhere else to go with that. In order to actually take down an industrialized government, you need a real army with planes and warships and stuff like that. You can make life sucks with one bomb, but you can no longer use that one bomb to change the world.

I think that if they got a bomb, they would sell it to a sympathetic govenment, perhaps gaining some power in that government and making boatloads of money to fund their other projects with.

[The_Hamster_King]

@jeffrice

I really don’t think we can understand how the terrorists think – no matter what they do, we still ask, “Why?” and I honestly don’t think there really is a “why.”

Understanding how your enemy thinks is the first step in defeating him. Al Qaeda is evil, but they’re not crazy or stupid.

[alphaboi867]

Nuking DC during the State of the Union seems like the best option for creating chaos and terror. There would be no warning. No chance to get the President on Marine One. The government would be crippled. A minor cabinet secretary, who most Americans have never heard of, would be thrust into power. Congress would consist of a half-dozen people. There’d be no Supreme Court (unless one of the Justices stays away). There would be panic in every major city (remember after 9/11 when people though further attacks were imminent?). It would be months before the government could even approach normal functions.

[bump]

@A.R. Cane

I was thinking about this after Katrina. Everyone worries about inspecting containers, but there’s really no need to bring a containerized nuke ashore, just blow it in a harbor, like Seattle/Tacoma for example. In addition to being heavily populated and an important center for commerce, it’s also located where most of the weather patterns enter No. America, which would carry fallout for many hundreds of miles across Canada and the northern U.S.
There are other possible areas, maybe in the Gulf So. of N.O/Houston to take out many of the off shore oil rigs and create a tidal surge causing heavy damage to the Gulf coast.

Nukes just aren’t as big and destructive as you’re describing. Even if you did nuke Seattle, the serious fallout wouldn’t probably make it out of Washington, much less anywhere else. Sure, some would, but mostly the kind that would cause some cancers 5-10 years later.

And… there’s no nuke big enough to cause a “tidal surge” on the Gulf Coast, unless you detonated it particularly close, and if you did, people would have more to worry about from heat/blast/radiation than any waves. Hell, the largest weapons ever tested were tested in barges in South Pacific atolls, and none of them were swamped by “tidal surges”.

Keep in mind, they tested hundreds of nuclear weapons south of Las Vegas for almost 50 years, above ground and below.

[Ranchoth]

What I might do, if I were an Islamist* terrorist?

Nuke Mecca. Send it back to God.

In the immediate aftermath, it might not be hard to blame Israel or “Zionist Terrorists” for the act, and push a frenzied attack on Israel—which would either be overrun (permenantly or not), or at least severely messed up. If the Arab attackers lose—or win—they may gain enough social instability to let radical Islamism grab a major foothold in the Arab world.

Heck, my gut feeling is that the west is going to get blamed for the nuking no matter what. Either they’ll say we nuked it ourselves, or we deliberately let the terrorists get a nuke as an excuse for nuking them, or that we brought it on by not appeasing the extremists. Something like that.

*I am under the impression that this is the correct terminology in vogue at the moment. i.e. “Islamic” is to “Islamist” what “Friar Tuck” is to “Torquemada.”

[A.R.Cane]

@bump

Nukes just aren’t as big and destructive as you’re describing. Even if you did nuke Seattle, the serious fallout wouldn’t probably make it out of Washington, much less anywhere else. Sure, some would, but mostly the kind that would cause some cancers 5-10 years later.

And… there’s no nuke big enough to cause a “tidal surge” on the Gulf Coast, unless you detonated it particularly close, and if you did, people would have more to worry about from heat/blast/radiation than any waves. Hell, the largest weapons ever tested were tested in barges in South Pacific atolls, and none of them were swamped by “tidal surges”.

Keep in mind, they tested hundreds of nuclear weapons south of Las Vegas for almost 50 years, above ground and below.

A 20 kiloton detonation will create a mushroom cloud of about 35,000 ft. within minutes and that’s a small nuke, the size of the Nagasaki blast 6 decades ago, a one megaton weapon will send the cloud up to 14 miles, over 70,000 ft. The jet stream, which very often enters U.S airspace near the Seattle area, varies between 25,000 and 40,000 ft. To give some perspective, the Mt. St. Helens eruption sent up a cloud reaching about 80,000 ft. and deposited detectable ash deposits as far east as Minnesota and as far south as the N.M./CO. border within hours. Mount St. Helens - Multimedia
The ash from St. Helens is much heavier that what would be created from a surface water detonation of a nuke, so I think it’s reasonable to assume that the radioactive fallout area would be considerably larger. Consider that most Americans have some strong aversion to nuclear power plants, how much panic do you think there would be w/ radioactive fallout?
As to the tidal surge, your overlooking an important factor, the depth of the water in Pacific is many times greater than in the Gulf of Mexico. Wave height depends on fetch and reach, which means that water will pile up much faster in shallow water than in deep water. A detonation a few dozen miles south of the Gulf coast would devastate the oil rigs in the Gulf and be close enough to create a sizeable tidal surge. http://gom.rigzone.com/rita.asp

It’s been quite a few years, but I have some experience disaster preparedness and recovery planning.

[GIGObuster]

@alphaboi867

Nuking DC during the State of the Union seems like the best option for creating chaos and terror. There would be no warning. No chance to get the President on Marine One. The government would be crippled. A minor cabinet secretary, who most Americans have never heard of, would be thrust into power. Congress would consist of a half-dozen people. There’d be no Supreme Court (unless one of the Justices stays away). There would be panic in every major city (remember after 9/11 when people though further attacks were imminent?). It would be months before the government could even approach normal functions.

IIRC there is a plan set in place after 9/11 where there are people named to take the place of important members if such a thing happens, the “shadow government,” consisting of 75 to 150 officials of the executive branch will be located in fortified locations to provide “continuity of government”, there was a flap when it was disclosed that almost all of their members were coming from the executive branch. I hope some semblance of separation of powers was then used, but with this administration the best guess is that any call for changes was ignored.

[even_sven]

@GIGObuster

IIRC there is a plan set in place after 9/11 where there are people named to take the place of important members if such a thing happens, the “shadow government,” consisting of 75 to 150 officials of the executive branch will be located in fortified locations to provide “continuity of government”, there was a flap when it was disclosed that almost all of their members were coming from the executive branch. I hope some semblance of separation of powers was then used, but with this administration the best guess is that any call for changes was ignored.

It’s been in place well before then. The “shadow government” is a well known cold war relic.

[cerberus]

Jerusalem or NYC

Jerusalem: As an ultimate gesture against Israel, and an F/U to the Arab Nations that tolerated Israel. Also, a sense of “if we can’t have Israel, then you can’t.” The possibility of an Israeli counterstrike wouldn’t fly, as the extremists don’t care about the “corrupt and weak” slate of arab leaders.

NYC: Symbolic, as in finishing off the place. Pragmatic, as it would disrupt global financial operations, though in fairness I suspect that there are discreet backup systems in place if needed.

[scabpicker]

I think that everyone who says they would not use the nuke is looking at them like they are a country, which they are not. The point of a country having a nuke is usually to threaten their enemies into not attacking. This threat has the effect of force because the armed country presumably has a viable method of delivering the weapon in a short amount of time. Al Qadea has neither a country to defend, or a weapon delivery system that will deliver the weapon swiftly with any chance of success. Besides, threats would not be believed without proof. The only way I see that being established is by testing the bomb. Any test that was not also an attack requires more space than I think they control, and also gives away the location of at least some of your members.

I think the most likely scenario is a detonation in a populous place, with threats of more to come, whether they have them or not. The fact that they had one working bomb has been established, the fear is set that they may have more.

As for a target, I was gonna say the Houston ship channel. Plenty of economic impact, probably more in the end than L.A. or NYC, due to the fact that so much of our oil refinery and shipment capacity would be damaged, along with many chemical plants, and ports. I will modify that with ** A.R. Cane’s** idea of setting if off offshore while approaching the channel, but it would only be detonated there if the authorities show up before it gets to go off. Damage to the economy seems like a secondary target to them, bodycount is what they aim for.

Oh, and a 500Kt bomb would be a really big fission bomb. I would say they would be lucky to hit 20Kt, Pakistan has not hit that target, and I would be surprised if they were any more successful than a country at making one. If all they have is a sub-kiloton bomb, then I would say they would try to use a truck to get it as close to a target as they could. I have no idea where that would be, as a truck has a lot more chance of being detected than a shipping container still on a ship.

[Quartz]

If I were a terrorist wanting to detonate a nuke in America, I’d buy or hire a long-range executive jet, fly it in, and detonate the device over a city. No warning, maximum carnage.

[Grossbottom]

@Pochacco

Al Qaeda has made no demands. They are not trying to blackmail the United States into taking a particular course of action. “Giving in to Al Qaeda” isn’t an option, even if we wanted to, because Al Qaeda doesn’t care whether we give in to them or not.

Well, you’re not quoting me so I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. Second time running, I’m not suggesting that an atomic bomb would used in negotiation or extortion against the United States. I’m not sure what else I can do to make that clear to you.

@Pochacco

It a classic insurgent technique, played out on a grand scale. Hide among the common people and when the retaliation comes, use it as a recruiting tool.

Techniques with which I am abundantly familiar. Let’s skip to the post-Phillippines counter-insurgency advanced course.

@Pochacco

An all-out war between Islam and the United States is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda is trying to provoke.

I disagree. They can’t survive that and they know it, or perhaps we have different definitions of all-out war. They’re trying to radicalize the Middle East in order to seize power for themselves. A destroyed Islam leaves nothing for them to take. Taken intact and grown over the span of generations, however, such a power block might rise to see a revived Caliphate truly challenge the power of the West. This will not happen in their lifetimes, and all-out war means it would not happen for the forseeable millenium.

@Pochacco

If Al Qaeda gets the bomb they will use it. No threats. No warnings.

Sure, maybe. Except that it’s better used for actual, demonstrable and significant strategic gain rather than a PR stunt. A nuke can be the key to a kingdom, and I wouldn’t waste it just to make the ‘Great Satan’ look foolish. They have taken heavy manpower & materiel losses in the recent conflicts, far greater than we have. They need another pre-911 Afghanistan for training and reconsolidation of their operation and if a nuke can get it, they’ll try for that.

Survival of the insurgency is the insurgent’s first priority, always, and yet you are proposing that these people are trying desperately to usher in the apocalypse. Either they’re following “classic” insurgency or they aren’t, take your pick. But if they are, then this would be an ideal time for them to fade and gather strength, not an ideal time to jeopardize the very survival of their host population by nuking the downtown core of an American city.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and hope you’re not right.

[BMax]

@Ranchoth

What I might do, if I were an Islamist* terrorist?

Nuke Mecca. Send it back to God.

In the immediate aftermath, it might not be hard to blame Israel or “Zionist Terrorists” for the act, and push a frenzied attack on Israel—which would either be overrun (permenantly or not), or at least severely messed up. If the Arab attackers lose—or win—they may gain enough social instability to let radical Islamism grab a major foothold in the Arab world.

Heck, my gut feeling is that the west is going to get blamed for the nuking no matter what. Either they’ll say we nuked it ourselves, or we deliberately let the terrorists get a nuke as an excuse for nuking them, or that we brought it on by not appeasing the extremists. Something like that.

*I am under the impression that this is the correct terminology in vogue at the moment. i.e. “Islamic” is to “Islamist” what “Friar Tuck” is to “Torquemada.”

I was thinking the same thing, but with Tehran & blaming it on the Great Satan, USA.
something like:

1. Nuke Tehran.
2. Blame USA.
3. Recruiting drive in Moslem world.