Former WMD Chief: Al-Qaida Awaiting Nukes

[Warrior-Mentor]

Former WMD Chief: Al-Qaida Awaiting Nukes
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010
By: Theodore Kettle

A new report by retired longtime intelligence officer Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who served as chief of the CIA’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Department, accuses the U.S. government of seriously misreading al-Qaida’s operational objectives.

“Al-Qaida’s reasoning,” according to Mowatt-Larssen's new report from Harvard’s Kennedy School, “runs counter to analytic convention that equates the ease of acquisition of chemical, biological or radiological weapons with an increasing likelihood of terrorist use — i.e., a terrorist attack employing crude weapons is therefore more likely than an attack using a nuclear or large scale biological weapon.”

“In fact, it is the opposite” of that conventional wisdom, according to the analysis, entitled “Al-Qaida Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: Hype or Reality.” Al-Qaida’s motivations suggest “the greatest threat is posed by the most effective and simple means of mass destruction, whether these means consist of nuclear, biological, or other forms of asymmetric weapons.”

That makes all the scarier the scolding that came this week from the congressionally authorized Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation. That panel gave the Obama administration an F grade for its performance in preparing the U.S. homeland for a terrorist attack that utilized biological warfare.

Mowatt-Larssen was stationed in Moscow and other critical venues in the course of his long career gathering intelligence. The details he provides of al-Qaida’s scheming in this report are nothing short of chilling.

“Considering the potential that such weapons hold in fulfilling al-Qaida’s aspirations,” it says, “their WMD procurement efforts have been managed at the most senior levels, under rules of strict compartmentalization from lower levels of the organization, and with central control over possible targets and timing of prospective attacks.”

That kind of planning suggests extreme sophistication and patience – a willingness to wait until such an operation against the U.S. could be sure to work. According to Mowatt-Larssen, “their approach has been ‘Mohamed Atta-like’ — similar to the modus operandi Khaled Sheikh Mohammed employed in making preparations for the 9/11 attacks — as opposed to resembling the signature characterizing most terrorist attacks to which the world has become accustomed.”

He noted that “Al-Qaida’s patient, decade-long effort to steal or construct an improvised nuclear device (IND) flows from their perception of the benefits of producing the image of a mushroom cloud rising over a U.S. city, just as the 9/11 attacks have altered the course of history.”

Mowatt-Larssen concludes that “This lofty aim helps explains why al Qaida has consistently sought a bomb capable of producing a nuclear yield, as opposed to settling for the more expedient and realistic course of devising a ‘dirty bomb,’ or a radiological dispersal device.”

In 1996, for example, Ayman al-Zawahiri, emir of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which eventually merged into al-Qaida, was detained in Russia where he may have been seeking nuclear weapons or material. Al-Zawahiri later stated that al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union.

According to Mowatt-Larssen, “There is no indication that the fundamental objectives that lie behind their WMD intent have changed over time.”

By comparison, “the pursuit of crude toxins and poisons appears to have been of little interest to the al-Qaida leadership, even though the production of such weapons is easier and thus might seem more attractive for potential use in attacks.”

He adds that “there is no evidence that the al-Qaida leadership regarded the use of crude toxins and poisons as being suitable for conducting what would amount to pin prick attacks on the United States; on the contrary,” it seems that “a relatively easy attack utilizing tactical weapons would not achieve the goals the al-Qaida leadership had set for themselves.”

According to the Kennedy School analysis, “Osama bin Laden’s morality-based argument on the nature of the struggle between militant Islamists and the U.S.-led coalition of secular forces focuses the group’s planning on the acquisition of strategic weapons that can be used in mass casualty attacks, rather than on the production of tactical, more readily available weapons such as ‘dirty bombs,’ chemical agents, crude toxins and poisons.”

If this former WMD chief for the CIA is to be believed, a big reason we have not suffered a repeat of 9/11 more than eight years later may be that Osama bin Laden and al Qaida are patiently working toward the day when they can successfully hit us with something a lot bigger.

[jatx]

Okay, so their last attempt at using crude liquid explosives ended in a pitiful display of partial self-immolation, but we are supposed to worry about them deploying nukes??? I can't imagine that they have the capacity for the proper care and feeding of a complete device, let alone its construction or assembly.

How many fully functional Stinger missiles were discovered in Afghanistan? How complex was the required maintenance and storage on those devices compared to that required for a nuke?

IMHO, the only "nuclear weapon" that AQ will ever deploy is a low-grade dirty bomb. The ability of our government and first responders to respond to one of those is highly suspect, though, let alone that of other friendly governments.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by jatx

Okay, so their last attempt at using crude liquid explosives ended in a pitiful display of partial self-immolation, but we are supposed to worry about them deploying nukes??? I can't imagine that they have the capacity for the proper care and feeding of a complete device, let alone its construction or assembly.

How many fully functional Stinger missiles were discovered in Afghanistan? How complex was the required maintenance and storage on those devices compared to that required for a nuke?

IMHO, the only "nuclear weapon" that AQ will ever deploy is a low-grade dirty bomb. The ability of our government and first responders to respond to one of those is highly suspect, though, let alone that of other friendly governments.

From the original article:

"Al-Qaida’s motivations suggest “the greatest threat is posed by the most effective and simple means of mass destruction, whether these means consist of nuclear, biological, or other forms of asymmetric weapons.”

What's a dirty bomb do to human lives and property values. Anthrax in the NYC Subway would take decdes to clean up. What's the cost and opportunity cost of that economic impact?

They are relentless and we are wrong to underestimate their committment or capabilities. My take is that when they're serious, they'll send professionals. For now, they're sending the B-Team to test the weakness in the system.

[blue902]

According to what I understand, dirty bombs aren't something a terrorist would find useful compared to anything with a bang and lots of casualties. A dirty bomb would probably raise the cancer rate in a city years later, meaning no news, no terror.
They told Jose Padilla to work on blowing up gas lines rather than a dirty bomb.

The most serious concern by far is nuclear weapons or smallpox. This is right on in saying that a mushroom cloud over a US city would be perfect for them. It doesn't have to work that well to serve the 'terror' purpose.

It goes without saying that the most likely scenario of al Qaida getting a bomb is stealing one during dearmaments. Or buying it from a sympathizer. Like an Islamic theocracy, working furiously behind closed doors to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Pay no attention to the nuclear weapons researcher behind the curtain.

[jatx]

Originally Posted by blue902

According to what I understand, dirty bombs aren't something a terrorist would find useful compared to anything with a bang and lots of casualties.

A very small cell of intelligent and disciplined true believers could bring the US economy to a grinding halt with two to three dirty bombs. No need to name the best targets and give the opposition a freebie (they read this site).

The delivery system for smallpox or anthrax is the weak link. Compared to aerosolizing those agents, assembling a dirty bomb is simple.

Remember, they are going for max psychological effect, not casulaties...

[blue902]

Difficult to discuss the issue publicly without the risk of doing their thinking for them.

But, this is a good book that I read which shed some light on the issue. It was good practical discussion on the state of science when it comes to energy use, defense, etc. from a policy making standpoint.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-for-Fu.../dp/B001CDSMUO

On a brighter note, I got to talk to one of the epidemiologists that was on the CDC team trying to backtrack the anthrax scare in 2001. He said that weaponizing aerosols is difficult to do without a very good lab-- and that nobody can do it exactly the same way. It gets recognizably 'cut' like Colombian nose candy. It can be tracked to the source.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by blue902

According to what I understand, dirty bombs aren't something a terrorist would find useful compared to anything with a bang and lots of casualties. A dirty bomb would probably raise the cancer rate in a city years later, meaning no news, no terror.

I don't think you know as much about nuclear materials as you seem to think you do.

That is probably a good thing.

TR

[blue902]

There's certainly several more aspects to the issue, and many dangers for our people. Just thought I'd mention the contrast, for anyone who was unaware.

[Utah Bob]

According to what I understand, dirty bombs aren't something a terrorist would find useful compared to anything with a bang and lots of casualties.

Au contraire my young friend, A terrorist would be tickled pink to set off a dirty bomb in a major city. Trust me.