h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Looks like the US will end up bombing parts of Afghanistan. Does anyone know if those folks have nukes in their possession? Are there rumors of Bin Laden having nukes?
I'm all for retaliation, but when you're dealing with a bunch of suicidal idiots you gotta be careful.

There is certainly fissile material unaccounted for and there are rumours that bombs have gone missing from the nations of the old USSR but dose Bin Laden have any who knows, personally I would be more worried about biological weapons.

Pakistan has the bomb though.

I doubt nuclear capability is what we have to worry about. In any case, these people were not idiots. Suicidal, yes, but you can't be stupid and be part of planning the hijacking of four airplanes. I think they are way off when it comes to the way they see the world, but they clearly aren't/weren't stupid.

Since most of the dead terrorists lived in Florida, I guess the answer to the "has the country got nukes" question is yes.

Which posting are you quoting "has the country got nukes" from?

Dont worry about Loony, he is just trying to lighten the situation

Nuclear/bio terrorism is not far down the road. Holding hands and learning to love one another is not a realistic response to this latest atrocity, sadly. Neither is yammering at each other about past history. What is needed is a concerted, focused, military response by a GLOBAL coalition. The US is waiting to see if that coalition is possible, not charging off on our own. Many outside the US fear what we're going to do. You should fear what your own governments are NOT going to do. Once the nuclear/bio genie is out of the bottle, it may be too late.

Here's a posting that I have made elsewhere:

May suggest everyone posting here go read http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A224623 , It is principles such as these that set civil society apart from the barbarians who are responsible for terrorism. May I also say that I don't think these principles exclude the option of taking military action but what they do mean is the purpose of any such action should be place those responsible in custody. Terrorism is not war it is a crime. By referring to it as war you giving the terrorist an accolade they don't deserve, war is fought between soldiers not criminals

Just to quote some of what is on the television this morning:

The conquest of poverty is the quest for peace - this was said by a leader (I don't know in what capacity) of the World Bank

We have to look at what pushes so many individuals into acts like that.

The answers lie in the foreign policies of the west - and as the US is the self-appointed leader of the west - it lies largely with the foreign policies of the US. But so many other countries actually or tacitally support the US world-view.

Mooneye feels that holding hands and hoping for love will not help. Though in fact it does at a basic and fundamental level: one of the most constructive things we can do as individuals is replace the fear in our hearts and minds with the strongest forces our hearts can give out - faith, love and peace.

But we have to look at what we in the west can do to remove the CAUSES of terrorism - poverty, inequity, systemised brutalisation of third world countries. I am thinking today that unbridaled capitalism has a lot to answer for here. And hell - on a personal level I have always been a capitalist. Maybe we need a balance of capitalism and caritas - charity - in other words love.

Go to the cause, go to the cause.

()
| |
| |

a former capitalist called Ben
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A631261

Ben, the barbarians who carried out the outrage were capitalists. Think oil money

What we really need is for the US to stop undermining UN resolutions and protocols.

You are right on both counts of course.

If the US is the world's policeman, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, who polices the policemen?

And now too - who guards the guards? (Ouch).

()
| |
| |

a citizen-of-the-world called Ben
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guide/h2g2/A631261

As far as Liferafts question goes, which was lost in the rants about capitalism, yes, I myself am 100% sure that bin Laden has nuclear "access", and that he has tried to use it BEFORE on the States, only to be thwarted by our covert agencies who are quite handy with a Geiger meter. This is from a confirmed U.S. intelligence agency source (one that happens to start with a C) that also has close ties to N.S. that ends with an A. I am being a little sneaky with the lettering as I don't need him reading this then have it arranged to make my head accidently fall off, therefore must fool search engines. Honestly, though, this is not the first time bin Laden has tried to get through, this was only the first time he was successful on this scale. The "attempts" are not reported to the press to keep things peaceful, blissful, and as usual as possible for the rest of the American public. I will not elaborate on my source for the above reason, but the wackier things get, the more I trust this guy.

Steve the Unafraid (God is my Peace)

After reading my last signature, I must add one thing. I am not afraid of what harm might come to me by writing these things, but what harm may come to those I know in these positions if what I write about them is connected to them. I don't need to put someone else's neck on the line.

If people from both sides would move into the 21st Century and leave the historical religious baggage behind them, then the utopian goal of universal peace will become more realistic. Even conspiracy theorists must agree with that.

OK, maybe not conspiracy theorists

But that would be to Play Into The Hands Of The Athiests...


(Ok, so it isn't a very good one...)

Less flipantly - not all religious beliefs are baggage... so Loony, I am not sure I agree w/ you.

()
| |
| |
a buddhist called Ben

Ben, you may very well be correct. As for myself, I'm so behind the times I still worship idols

S.P.
I'm almost sorry that I asked. Maybe I didn't want to know that Bin Laden has nukes. I think I will sleep a lot less soundly from now on because of that knowledge. I hope your sources are wrong.

And you know, maybe that capitalism talk was relevant after all--if it weren't for capitalist reasons why would anyone sell this madman a case of nukes?

Personally, I don't think that capitalism has much to do with bin Laden having nukes at all. He was a millionare before he left Saudi, now he just uses his money to buy weapons and people to kill innocents. I don't think it's capitalist, I could be wrong.

Have peace...there is nothing to comfort lika a peace that passes all understanding. It does not matter who does or does not have nukes, in the end, borders will not matter anyway, only who (or for some, what) you believe in.

Steve

So what if they do have nukes? They've shown that they can cause havoc without them.

Remember folks; nukes are really just big bombs. They don't mean the end of the world unless we're talking about the arsenal of the United States or Russia.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
The worst affect of this incident is that people are picking up on folksy words like 'folks' and using them in formal settings.

Can anyone confirm or deny this idea which was posed by a seemingly self-styled "defense expert" on the TV the other day? His idea was that terrorists didn't even need to be in possesion of nuclear capabilities, but that they could simply crash a plane into a nuclear power plant and potentially cause a Chernobyl-like incident. Anyone know if this is fiction or a real possibility?