The coasts are vulnerable as well. In his 1939 letter to President Roosevelt about the threat posed by German research of nuclear fission, Albert Einstein wrote: "A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory." This danger still exists, and it's difficult to see how it can be defended against.
Thanks for the warm fuzzies.
Mexico needs to be concerned. Very concerned. It isn't called the Global War on Terrorism for nada.
RE: Not Good Enough
Sure, they could do a lot of damage. Kill a lot of people in a place like Juarez. However, it would not be as spectacular as doing NYC or DC or LA.
They seem to like the spectacular gesture, so, if they think they've got a fair chance of success, they'll go for the big one. And, considering how porous the border IS, I think they think they've got a fair chance.
Besides, even if they are detected bringing it across the border, if it's primed to blow, they could blow it upon discovery and still make a splash such as you describe.
[Are we living in a Clancy novel yet?]
P.S. The biggest and fastest moving threat is an aircraft with a bomb on-board flying over one of the target cities; NYC, DC, LA, etc. The Coast Guard can check ships approaching our ports, but it's hard to check all the aircraft approaching our borders.
And here I was worrying about fallout from a shipborne nuke in Galveston or Corpus Christi. Now you've made me REALLY paranoid. Of course, I'd miss all my vaporized in-laws in El Paso, but Juarez could use some urban renewal...
Does anyone, including the terrorists, have any idea the mechanics in detonating a dirty bomb or god forbid nuclear warhead? It's not like setting off a firecracker. Also, how do they move it around without getting radiation sickness?
Think Vicente Fox would get tougher with controlling the border given your scenario?
Naw, me neither.
Then, of course, there's the Canadian border.
For which, I may add, we are eternally grateful!
What about Tijuana? Granted, we probably aren't talking the same level of proximity, but San Diego is probably a more valuable target. Depending on the atmospheric conditions, the fallout could hurt many more people. Obviously, if they can be successful in getting a nuke on a boat and into new york harbor, or philadelphia, or boston, or baltimore, etcetra, it would probably say more, but even mexico city should be an attractive target. Mexico City won't harm the US directly, but there would be alot of distraction.
What about the electro-magnetic pulse of a nuke detonated at ground level?
But blowing up a nuke in Mexico would defeat the point of the action. The Al Quada terrorists want to make a point about US forgen policy, bias against Islam, bias against the palestintans.
The symbolism of attacking Mexico or France or anyone other than the US the UK and previously Spain would simply be that they're insane and hate freedom.
They don't need to bring their own nuke...
take a look 2 miles up north the "biggs army airfield" in El paso....yes i guess that nuke's
launchers.... less than 10 miles from the mexican border...good luck pals !
" The Al Quada terrorists want to make a point about US forgen policy, bias against Islam, bias against the palestintans. "
You could not be more unclear on the concept if you sat up all night trying. This isn't a protest; it is global jihad: a world wide holy war for the soul and future of the human race. I know- you're too sophisticated, and enlightened for such a naive, and primitive notion. They are not. And they are busy waging that war against us as we sit. This is Armageddon, fool. This is the apocalypse. It will not end until one side is utterly annihilated.
Two years ago I came across the Canadian border into Washington driving a motorhome. I'm 71, just my wife and I not to scary looking. They did a full x-ray scan (or whatever it's called) of the motorhome and then came in to open the fridge because the X-ray couldn't see inside. Think about that when you next see pictures of thousands and thousands of cars and trucks crossing the Mexican border with nothing but a few questions before letting them pass.
"Suitcase nukes" exist mainly in Sci-Fi stories and TV scripts.
As GoneWithTheWind noted above it would be very difficult to smuggle a small nuclear weapon across the border. My nephew is a port inspector in Seattle. He spends his time scanning all containers with a radiation detector.
A far more likely scenario is for ISIS or others to smuggle radioactive materials, in a number of small packages, into the US and assemble a "dirty bomb" upwind of Ft. Bliss.
ISIS is reportedly financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar whose main concern is a nuclear armed Iran. A dirty bomb attack on a major military installation might goad the US into eliminating the Iranian threat.
I've been talking about this for years. Easy enough to figure out.
Lot of nervous nelly's running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
The media machine is working mahvalously.
ISIS crosses the border and commits a terrorist act against Ft. Bliss?
Best thing that could happen to us. The best, Jerry.
I am quite serious. Just how big a 2 x 4 across the skull, and just how many time does it have to be whacked, before the electorate of the country that elected 0bama twice gets a frikkin' clue about what is at stake in this world?
A nuclear weapon constitutes real political power. Power is jealously guarded. Wild eyed religious zealous aren't going to be handed nukes any time soon.
Several years back we were roiled by the possibility of the Russkies tramping over the border w/suitcase nukes. Haven't heard one of those exploding.
The mosque in Jaurez is much larger than the mosque in El Paso, TX. Did you know there is a mosque in El Paso? Neither did I. Did you know the one in Juarez is larger?
There is nothing to prevent ISIS from capturing a small town in the US or an elementary school and replaying the Beslan School Massacre.