With A Large Pinch of Salt

The ABC News blog The Blotter has a reputation for having good sources within the U.S. intelligence community, so when they take the time to write about known al Qaeda terrorist Adnan El' Shukrijumah not once, but twice in a two-week time span, it is something worth keeping on your radar.

The radar signal got stronger when journalist Hamid Mir said that his contacts in al Qaeda indicate that Shukrijumah might be plotting to detonate a nuclear device in the United States during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan later this month.

Allahpundit notes that this is a probably a false alarm, and I think he is more than likely correct. That said, the first Blotter link above notes that "virtually every" FBI field office is hunting Shukrijumah, so he is deemed a credible threat, if not necessarily a present one.

I first read all the links above when I got home from work late last night, but wanted to sleep on it before commenting.

It seems unlikely to me that Shukrijumah or other al Qaeda operatives would be able to easily obtain a nuclear warhead, and even if they were able to obtain such a device, the chance of successfully smuggling it across an ocean to the United States seems exceedingly remote.

It is far more likely that toxic radioactive substances, however, could be smuggled in or stolen, and combined with homemade explosives (such as TATP, a terrorist favorite) to create a radiological "dirty bomb."

Such a weapon uses the blast effect of high explosives to spread radiation over a local area that would likely affect both the local blast area and locations downwind, perhaps encompassing several square miles in some degree of radiation. The probably destructive capability of a dirty bomb is not that much more significant than that of a conventional high explosive blast, but those in the area contaminated area would face radiation dangers in addition to normal blast effects. There would probably be a higher fatality and injury rate as a result, but nothing approaching the level of even the smallest tactical nuclear warhead.

The primary benefit of such a detonation to terrorists is the fear that will spread. If detonated in a densely populated urban area, the panic such a weapon could instill in the population could possibly cause casualties and disrupt life for a significant length of time, but the area can be decontaminated and returned to use.

The long-term political effects of deploying such a weapon are as yet known, but we can speculate. What will almost immediately occur is that the people of the United States will once again realize that the War on Terrorism does not occur just "over there." Terrorism should be thought of not only as an international issue but a local one as well, and images and stories of American civilians being killed and injured at home is likely to create a cry for the Legislative and Executive branches to take a far more aggressive role in combating terrorism both domestically and overseas.

If it was determined that such a weapon was smuggled into the country, or that those who detonated the weapon came across a border (particularly the Mexican border) to do so, then the politics of border security would radically change in a very short amount of time. I think that an immediate and total crackdown on illegal immigration would occur very quickly, and that Congress would be forced to implement a full border wall, with increased staffing and detection equipment, more lenient chase and capture guidelines for Border Patrol agents, and far harsher penalties for attempted illegal immigration. I do not think it likely that illegal immigrants already in America will be rounded up in massive sweeps, but the public could possibly force lawmakers to consider that possibility. There are simply too many variables in this equation to comment beyond that.

If such a strike were to occur, I think that the White House is almost certain to receive massive complaints from Congressional Conservatives (particularly in the House) because of current lax border security policies, and Democrats would seize upon the opportunity to indicate that the Administration is failing to be effective in the War on Terror. I think this is a double-edged sword, however, as Democrats have been far more lax in regards to border security and illegal immigration than even the White House, so it is unlikely to be a winning issue for them.

The overseas intelligence intercept program that the media and Democrats have tired to spin as "domestic spying" will finally be understood for what it really is, and will no longer be thought of as an encroachment on freedoms, but as the rational extension of intelligence gathering capabilities that it always has been.

Overseas, I think you would see an increased political and diplomatic effort to convince Pakistan to allow Coalition military forces to penetrate deep into the tribal areas of its western border region with Afghanistan so that al Qaeda and Taliban staging and training areas can be forcefully struck. Also in Afghanistan, I think you will see a much more concerted effort to eradicate the poppy crop, the Taliban's single most important funding source. Neither bodes well for al Qaeda's ally.

Next door in Iran, I think that a much more muscular diplomatic response to Iran's nuclear ambitions would be forced by the United States in the wake of a dirty bomb attack on America. Recent radiological destruction would make it impossible for us to allow Iran to continue down the road toward weapons development. Harsh sanctions and a blockade enforced by U.S. military assets would force Iranian leaders to either back down from their nuclear aims, or force them to engage us in a regional conflict in which their mostly conscripted military, primarily armed with obsolete weapons, could not hope to prevail.

If a blockade or conflict in the region with Iran is imminent, you might also expect forces to be built up in Iraq to guard against a cross-border attack by Iran that some intelligence sources say might occur. Once the Iranian threat de-escalates, it seems plausible that the additional Army and Marine units brought in to deal with the Iranian threat might be sent to Iraq to dismantle Shia militias that would suddenly be without their primary supporters, and to al Anbar to take on Sunni insurgents that we do not seem to presently have the manpower to pacify.

These sudden shifts in the region, if they occur, could put Syria in a very unstable position. I will not speculate as the whether or not his Baathist regime would fall without the support of Iran, but it would make Syrian support of terrorism a front-burner topic, perhaps forcing it to finally withdraw support of Islamic terror groups such as Hezbollah.

This is all extremely speculative, of course.

There is presently no way of knowing when a terror attack involving a radiological weapon could occur, nor if it will ever occur, and trying to predict what may happen is admittedly roaming far into speculative territory on a very high, very thin wire.

But there are some things we know for certain.

We do know al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations have tried to direct attacks on the U.S. mainland before and after 9/11, and to date, all of those other attacks have failed. We know they or other Islamic terrorists will try to attack again. We also know that at some point they are likely to be successful.

What will be our response when that day arrives?

That may largely depend on which political party happens to be in power when and if such an attack occurs.