Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Was It Ever Likely That Al Qaeda Would Become A Nuclear Threat?

Jesse Walker | 8.31.2011 1:23 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

John Mueller on what we've learned so far from bin Laden's files: "Whatever al Qaeda's threatening rhetoric and occasional nuclear fantasies, its potential as a menace, particularly as an atomic one, has been much inflated." Read his argument here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Is Rick Perry a Theocrat?

Jesse Walker is books editor at Reason and the author of Rebels on the Air and The United States of Paranoia.

PoliticsPolicyWorldTerrorismNuclear Weapons
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (22)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. O2   14 years ago

    the issue was dirty bombs not mushroom clouds. course team boosch preferred fearmongering & rumor.

  2. cheney   14 years ago

    dont call me team boosch

    1. Barack Obama   14 years ago

      I agree with you dick. That honor currently belongs to my administration.

  3. Joe M   14 years ago

    In all fairness, I doubt this "bin Laben" fellow knows much about al Qaeda.

    1. doomboy   14 years ago

      He is associated with a splinter group, al Qaeba

      1. Barry D   14 years ago

        I HATE splinter terrorists!

        The other day, I found a few splinters in my foot. They really suck.

        Down with splinter terrorism!

        1. Ice Nine   14 years ago

          How in hell did they get those past TSA?

      2. People's Front of Judea   14 years ago

        Splitters!

    2. Jesse Walker   14 years ago

      Thank you veby buch. It's been bixed.

  4. Barry D   14 years ago

    "in 2007, the physicist Richard Garwin assessed the likelihood of a nuclear explosion in an American or a European city by terrorism or other means in the next ten years to be 87 percent"

    I had to note that this cannot yet be disproved with any certainty.

    I always thought that the supposed threat was that Al Qaeda or the like would obtain a nuclear device from a broke former Soviet satellite state, or from a government like Pakistan's, with friendly people in it.

    I can't say what the odds are, and it always seems like threats are greatly exaggerated, to serve the purposes of those in power. That observation goes far beyond the United States.

    But I'm not sure what this article was refuting. How many serious people in the intelligence community believed that Al Qaeda had its own Manhattan Project?

    1. Barry D   14 years ago

      BTW my first sentence was meant as a joke. That doesn't seem obvious, on a re-read.

    2. Tim   14 years ago

      911 was Al Queda's Manhattan project.

      1. O2   14 years ago

        fission fail

  5. Tim   14 years ago

    In the movies, stealing nuclear weapons is easy. So of course "people" just expected Osama to pinch a few.

  6. Fist of Etiquette   14 years ago

    I think the more immediate question is whether Rick Perry will become a nuclear threat.

    1. Tim   14 years ago

      Bachman is the new Palin, but STOP THE PRESSES! Perry has shot to the #1 spot so he is now square, provincial and dumb.
      After a while you'd think people would catch onto this play.

  7. Apostate Jew   14 years ago

    No. It was not. Anyone who says so is either a fear-monger or a bed-wetter.

    1. Tim   14 years ago

      There was a lot of bed wetting back in the day: the Anthrax attack, the "deadly afghan winter". Weenies all over, left and right.

    2. A Prostate Joe   14 years ago

      Those conditions are not either/or. I'm deathly afraid of generated crises.

  8. R C Dean   14 years ago

    The thing about nukular nutbars is that, even when you discount the risk for low probability, you are still left with a catastrophic risk.

    Of course, the easiest way to deal with that risk is at the source - Iran, Pakistan, Russia.

    1. Aresen   14 years ago

      I submit that the risk of dying in an asteroid strike is higher, if you multiply the exceedingly low probability with the beyond catastrophic consequence.

  9. Aresen   14 years ago

    So, without ever coming close to a nuclear bomb or carrying out another successful attack since 9/11, Al Queda has succeeded in getting the US to squander trillions in stupid wars and equally stupid "homeland security", massively violate the rights of citizens, tear up the Constitution and implement a surveillance state.

    It would seem, then, that the terrorists have won.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Visits $450 Million 'Alligator Alcatraz,' Suggests Taxpayers Should Fund More of Them

Autumn Billings | 7.2.2025 10:23 AM

J.D. Vance Says Immigrants Will 'Bankrupt' the Federal Government. The Opposite Is True.

Eric Boehm | 7.2.2025 10:15 AM

Republican Holdouts

Liz Wolfe | 7.2.2025 9:30 AM

Americans Celebrate Independence Day Less Proud of Their Country Than Ever

J.D. Tuccille | 7.2.2025 7:00 AM

Brickbat: Take a Bite out of Crime

Charles Oliver | 7.2.2025 4:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!