ISIL's nuclear weapons

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

Various media reports state that ISIL now controls the output of many refineries in Iraq and Libya. It wouldn'r be too much of an assumption to believe that ISIL now have plenty of cash for all sorts of purposes, including the purchase of nuclear weapons and a means of delivery. What would this mean for the world in general and the West in particular ?
Original post
Profile picture for user j_jza80

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 1,540

It makes me wonder why these sites haven't been reduced to rubble.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,077

the purchase of nuclear weapons and a means of delivery.
That may be the critical factor John...who, if anyone would sell ISIS/ISIL nuclear weapons? Even some of the States that the West once thought of as "rogue" must wonder whether selling nuclear weapons to ISIL might be a step too far. Sure, the weapons might first be used against the "old Enemies" in the West, but ISIL may one day turn them back on the states from whom they first purchased them. Even if States who might potentially sell nukes to ISIL currently practice Islam, unless they are as 'fundamentalist' as ISIL, then they must see that they too may well find themselves on opposing sides to ISIL in the longer term, not leats because Islam seems so full of sub-factions who seem to think "their way" is the only "right" way? (That's merely intended as my personal observation of the current situation, and is not intended as a critism of Islam, nor as incitement to religious criticism/hatred :eek:)
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Leaving aside exactly what resources they do have let's suppose you are right and that they were in the market. I wonder how many potential suppliers would actually be prepared to supply? I am not sure that ISIS has any allies so equipped, does it? Their intentions and actions are dangerous and unpredictable so I am not sure who would risk the sale for fear of where they might be used.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

I don't think we have to worry about ISIS / ISIL too much; Saddam Hussein dedicated the whole resources of an oil-rich Iraq for decades to getting a nuclear capability and he failed miserably.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

ISIL are committed to the establishment of a world wide caliphate (government) - eventually. It is the means by which they bring that about within a reasonable time frame that, in part, supports the original question. ISIL appears to be supported and maintained by young activist men and young activist men are always in a hurry to bring about change. Such appears to be the strength of their ideology and the depth of their convictions, best illustrated by the recent murders of innocent civilians that, I believe they are capable of acquiring or, even designing - on some future occasion - weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using those weapons at the earliest opportunity. Remember, they do not have to be nuclear. Far fetched ? Let's hope so.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

That may be the critical factor John...who, if anyone would sell ISIS/ISIL nuclear weapons? Even some of the States that the West once thought of as "rogue" must wonder whether selling nuclear weapons to ISIL might be a step too far. Sure, the weapons might first be used against the "old Enemies" in the West, but ISIL may one day turn them back on the states from whom they first purchased them. Even if States who might potentially sell nukes to ISIL currently practice Islam, unless they are as 'fundamentalist' as ISIL, then they must see that they too may well find themselves on opposing sides to ISIL in the longer term, not leats because Islam seems so full of sub-factions who seem to think "their way" is the only "right" way? (That's merely intended as my personal observation of the current situation, and is not intended as a critism of Islam, nor as incitement to religious criticism/hatred :eek:)
Paul, I think that money, especially a lot of money doesn't so much talk as shout !

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

I think we have to be very cautious about assigning too much potential to ISIL! Yes, they have expanded enormously in the last couple of years but that has only been possible in the power-vacuums that operate in states seriously weakened by civil-war and internal sectarian struggle; hold a gun to somebody's head and give them a choice between death and joining ISIL and they'll join ISIL! Yes, some followers of ISIL have the 'conviction' to murder civilians in terrorist attacks. These generate enormous publicity but do not really represent a genuine threat to any western nation (although obviously they represent a threat to personal safety if you are unlucky enough to become a victim of an attack). Would ISIL even need to stage these publicity-generating attacks if they had any real power? It begs the question: are these attacks part of some grand strategy or are they just isolated attacks by 'wannabe' groups jumping onto the ISIL bandwagon? Massacring a few unarmed civilians with a AK-47 is one thing... ...obtaining even the crudest of nuclear devices is quite another.
Profile picture for user spitfireman

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 2,766

They will go with a 'dirty' bomb. Easy to make, easy to transport, easy to utilise. Will cause havoc in a city. Baz

Member for

13 years

Posts: 8,824

Yup totally agree, detonated on an underground and allow the trains push the contaminates around the city. I also agree you are totally over estimating the resources they have available, as said Saddam couldn't do it with his resources. If they ever did use them it would be the last act because they would be eradicated from the planet toot sweet
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

I doubt their ability to acquire the components for a dirty bomb or their intention to use one. As stated above it would end their aspirations for a Caliphate instantly - they would have no ally and would be obliterated. They might be a band of gullible zealots lead by homicidsl fanatics with a purpose but I doubt the leadership is stupid.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

Tony T "eradicated from the planet?" But only after they had created mayhem ! Re 11 There is an example from history: The Japanese were persuaded into surrender by the dropping of two atomic weapons. It might be even easier for ISIL to intimidate the West.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Well that is indeed relevant but only if you believe firstly that ISIL would be able to source the weapon and the capability to use it and secondly that they would actually see any benefit from so doing. I do not think either is credible.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

There are radiation detectors at major ports and airports in the United Kingdom plus at either end of the Channel Tunnel; even a 'dirty bomb' requires difficult to obtain nuclear material and a lot of explosive to be effective and the United Kingdom would certainly never 'surrender' to ISIL even if they did detonate one here. Honestly, they way the media talk about ISIL you'd think they were Nazi Germany or the USSR! If there was anybody to stand up to ISIL they'd virtually all melt-away and their 'support' would evaporate. Don't forget that Iraq has been at war, mainly with itself, for nearly twenty-five years; I'll wager that most of the population are just thoroughly sick of conflict, including the Iraqi Army, trained at great expense (and a few lives) by the West. As soon as somebody turns up looking for a fight, like ISIL, everybody else (including the Iraqi Army) just rolls-over and goes along (as I probably would under the circumstances); with nobody to stand-up to ISIL they 'conquer' vast territory and seem very powerful but are they? The 'West' could rout them utterly in a matter of weeks but it would require huge resources (which the West has), vast expense and (most importantly) the lives of our Armed Forces; there simply is no appetite for this any more after Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, why should we bother? The last two campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, to rid these regions of the current 'terror' were (initially) highly successful but what good did it do us (or anybody else); the West got no thanks from anybody and drew huge quantities of criticism, (IED) bombs and bullets... ...every anti-West voice in the world spoke-up about the West being where it was not wanted and highlighted the harm the West was doing (while conveniently forgetting any good that was done), result: sort-out your own problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt... ...but then 'ISIL', or some wannabe group, reach-out to strike the West (tourists)!!! I wonder why???

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

Let us have a look at the credibility/believability of my suggestion. We know that they have the idealogical fanaticism in abundance to motivate any kind or type of attack. We know that they have seized huge funds. We know that their ideology means that they will destroy themselves to achieve their objectives. But, acquiring the nuts and bolts of weapons of mass destruction ? That's a step too far. That's crazy. That is preposterous. That will never happen - will it ? If, fifteen years ago, I had sat at my keyboard as a writer with a rather inventive turn of imagination and written that I can imagine that some fanatical group of terrorists with a chilling agenda, will high jack two commercial airliners packed with innocent passengers and fly them into two skyscrapers in New York City which will ignite and burn to the ground murdering almost 3000 people comprising most nationalities, the howls of laughter would have drowned the traffic noise outside my window and I would have been dismissed as a loonie and a fruitcake.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

Fair points, but ISIL aren't stupid.....and they are certainly aware of their own limitations. And what happened to those behind 9/11, those that planned the attack, their 'organisation', their ideology and those (made) guilty by (an engineered) association? Why don't we hear anything about Al Qaeda these days?
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Well that's one of the reasons our boys died in Afghanistan so it was not all in vain as most would have us believe.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

CD 16 I rather had the impression that they had morphed into ISIL? 17. Charlie, I have a slight advantage being former military but not staff. I believe that the Allied presence in Afghanistan was like a pebble thrown into a pond and creating a transitory ripple effect - it shows and then is gone in seconds. All we have to show for around 300 years of political and military interference is the building of the odd bridge and stretches of highway. The prevailing mindset in that country - as far as I can judge - is and always will be tribal and medieval.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

On the contrary al Qaeda high command has strongly denied any connection whatsoever in Syria, Iraq or anywhere else. I accept your general points about the various expeditions there over the centuries but in this latest adventure the objective has been successful. What the future brings is another story of course.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 9,689

I rather had the impression that they had morphed into ISIL?
Well, in some respects I think you are correct. ISIL didn't clone 200,000 'fighters' overnight; some will have already given their allegiance to the Iraqi government, Al Qaeda previously, and Saddam Hussain before that! I agree with what was achieved by British / Allied Forces in Afghanistan; a temporary, and far too costly, interruption to the normal state of affairs: tribalism, corruption and the law of the gun (to whatever fundamentalism is in fashion).

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 6,467

On the contrary al Qaeda high command has strongly denied any connection whatsoever in Syria, Iraq or anywhere else. I accept your general points about the various expeditions there over the centuries but in this latest adventure the objective has been successful. What the future brings is another story of course.
You haven't won if you haven't defeated the enemy. To win, you have to kill the enemy in sufficient numbers as to persuade them that they no longer have credible forces. You have to dusrupt and destroy their communications, supplies and intelligence. You can't do that with regular forces opposing irregular forces as the Americans discovered in Vietnam. We most decidedly have not achieved our military objectives at a considerable cost in lives and treasure.