Latest news with #KhalidSheikhMohammed
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
An Under-Appreciated Threat from Airborne Attacks on Large Nuclear Power Plants
Most of the 440 operable nuclear power plants (NPPs) currently deployed worldwide have long been recognized as potential targets for attack by enemy military forces or terrorists. Such an attack could not only destroy the power-generating capacity of the plant but also release a large plume of radioactive material having the potential to cause long-term economic and environmental damage, create radioactive exclusion zones and render surrounding areas uninhabitable for decades. COMMENTARY The vulnerability of existing large NPPs to airborne attack is largely created because they are located above ground. As a result, the containment structure and portions of other plant buildings housing hazardous radioactive material are directly exposed to airborne attacks capable of breaching the containment structure and other NPP building structures. These attacks could come from, for example, earth penetrating weapons designed to penetrate hardened structures such as military bunkers; military aircraft using bombs or missiles; direct impact by large commercial aircraft such those used in the 9/11 attack; or perhaps by new types of airborne weapons such as the explosive-laden drones used in the war between Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, an attack on an NPP could be deliberately planned to take advantage of prevailing winds at the time of the attack such that the winds would carry the plume of radioactive material to nearby areas that include targets of interest. Given the large inventory of hazardous radionuclides inside the containment structure and portions of other plant buildings, a large NPP could, therefore, perhaps be viewed by terrorists or enemy military forces as a type of pre-deployed, radiological dispersal device (that is, a type of 'dirty bomb'). The reasonableness of the threat posed is indicated by the Chernobyl accident, in which radioactive particles reached distances of up to 200 kilometers, affecting areas in northern Ukraine, southern Belarus, and parts of western Russia. In that respect, a single attack on carefully selected NPPs would be dual-purpose: destroy the electrical power-generating capacity of the NPP and simultaneously create a large, hazardous radioactive plume carried by the wind to engulf nearby strategic targets. The enormity of the number of potential targets in areas near U.S. NPPs is illustrated by an estimate that a third of the U.S population—and 14 of the largest metropolitan population areas—are within a 50-mile radius of an NPP. To illustrate this threat, consider the following hypothetical example of what might have happened if the terrorist plan for the 9/11 attack on the twin towers in New York City had been slightly modified. The 9/11 Commission Report describes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the al-Qaeda field commander who planned the 9/11 attacks. It states that Sheikh Mohammed originally proposed to Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, to hijack 10 large commercial aircraft, and crash them not only into the twin towers but also '…CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington.' However, bin Laden '…was not convinced that it [KSM's proposal] was practical.' His final decision was to hijack large commercial aircraft and use them to strike only the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol. Consider the consequences if the al-Qaeda plan to strike the twin towers had been slightly different. If instead of striking only the twin towers, imagine if the plan had been to strike the twin towers and/or the Indian Point NPP, located about 40 miles north of New York City, with the objective of having the released radioactive plume carried by the wind in a southerly direction into New York City and the surrounding area. Data from National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration measuring stations in the New York City area at Central Park and at LaGuardia, Newark, and John F. Kennedy airports indicate that sustained wind directions and sustained wind speeds on September 11, 2001, varied from 300, 330, 360, and 320 degrees, and with sustained speeds of 12, 12, 21, and 18 miles per hour, respectively. Thus, if the hypothetical September 11, 2011, attack on the Indian Point NPP had been successful, then it is conceivable, perhaps probable, that within three to four hours, the resulting plume of hazardous radionuclides could have been carried from the Indian Point NPP location to the south and southeast, covering portions of western Long Island, New York City, and Newark, New Jersey. It must be stressed that the actual risk posed by the plume would depend on more than the radioactive characteristics of the particles inside the plume, but also on interactions among many other factors such as plume turbulence and particle size, shape, density, and release rate, for example. The result would perhaps not have been as sudden and dramatic as the actual attack on the twin towers. But imagine, for example, the economic consequences if Wall Street and other parts of Manhattan and New York City were turned into a multi-year uninhabitable radioactive exclusion zone—not to mention the near- and long-term deaths and human health problems in the area. What can be done to reduce the risk of such attacks? Many actions are possible. For existing large NPPs, new military strategies and technologies could be applied to detect and deter attacks. To better protect the NPP, should an attack be attempted, perhaps the plants could be retrofitted with large, protective physical barriers to cover the containment structures and key portions of plant buildings containing hazardous radionuclides. For future large NPPs yet to be constructed, perhaps the plants could be designed and constructed to better deter, defend, and protect in the event of an attack. Also, where feasible, perhaps siting NPPs underground in rock caverns could be used to create a robust, natural, protective cover against airborne attack. Also, if the caverns were properly sited and constructed, the overlying rock mass would function as a natural containment structure, thereby avoiding the need for a costly engineered containment structure. Existing large NPPs sited above ground are vulnerable to airborne attacks by terrorists or enemy military forces. The attacks could be designed and timed such that nearby populations and critical infrastructure would be engulfed by the plume of hazardous radionuclides released by the attack. Nations considering the construction of new, large NPPs should evaluate the probability and consequences of a successful airborne attack and modify their siting and design basis as necessary. —C.W. (Wes) Myers, PhD is a retired geologist who worked for 25 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a research manager and on nuclear waste disposal issues.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - No pass for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism
On Apr. 22, in the valley of Pahalgam, where newlyweds and vacationing families were capturing moments of joy against the backdrop of another Indian summer, sudden barbaric violence shattered the calm as four terrorists sponsored and supported by Pakistan mercilessly executed 26 innocents. They tore apart families — husbands from wives, siblings from one another, parents from their children — executing them with chilling precision. Adding to the horror, the perpetrators sought to infuse their carnage with a sectarian veneer, demanding victims declare their religious affiliations. This attempt to communalize the atrocity was thwarted by an act of profound courage — a local Kashmiri Muslim, in defiance of the terrorists' divisive intent, sacrificed his life to shield the tourists. This brutal act of terror only fills up the catalogue of terrorist attacks sponsored by Pakistan against India. Reasi in 2024, Pulwama in 2019, Uri and Pathankot attacks in 2016 and the 2008 siege of Mumbai — where 166 lives, including six Americans, were killed — form a grim list that defies comprehension. Terror in Pahalgam brings another spotlight on the nature of the Pakistani state and its parentage of syndicate of terrorist proxies operating from its soil. Pakistan prides itself in harboring and defending proscribed terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and their front organizations like the Resistance Front which claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. While Pakistan leaders' posture on the global stage, proclaiming victimhood and demanding joint investigations to deflect allegations of complicity, they simultaneously shelter and embolden terrorist figures at home. It is incredible how well their strategy of hoodwinking and denial has worked for them. It worked for Pakistan when they sheltered Osama bin Laden. It worked for them when they knowingly and falsely declared dead 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Sajid Mir, the man behind the Mumbai attacks. It worked for them when they orchestrated the release of Ahmed Saeed Omar Sheikh, a terrorist India was forced to release in a hostage exchange, who went on to murder Daniel Pearl. And sadly they continue to persist with it. The recurrent pattern is unmistakable: Whenever inconvenient truths surface regarding Pakistan's entanglement with terrorist organizations, its officials deftly concede a measure of historical complicity, thereby deflecting scrutiny from contemporary accusations. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand, a calculated maneuver, consistently yields dividends, shielding the state from accountability. History, as the adage warns, condemns the ignorant to its repetition. From its inception, the Pakistani state — most notably its military, which has systematically prevented any elected prime minister from completing a full term — has fixated on the territorial conquest of Kashmir, purely on religious grounds. In moments of domestic turmoil — be it political missteps, economic collapse, or ideological discord — the military apparatus invariably redirects the national gaze toward Kashmir, conjuring the specter of an existential Indian threat. This manufactured bogeyman serves the singular purpose of subduing the Pakistani populace, ensuring their acquiescence to the military's agenda. More than 40,000 people, civilian and security forces have lost their lives in India due to terrorism. As a respected and responsible member of the comity of nations, India has never sought a violent solution to any conflict. But we cannot choose to not act when terrorists unleash such horror. We do not stand alone today when we say there is zero tolerance for terrorism. After the terror attack, India undertook measured and non-escalatory strikes against these terror apparatuses operating in Pakistan. In response the Pakistan Army, in its usual war mongering manner, has sought to escalate the situation by carrying out strikes against Indian civilian and military infrastructure. It has chosen to stand with the terrorists. India does not seek an escalation. Our war is against terrorism. It is not against the people of Pakistan. Vinay Kwatra is India's ambassador to the U.S. and its former foreign secretary. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
No pass for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism
On Apr. 22, in the valley of Pahalgam, where newlyweds and vacationing families were capturing moments of joy against the backdrop of another Indian summer, sudden barbaric violence shattered the calm as four terrorists sponsored and supported by Pakistan mercilessly executed 26 innocents. They tore apart families — husbands from wives, siblings from one another, parents from their children — executing them with chilling precision. Adding to the horror, the perpetrators sought to infuse their carnage with a sectarian veneer, demanding victims declare their religious affiliations. This attempt to communalize the atrocity was thwarted by an act of profound courage — a local Kashmiri Muslim, in defiance of the terrorists' divisive intent, sacrificed his life to shield the tourists. This brutal act of terror only fills up the catalogue of terrorist attacks sponsored by Pakistan against India. Reasi in 2024, Pulwama in 2019, Uri and Pathankot attacks in 2016 and the 2008 siege of Mumbai — where 166 lives, including six Americans, were killed — form a grim list that defies comprehension. Terror in Pahalgam brings another spotlight on the nature of the Pakistani state and its parentage of syndicate of terrorist proxies operating from its soil. Pakistan prides itself in harboring and defending proscribed terrorist groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and their front organizations like the Resistance Front which claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack. While Pakistan leaders' posture on the global stage, proclaiming victimhood and demanding joint investigations to deflect allegations of complicity, they simultaneously shelter and embolden terrorist figures at home. It is incredible how well their strategy of hoodwinking and denial has worked for them. It worked for Pakistan when they sheltered Osama bin Laden. It worked for them when they knowingly and falsely declared dead 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Sajid Mir, the man behind the Mumbai attacks. It worked for them when they orchestrated the release of Ahmed Saeed Omar Sheikh, a terrorist India was forced to release in a hostage exchange, who went on to murder Daniel Pearl. And sadly they continue to persist with it. The recurrent pattern is unmistakable: Whenever inconvenient truths surface regarding Pakistan's entanglement with terrorist organizations, its officials deftly concede a measure of historical complicity, thereby deflecting scrutiny from contemporary accusations. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand, a calculated maneuver, consistently yields dividends, shielding the state from accountability. History, as the adage warns, condemns the ignorant to its repetition. From its inception, the Pakistani state — most notably its military, which has systematically prevented any elected prime minister from completing a full term — has fixated on the territorial conquest of Kashmir, purely on religious grounds. In moments of domestic turmoil — be it political missteps, economic collapse, or ideological discord — the military apparatus invariably redirects the national gaze toward Kashmir, conjuring the specter of an existential Indian threat. This manufactured bogeyman serves the singular purpose of subduing the Pakistani populace, ensuring their acquiescence to the military's agenda. More than 40,000 people, civilian and security forces have lost their lives in India due to terrorism. As a respected and responsible member of the comity of nations, India has never sought a violent solution to any conflict. But we cannot choose to not act when terrorists unleash such horror. We do not stand alone today when we say there is zero tolerance for terrorism. After the terror attack, India undertook measured and non-escalatory strikes against these terror apparatuses operating in Pakistan. In response the Pakistan Army, in its usual war mongering manner, has sought to escalate the situation by carrying out strikes against Indian civilian and military infrastructure. It has chosen to stand with the terrorists. India does not seek an escalation. Our war is against terrorism. It is not against the people of Pakistan. Vinay Kwatra is India's ambassador to the U.S. and its former foreign secretary.
Newsweek
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
How Can We Never Forget What We Don't Remember?
I was 1 year old on September 11, 2001. I was 11 when former President Barack Obama announced that Navy SEALs had killed Osama bin-Laden. And I was 25 when I spent a week at Guantánamo Bay attending military court hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. I remember the third event vividly—it was just a few months ago. I remember the second one vaguely. And the first? I don't remember it at all. Every Sept. 11, people post about that fateful day on social media, often using the phrase "Never Forget." But how am I supposed to never forget what I don't remember? I went to Guantánamo with eight other law students, and none of us were old enough to remember 9/11. Those at Camp Justice recognized that too. I quickly picked up on the attitude—through offhand remarks or subtle indifference—that we Gen Zers didn't get it. We were too young to remember 9/11, so we couldn't truly appreciate what it meant to sit in that courtroom and witness the alleged masterminds of the attacks. And they were somewhat right. It is significantly easier to remember a lived experience over a secondhand report. I don't fully understand what it was like for Americans who watched the horror unfold in real time—because I wasn't there. Seeing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the flesh was a surreal experience. But I'm sure I didn't feel it as deeply as those who lived through 9/11, including the victims' families—those who can truly never forget. Family and friends of the victims of the 9/11 terror attack attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum on September 11, 2024, in New York City. Family and friends of the victims of the 9/11 terror attack attend the annual 9/11 Commemoration Ceremony at the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum on September 11, 2024, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images We all know the familiar saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It's worth unpacking what this quote actually means. It's not enough to learn about history; we need to remember it. Most Americans were not alive or were very young during the Holocaust, and now more people than ever dispute that it ever happened, even though it is commonly taught in K-12 classrooms. And if we don't remember the past, we lose the ability to never forget, and we risk repeating history. Most Americans learned about, but don't remember, the 1929 Stock Market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. Similarly, in 2008, market speculation and overconfidence led to the Great Recession. Could this event and others be history repeating itself? And is our historical amnesia the reason why? We need to remember—not just learn—if we want to stop history from repeating itself. Psychological evidence shows that we can still remember what we didn't physically experience through collective memory. Society passes down memories of events, allowing the receiver to "remember" the historical events. The main issue with collective memory is that memories are often reconstructed when passed down. Since collective memory is the only way for people to remember an event that they did not physically experience, it's essential—not just for remembering history, but stopping it from repeating. How can we ensure that history doesn't repeat itself despite these barriers to remembering? I propose that we can start solving this problem by strengthening collective memory in primary education. Here are two concrete ways to do so. —Increase digital immersion in history classes. The National WWII Museum uses AI to allow visitors to "ask" survivors questions and hear their testimonies, which gives participants a firsthand experience with history. Teachers could follow suit and create immersive experiences for their students through AI and other firsthand accounts in history classes, allowing students to hear directly from those who lived through major events. —Teach media literacy in public schools. Like AI, social media is a powerful storyteller—but is also one of the largest sources of false news, eroding collective memory. As such, the rising generation needs tools to counter misinformation. The U.S. education system should consider incorporating media literacy as part of the curriculum for history and English classes. In Finland, media literacy is part of the national core curriculum, starting in preschool. Finland's teachers implement the program in creative ways. One teacher taught her students how search algorithms work and why the first results might not be reliable; another teacher had students edit their own media to show how easy it is to manipulate information. This curriculum works—Finland consistently ranks at the top of the Media Literacy Index, which measures 47 countries' resilience to misinformation. We can teach facts from history books, but nothing replaces the impact of real stories. For me, history became memory in Guantánamo Bay, where I sat face-to-face with the legacy of 9/11—terrorist attacks I didn't live through but now feel deeply connected to. Teaching the rising generation to remember history through others' experiences will strengthen our collective memory. It brings the past closer. It makes remembering possible. And remembering is what keeps us from repeating mistakes. Bonnie Stewart is a law student at BYU Law School. She is originally from Las Vegas, Nev. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Newly unsealed documents reveal more details of prosecutors' evidence in 9/11 attacks
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly unsealed documents give one of the most detailed views yet of the evidence gathered on the accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, including how prosecutors allege he and others interacted with the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The summaries of evidence released Thursday include Mohammed's own statements over the years, phone records and other documents alleging coordination between Mohammed and the hijackers, videos included in al-Qaida's planning for the attacks and prosecutors' summaries of government simulations of the flights of the four airliners that day. But few other details were given. Also to be presented are the photos and death certificates of 2,976 people killed that day at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field, where the fourth airliner commandeered by the al-Qaida hijackers smashed into the ground after a revolt by passengers. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. The newly revealed framework of military prosecutors' potential case against Mohammed, who prosecutors say conceived of and executed much of al-Qaida's attack, is contained in a plea agreement that the Defense Department is battling in court to roll back. Mohammed and two co-defendants agreed in the plea deal with military prosecutors to plead guilty in the attack in return for life sentences. The Associated Press, The New York Times, NPR, The Washington Post, Fox News, NBC and Univision are suing to get the plea bargains unsealed. The summaries of the prosecution evidence were released Thursday in a partially redacted version of Mohammed's agreement. The evidence summaries point to the possibility of additional revelations about the attacks yet to come. As part of the plea agreement, prosecutors, defense and the senior Pentagon official overseeing the cases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, agreed to an unusual step — a hearing that would allow them to make public the evidence compiled against the three. It appears designed to address complaints from families and others that a plea bargain typically would otherwise keep the evidence from fully being revealed. Another unusual part of the deal mandated Mohammed to agree to answer questions from the families of victims. Military prosecutors, defense attorneys and Guantanamo officials negotiated the deal over two years under government auspices. The negotiations were an attempt to bring a resolution to the 9/11 case, which has remained in pretrial hearings for more than two decades since the attacks. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin interceded to try to void the plea agreement after it was announced, saying that waiving the possibility of the death penalty in so grave an attack was a decision that defense secretaries should handle. Federal court hearings in the Defense Department's attempts to roll back the plea agreements are ongoing. Legal arguments over whether the sustained torture that Mohammed and other 9/11 defendants underwent in CIA custody has rendered their statements in the case inadmissible and has slowed the case. So have repeated staffing changes at the Guantanamo court and the logistical difficulties of holding a trial in a courtroom a plane flight away from the U.S. ___ Associated Press writer Larry Neumeister contributed reporting from New York.
