A nuclear attack will likely take place on US soil in the next ten years

" Just because I'm surprised America hasn't been nuked doesn't mean I'm saying it won't be nuked in the next ten years. The latter is what I believe." You're missing the point. The same reasons that cause you to believe that it will be nuked in the next ten years would also have caused the same belief ten years ago, when it was clearly wrong. This calls into question the predictive power of your evidence. " I deeply doubt that any intelligent being would nuke Mecca as a revenge." I never said it was intelligent, but you would be surprised what people would do. "1) It would initiate a third world war instantly, no questions asked. If Muslims were O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D by cartoons, think what this would do ;) 2) Since we now have a liberal majority in the Senate and we have a liberal president who is anti-war, I doubt that such action would be taken." Since when does the president have exclusive factual control over all nuclear buttons? Legal control maybe, but all it takes is ONE criminal fanatic somewhere around NORAD. As I've said, the religious right plays a prominent ideological role in the US military, and the religious right are quite susceptible to the impression that third world war = Apocalypse = Jesus comes down from heaven and lifts up the faithful. Al Qaeda didn't get where it is without learning what kind of people it hates. " Probability is not always based on numbers. The jury don't listen to numbers, but they analyze the evidence and decide whether or not the accused is guilty." Ipse dixet. "Reasonable doubt" does not refer to a specific probability. Probability indeed solely has meaning in terms of numbers, the term "Likely" unless clarified when set forth means any number over 50% may refer to the chance of something occurred. "In this case I'm basing my prediction on evidence, not mathematical calculations. " Which is why it doesn't predict the likelihood of anything. And keep in mind it's still insufficient evidence, given the lack of precedent. " So, if it would come in as sea cargo there would be a 95% probability that it would never even be inspected." Which tells us nothing outside the context of knowing whether it will come in at all. " Go to www.google.com and type in (without the quote marks) "how to build a nuclear bomb frank barnaby". The only thing that the countries struggle in getting nukes is: 1) Enriching uranium 2) Getting enough of plutonium/uranium If I'd have uranium and a decent set of instructions (which you can buy for around five bucks at www.amazon.com), I probably could build a nuclear bomb myself." I already googled it as you suggested. Enriching uranium is the hard part (for quality terrorists, for most people both are impossible), it requires expertise, quality expensive equipment, and time (http://www.fas.org... gives an idea how much time it takes if you input the numbers of centrifuges you think you can purchase while arousing NO attention whatsoever, which is probably not very much :). "I probably could build a nuclear bomb myself." We already know your propensity to lie about such things, given that you are 20 years old and claim to have 40 years of experience in the nuclear industry. You are hardly, therefore, a credible source. By the way, the top rated review for Barnaby's book on amazon.com says specifically that it is not a manual for bomb producers. http://www.amazon.com... "Or, as I said, when Iran is finished with its nukes, they could give a complete warhead over to Al Queda or someone else." Evidently you know nothing about Islam. Iran and Al Qaeda have some diplomacy, but they don't get along well-- Iran is a Shia theocracy, Al Qaeda is Sunni. They are unlikely to cooperate on something as important as a nuclear weapon, especially given that Iran would in fact then be subject to MAD doctrine, except of course that they have a low capacity for manufacturing such things, so it's more like "Their assured destruction for our one problem."