Liam Fox spoke about the threat of nuclear terrorism at Kings College today. He didn't use apocalyptic language but the facts he quoted show how frighteningly possible nuclear terrorism is:
- In 1997 Technical Area 18, a highly secure area of Los Alamos National laboratory in New Mexico, was successfully breached by US special forces in a special security exercise. They were able to steal enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb.
- Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the German government reported more than 700 cases of attempted nuclear sales, including 60 instances that involved seizure of nuclear materials. And that was only in the first three years.
- Following the collapse of the Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan, American forces uncovered details of an Al Qaeda nuclear planning cell. Osama bin Laden has called for the killing of 4 million Americans.
- The National Nuclear Security Administration in America has identified 220 buildings at 52 sites in Russia that are in dire need of treatment. In June 2001 two people in Russia's Murmansk region plundered a Soviet era nuclear powered lighthouse, one of 132 such lighthouses that lie unguarded and uninspected along Russia's northern coast.
- You could achieve a Hiroshima level explosion with about 100lbs of uranium 235 or between nine and 33 pounds of plutonium... of the 7 million cargo containers that will arrive at US ports this year, fewer than 5% will be open for inspection.
Nuclear terrorism is so much more problematic than rogue nuclear states because "attackers have no return address and thus, traditional deterrence will not apply". Fox also said that for deterrence to work the enemy have to want to be deterred, but judging from what he saw in Tehran recently some people there positively welcomed the end of the world:
"These people hate us not because of what we do but who we are. They hate our values, our freedom, our entire way of life. They will never give in and, therefore, neither must we."
In the questions afterwards he said that some of his parliamentary colleagues had warned him against painting such a grim picture, but that he thought he should tell it like it is because it isn't said enough. He also criticised the press for being too interested in trivial matters like Big Brother to give such threats the coverage they need:
"A nuclear attack as an act of terrorist aggression would make 9/11 look like the most innocent of dress rehearsals. The danger is clear and present and potentially cataclysmic. We have been warned. It is time to wake up."
Sadly I don't think this will sink in for most people until it happens. Download the full speech here.
Deputy Editor
A small scale biological attack is probably more feasible. As much as politicians are right to say that terrorists aim to destroy western values there can be no doubt that the war in Iraq has focused attention on Britain as a major target. The campaign that was once aimed at Israeli and American interests is now also aimed directly at British interests. Those that encouraged the political adventure in Iraq bare responsibility for the situation today. The London July bombers said as much in their video testament. Conservatives who supported the war in Iraq, based on doctored evidence produced by Labour acted in good faith, but now those same MPs must follow the steps of David Davis and openly apologise for their mistake.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 10, 2007 at 19:02
Tony Makara speaks good sense on this.Our MPs should rise to this idea,we have everything to gain if they apologise.
Posted by: R.Baker. | October 10, 2007 at 20:11
The point often overlooked is that nuclear (and radiological) weapons are much less dangerous than people think. The main impact would be the panic an attack would induce, which would occur because ... people think these weapons are more dangerous than they are.
The same is even more true of other types of "WMD".
Chemical weapons are less dangerous than home-made explosives (fatalities in Sarin attack on Tokyo underground =12; fatalities on 7/7 =52).
The same is true of biological agents, which are extrenmely diffiuclt to weaponise effectively.
It's the (irrational) fear which is the danger, not the weapon.
Posted by: John Fisher | October 10, 2007 at 20:23
The logical question that follows from this is the reactivation of civil defences.
My guess, and its only that, is that we are in a very poor state to respond to a Nuclear attack on one of our cities ( lets be honest we know which one it will be ).
We should make some sort of general retaliation obvious early on. There are places that the current generation of terrorist value.
Posted by: Man in a Shed | October 10, 2007 at 20:56
"These people hate us not because of what we do but who we are. They hate our values, our freedom, our entire way of life. They will never give in and, therefore, neither must we."
Precisely, Mr Fox, and that hatred would appear to be inspired by the fanatical teaching and interpretation of their religion by fundamentalists (read the books by Robert Spencer on Islamism.
"The campaign that was once aimed at Israeli and American interests is now also aimed directly at British interests. Those that encouraged the political adventure in Iraq bare responsibility for the situation today". Tony Makara.
The people that "bare" responsibility for Iraq are religious Islamic fanatics. Osman Bin Laden said nothing at the time of 9/11 involving or blaming the Jews. Following his religious teachings he believed it wrong that the Americans (Kuffars, should be in Saudi Arabia). Attacks against America by Islamists started long before 9/11 and shortly after Iran became a Theocracy. If you believe that the hatred of the Jews by Islam fanatics is a recent phenomenon caused by Palestine then you could not be further from the truth: it goes back to the 7th century.
"The campaign that was once aimed at Israeli and American interests is now also aimed directly at British interests".
What is that sentence supposed to indicate? That terrorism against America or Israel is no business of ours and we should not be involved? Pardon me, but even the French are now waking up to the danger of a nuclear Iran. The aims of a world Caliphate have lain dormant, but not forgotten. Wealth created by oil in the Middle East has assisted in giving the fanatics a dream of world domination and Sharia Law.
Mr Fox is right - it is time to wake up!
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | October 10, 2007 at 21:06
Oh dear. They hate us not for what we do but who we are, do they?
Wrong and dangerous thinking Dr Fox.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Ukipper | October 10, 2007 at 23:00
The people that 'bare' responsibility for Iraq are Islamic fanatics. Total and utter rubbish as I'm sure you know Don'tmakemelaugh. Iraq was a secular state where the Islamist fanatics were supressed. Thanks to the Americans and us the Islamic fanatics are all over the country including within the government now.Tony Makara is 100% right.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 10, 2007 at 23:07
"These people hate us not because of what we do but who we are. They hate our values, our freedom, our entire way of life. They will never give in and, therefore, neither must we."
The conundrum that arises out of this most succinct quotation (which I am sure will resonate for a very long time and will become a haunting classic) has several parts - the enemy is elusive within a pyramidal structure in one sense and in a continuum in another.
How do you reconcile the fact that embedded in our society today are law-abiding Muslims yet scattered amongst them are your "enemies", and how do you eviscerate such a malignancy without adverse effects on the greater part that is presently good? Is cohesion really achievable without the removal of the last but crucially implacable vestiges of divergent values? On the back of charitable liberalism that has evolved out of tolerant Christian conscience, how effective are political instruments in ensuring the right balance between national security and international reputation as a western democracy?
Some of those who have thought about these matters and have failed to reassure themselves with optimism have emigrated. That itself is a sad indictment of the prevailing situation.
Posted by: Teck Khong | October 11, 2007 at 00:16
An approach based on the denial of the problem and appeasement of the islamofascists will get us nowhere.
Terrorism did not start with the war in Iraq and withdrawel will not stop it. We have made our choice and we can't cut and run from the war on terror without undermining our security and alliance with the US.
Unless we tackle the problem now we risk seroius civil unrest if there is another attack by so called home grown terrorists.
People prepared to kill themselves are unlikely to be deterred by efforts to understand them. There are only two possible outcomes, either we win or lose. There is no peace process on offer from the enemies domestic and foreign.
Posted by: Jomo | October 11, 2007 at 08:42
A nuclear attack is possible but not very likely. It's a big step from acquiring fissile materials to successfully detonating a 'suitcase nuke' - such a task is probably beyond the capacity of the Pakistan government, which is the most plausible route by which Al Qaeda could acquire nukes and thus the main nuclear threat to the West. If we look at Al Qaeda's actual demonstrated capabilities, they are good at improvisation but short of truly capable scientists and engineers. The 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers took considerable technical expertise to plan, but a nuclear attack would be several orders of magnitude more difficult.
Posted by: Simon Newman | October 11, 2007 at 09:23
It always depresses me that threads on this website about trivial things like a new Tory logo always get more comments than an important subject like this. Dr Fox has raised something that terrifies me but most readers of this site want to bury their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Umbrella man | October 11, 2007 at 11:44
No, Umbrella man, I believe it is political correctness that hinders open discussion in matters that are fundamentally irreconcilable between an insular-expansionist teaching, and a society that has evolved and its values sanitised.
Posted by: Teck | October 11, 2007 at 12:08
I have just read Liam Fox's speech. The whole situation is truly depressing. As an early commenter in this thread wrote, the solution that many have arrived at is emigration. For some of us, unfortunately, that is not a viable option.
The majority of the population is oblivious to the threat to this country. They would, apparently, rather consider the merits of the latest Big Brother contestants or the latest storyline in a peak-time TV soap. They have neither the interest nor the ability to see what is happening to the country of their birth.
At the same time as the mass of the population shows complete ignorance and disinterest, our political leaders and their civil servants are obsessed with the idea that the UK should be able to "punch above it's weight" in world affairs, (i.e. support and assist the foreign policy of the USA)
Meanwhile our obsession with being politically correct prevents us from talking about these issues with the 'freedom' that we are supposed to cherish in this country.
Of course, if the 'freedoms' of any minority element of the population are in any way attacked, then all hell breaks loose.
So-called religious clerics are permitted to spout their hate and poison, but what do the authorities do? Absolutely nothing. This is, after all, a 'multi-cultural' society and we now all have to 'embrace the rich diversity' that is brought to this country by all minority groups - even if their objective is to destroy our society.
Religion has a lot to answer for.
Posted by: Angry atheist | October 11, 2007 at 13:36
Dontmakemelaugh, You have to look at cause and effect here. The grievances against Israel would be region-specific were it not for Americas open support for Israel. That has caused the hatred towards America. When America suffered the ghastly attack on 9/11 we had a British prime minister who couldn't scurry across the atlantic fast enough to milk publicity out of those tragic events. This put Blair in the favour of Bush and an unhealthy political relationship developed. One based on flattery and subservience. The global publicity that came with this relationship was pure sugar to a prime minister whose ego was looking for a place in history. So Tony Blair soon found himself in the pocket of George Bush. So, Blair was hardly in a position to back down and lose face when Bush wanted war in Iraq. That war led directly to the London bombings and the leader of the bombing Sidique Kahn even went so far as to make a video saying it was the re-election of Blair that made the British people 'Responsible' in his mind for the bombings. It really is cause and effect. Of course terrorism now has developed a dynamic of its own and the campaign hasbecome global, but it was Tony Blair, the lying Labour government, the faked documentation and the compliance of those who voted for war, even though acting in good faith on fake evidence, that has led us to whereweare today.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 11, 2007 at 14:26
"The people that 'bare' responsibility for Iraq are Islamic fanatics. Total and utter rubbish as I'm sure you know Don'tmakemelaugh.
Iraq was a secular state where the Islamist fanatics were supressed. Thanks to the Americans and us the Islamic fanatics are all over the country including within the government now.Tony Makara is 100% right.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 10, 2007 at 23:07
I apologise Mr Dunn - I had forgotten that Saddam Hussein was such a kind understanding man who had never tortured, (makes you wonder why the Iraqis topped him) possessed or used WMD and could be entirely trusted not to obtain nuclear weapons as, of course, neither will Iran, and the 30 "jaw dropping quotes of the Iran President, Ahmadagen, in today's Times are entirely made up Tony Blair. Your hatred of Tony Blair (I am no overall fan) blinds you as it does Tony Makara.
Mr Makara, if you wish to discuss cause and effect you will first have to acquaint yourself with the life and revelations of the founder of the Islam religion, 'Allah's Messenger' and with the meaning of the Hadiths, Taqiyya and Kitman. In so doing you may well come to the conclusion that the letter sent to the Pope by Islam scholars today ([perhaps a copy will be sent to Hamas) is of doubtful value and means little and is meant to obfuscate. That doubt was also expressed by the Archbishop (I believe of Canterbury) when he stated, on Radio 5 this afternoon, that whilst those clerics now thought we were all "brothers and sisters" any get-together appeared from the letter to have to be on Muslim terms. I am not surprised.
The Ottoman Empire was vanquished centuries ago, but its ethos lives on: hence the emergence of Osman Bin Laden and the terrorist Islamists. Air travel, oil riches and misplaced naive western liberalism will enable such to pursue their dream - we must stop them and we wont do it by apologising for Iraq it was not our wish that it should take place. The loss of life is tragic, mainly caused by one Muslim sect killing another.
When I read the conclusions of the well meaning, but wrong Tony Makara I am glad that my daughter and grandchildren have emigrated
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | October 11, 2007 at 16:13
"The grievances against Israel would be region-specific..."
Region-specific in the sense that a very large percentage of the rest of the region still openly asserts its desire that Israel, a sovereign state, cease to exist by any and all means?
"The Ottoman Empire was vanquished centuries ago..."
It was vanquished in the First World War: not quite living memory, but not centuries ago either.
Posted by: Dave J | October 13, 2007 at 20:35
This is all so true! We have a lot to worry about. The threat is real and find out more about how Americas being protected from nuclear terrorism
Posted by: Green Apple Agent | October 15, 2007 at 14:58
The idea that Nuclear Terrorism is here to stay is probably a very clear point of view. In all reality, if for some reason the islamic extremists decide to give up their fight on Jihad, there will most surely rise a new threat with time. Our weapons sophistication is ever increasing and multiplying in their destructive capabilites. Nuclear war, attributed to Nuclear Terrorism could very likely be the battle to end all wars.
Posted by: T.More | October 16, 2007 at 21:42