Yes, I concede the point. A nuclear device exploded in such a way would indeed cause the effects you describe, I query whether that's actually the aim of Terrorists such as Osama. Why not if that's the case, fly a plane into a nuclear power station? The effect would be similar to a weapon going off, and you don't need all the hassle of trying to obtain it, arm it, and move it into position.

Thing is, terrorism is all about "political theatre" (good phrase). Actually destroying the Great Satan is counter productive, once it's gone you have no enemy to rail against.

The whole point of the ISA is a war of superiority over India, hence their support of radical Islam, and the advance of "Taliban" (for want of a better term to describe jihadist fighters under a radical Islamic banner)into Kashmir and beyond. They're a proxy army. There's a regional power struggle been going on there since the formation of Pakistan and India. There are elements in the Pakistan military still smarting from 75, they want another go…

May as well do the germ warfare bit, kills more & easier to do …

Germ war is difficult and doesn't kill people (or so the bods at Porton Down have told me).

The advantage of a small nuke over a plane is that once you've got it, it can be smuggled into another country – like drugs – and let off where you want, whether that's Bombay or Boston.

I'm surprised that no group has tried to develop air-blast weapons like the US' Daisycutter, as the materials are not too hard to come by and the effects impressive in the right circumstances

See, Moses has hit the nail on the head. That's the bit I struggle with. The "get a nuclear bomb, smuggle it into major first world country, get it to large conurbation, let it off". All without being detected at all at any point? Can't see it happening…

Nick – I read some stuff last year (which I confess I'm now struggling to reference) that reckoned that while ISA had started off using radical islamists exactly in the way you describe and as an instrument of a policy of military aggravation of india, they had ended up with a significant number of people who were ideologically identifying with a global jihadist struggle. So the alarming problem wasn't so much the ISA's tendency to act as a sponsor of terrorism, more that there were elements in there who reckoned that the fairly limited war aims of the policy didn't go nearly far enough.

Anyway, I think we agree that the probability of any of this happening isn't high. I'd better do some snippets of work. 🙂

Nor me.
That's because I know how effective the US is at stopping illegal immigrants and all drugs at their borders; it's a closed country.
Or not.

Pak or ex-USSR bombs on the loose are what frighten me.

At least we dont have to worry about North Korea buying any ex USSR nukes ….phew

Oh or Iran, etc etc

they had ended up with a significant number of people who were ideologically identifying with a global jihadist struggle

Oh, Ok, that's new to me, didn't know that. Interesting. Clearly have some more reading to do…

I suspect a restraint on the would be terrorists is the knowledge that if they used a nuclear device, the gloves would be off, and places like Afghanistan would just be a dustcloud, and the Israelis would get a free hand to deploy their toys.

May as well do the germ warfare bit, kills more & easier to do

I'd be more worried by someone in a crowded place armed with dimethylmercury and a water pistol.

I'm sure its not a coincidence that radiation detectors appeared at or near all British Ports during the early 2000s.

[Wikis dimethylmercury/]

😯

Blimey…

[Wikis dimethylmercury/]

And now you're on a M15 watch list. Seen us a post card from Gitmo

The risk would be from a bomb bought on the black market from an unstable state. The radiation detectors at airports/docks would only detect dirty bombs with a strong gamma emission, as beta or alpha could be blocked with simple lightweight shielding. As U235 isn't a strong gamma emitter there would be no problems smuggling one in past the detectors.

But the bigger risk would be a stolen petrol tanker, really hot day, knock off the valves, then trigger the explosion…….a daisy cutter is a fuel-air bomb.

According to Nostradamus we all get blown up in 2012 – enjoy the biking whilst you can.

"Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror"

Bombs, guns and bacteria aren't really necessary; a bomb threat a day phoned in to London Underground or City Airport will disrupt peoples daily lives far more effectively than actually blowing something up.

11/9 galvanised US opinion allowing an erosion of everyone's civil liberties, the invasion of two countries and the torture countless people.

A constant wearing down of the populous through loss of freedom, income and could be far more effective. The only challenge to the would e terrorist (group) is establishing credibility while evading capture Theodore Kaczynski (Unabomber) was active from 1978-95 and was only captured after his brother recognized Ted's style of writing and beliefs from the manifesto, and tipped off the FBI

"Why not if that's the case, fly a plane into a nuclear power station? The effect would be similar"

No not really. They are built to withstand aircraft impact. If you somehow managed to breach the reactor you wont get an explosion just leakage which is pretty bad downwind.

One of the broadsheet newspapers had an article a while ago on the Pakistan govt. & security problems it faces. Apparently the president only entrusts the nuclear codes to a couple of people and one of them wasn't allowed to retire a couple of years ago because they didn't really have a suitable successor in place!