The return of the 'dirty bomb'

As British Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled a new strategy to tackle an evolved terrorist threat today, her office has indicated that there is now an increased risk terrorists could get hold of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to attack the UK. Of course, the greatest concern isn't about an attack by a nuclear warhead, but with a so-called 'dirty bomb'.

Smith said the threat of such an attack is "severe" - meaning an attack is "highly likely" and "could happen without warning". But the question is: why now?

Interestingly, concern in the Home Office about such an attack stems from the fact that "failed states such as Iraq" have apparently made it easier to obtain materials for weapons such as dirty bombs.

[A little under two weeks ago, former US vice-president Dick Cheney was telling CNN's John King on 'State of the Union': "We [the US] have succeeded in creating, in the heart of the Middle East, a democratically governed Iraq. And that's a big deal. And that is, in fact, what we set out to do."

Of course, that's not exactly what the 'coalition of the willing' initially set out to do. But Cheney's clearly on a different page to Jacqui Smith's Home Office if the latter views Iraq as a "failed state".]

But hasn't Iraq been in turmoil for six years now? Why would the war-torn country be anymore more likely to offer up radiological material now, than at any time in the last six years? Let's face it, the US and Britain invaded Iraq based on the unquestionably ropey assertion that the country was awash with WMD and portable mobile chemical and biological laboratories...but we didn't find a thing! Is it just that al-Qaeda knows the best places to hang out in Iraq for deadly pathogens or weapons-grade plutonium?

Furthermore, over the past few years several experts have cast doubt on the ramped up claims of western governments that 'dirty bombs' pose a unique and very real threat. In 2002, Julian Palmore, a University of Illinois professor who specialises in arms control and international security issues, wrote an article criticising the sensationalist fear-mongering over the supposed 'dirty bomb' threat, even though such a device would be an inefficient delivery system for dispersing radioactive material, and even more difficult to build. He also suggested that terrorists were more likely to employ low-tech strategies, rather than something elaborate and hi-tech.

Palmore was writing six years before the Mumbai terror attacks occurred, which demonstrated just how deadly a 'low-tech' terrorist operation could be. In fact, it was Mumbai which led to official concerns about copycat 'low-tech' attacks in the West. Unsurprisingly, this is a concern which prevails in the Home Office report. There is even reference to "significant developments" in the IED threat to the UK, "in particular the use of novel home-made explosives and the detonation of devices by suicide bombers". Officials fear terrorists could now use similar weapons in Britain, attacking VIPs or traffic in and out of Government or military sites.

IED's have been used to great effect by insurgents in Iraq, and have become an increasingly popular method of attack with the Taliban in Afghanistan (in fact, they've made their devices even deadlier). But the thought that similar attacks could occur along roads in Britain is surely a stretch.

Britain is one the most heavily surveilled nations on earth. If drunk teenagers can't get away with pissing in a shop doorway without a camera operator directing police or PCSO's to the scene, then what hope is there for a group of domestic insurgents planting an IED?! We even have CCTV cameras that talk in this country. So at least we can be safe in the knowledge that if an IED attack is ever disrupted by an eagle-eyed council camera operator, then at least the area will be left clean as well. ("You men...with the explosives paraphernalia and spades...move on, please. And while you're at it, pick up those crisp packets. I saw you drop them. Thank you.")

Honestly. So-called 'fanatics' needn't bother wading through the Terrorist's Handbook searching for new ideas on how to kill us; they can just take clippings from the government's anti-terror reports! ("Hmmm, IED's along the M25? Interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that.")

In a report about this latest threat warning, BBC home affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford, also said the Home Office assessment warned that the al-Qaeda leadership "could well be killed or captured, but that doesn't mean the threat would go away" because new groups and affiliates had sprung up that adhered to their ideology.

Of course, it isn't really news to learn that bombs, bullets and invasions have ultimately failed to eradicate the terrorist threat. But what we're being told here is to expect the War on Terror™ to continue indefinitely, whatever the 'successes' against al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, we face a constant threat from improvised bombs, dirty bombs, large scale attacks, low-tech attacks, and an increasing number of domestic extremists in our midst.

So, batten down the hatches...and maybe invest in one of these. Alternatively, simply digest this latest fear mongering from the government, then just get on with your lives.