Who Is The Real Terrorist? (Rev 15:2)

dirtybomb
Report: Israel built, exploded ‘dirty bombs’ in nuclear test

Associated Press
20 hours ago

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel built and exploded so-called “dirty bombs,” explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons, the Haaretz daily newspaper reported Monday.

Israeli defense officials and scientists refused to comment on the report when reached by The Associated Press. However, Israel has what is widely considered to be an extensive nuclear weapons program that it has never declared.

The Haaretz report, which included photographs, said the project conducted 20 detonations with explosives laced with a radioactive substance. Mini-drones measured radiation levels and sensors logged the force of the explosions, Haaretz reported.

Researchers quoted in the Haaretz report said the Israeli tests were for defensive purposes only. They
said high radiation was found at the center of blasts while small particles carried by wind didn’t pose serious danger, except for the psychological effect of such an attack.

The newspaper said the project, code-named “Green Field” and conducted by staff from Israel’s nuclear reactor in the southern town of Dimona, ended in 2014 after four years of tests. Most were conducted in Israel’s Negev Desert and one in a closed facility, it said.

Another experiment, called “Red House,” tested the consequences of a radiological substance left in a crowded area without being detonated, the newspaper said. The article said Israeli officials put a radioactive material mixed with water in the ventilation system of a building that simulated a shopping mall.

The report said scientists found such an attack would be ineffective as a majority of the radiation remains in air conditioning filters. Results of the experiments were presented at unspecified scientific forums, it said.

The international community long has feared that extremists like the Islamic State group or al-Qaida could make such weapons to attack civilian areas, potentially rendering them inhospitable.

The Real Risk Of A Dirty Bomb (Rev 15:2)

dirtybomb

U.S. Rep. King talks ‘nightmare scenario’ of nuclear dirty bomb

Sunday, April 19, 2015

While other Republicans were in Nashua for the party’s summit Friday morning, U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) was at Franklin Pierce University warning about the dangers the country faces from Islamic State fighters and from a possible nuclear “dirty bomb” attack.

King, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, told a standing-room-only crowd that America’s next threat isn’t coming from another 9/11 terrorist attack, but instead is being shaped by Americans and Europeans currently fighting for the Islamic State (ISIS).

“Several hundred Americans have joined the fight alongside ISIS,” King said, as well as a large number of Europeans. “They’re trained, they’re deadly, they’re vicious.”

America will face the problem in the coming years of these fighters either returning to the U.S. or of them slipping into the country from Europe, King told an audience of about 200 students, faculty and staff. King was introduced by FPU President Andrew Card, who served as President George W. Bush’s chief of staff.

King also cited his fears that future terrorists would make a crude bomb from nuclear materials that would create massive radioactive contamination.

“One nightmare scenario would be to have one or more dirty bombs put together 50 or 60 miles outside of a city and then brought into an urban area,” King said.

King also got in a dig at President Barack Obama, questioning the president’s early assertions that ISIS was the equivalent of a junior varsity squad. Congressional intelligence committees that he sits on had been warned two years ago that ISIS was a danger.

“That was a real failure of leadership,” King said.

During the question and answer period, King also called Obama “disengaged” after having pulled troops out of Iraq, which set the stage for ISIS’ rise there.

“You needed adult supervision. You needed some cohesive force to hold things together,” King said. “Once we withdrew our troops, we withdrew our influence.”

King also took a dim view of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran, pointing out that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries were opposed to them.

“I think he’s wrong, I think he’s misguided. I think Iran is basically a terrorist state,” he said.

King predicted, “I think you’ll see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East if this deal goes forward.”

Paul Bush teaches journalism at Franklin Pierce University.

We Are Oh So Close To A Nuclear War (Rev 15:2)

INSIGHT-RPT-Russia’s nuclear strategy raises concerns in NATO

Nuclear Smuggling From Russia

Thu Feb 5, 2015 6:19am EST

* Fears Moscow may be lowering nuclear threshold
* Defence ministers to discuss issue
* Russian patrols, exercises also spur concerns

By Adrian Croft

BRUSSELS, Feb 4 (Reuters) – Concern is growing in NATO over Russia’s nuclear strategy and indications that Russian military planners may be lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict, alliance diplomats say.

NATO officials have drawn up an analysis of Russian nuclear strategy that will be discussed by alliance defence ministers at a meeting in Brussels on Thursday.

The study comes amid high tension between NATO and Russia over the Ukraine conflict and rising suspicions on both sides that risk plunging Europe back into a Cold War-style confrontation.

Western concerns have also been fuelled by increasingly aggressive Russian air and sea patrolling close to NATO’s borders, such as two Russian “Bear” nuclear-capable bombers that flew over the English Channel last week.

The threat of nuclear war that once hung over the world has eased since the Cold War amid sharp reductions in warheads but Russia and the United States, NATO’s main military power, retain massively destructive nuclear arsenals.

Russia’s nuclear strategy appears to point to a lowering of the threshold for using nuclear weapons in any conflict, NATO diplomats say.

“What worries us most in this strategy is the modernisation of the Russian nuclear forces, the increase in the level of training of those forces and the possible combination between conventional actions and the use of nuclear forces, including possibly in the framework of a hybrid war,” one diplomat said.

Russia’s use of hybrid warfare in Ukraine, combining elements such as unmarked soldiers, disinformation and cyber attacks, has led NATO’s military planners to review their strategies for dealing with Russia.

All the NATO countries, except France which is not a member, will meet on Thursday as part of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, which NATO officials describe as a routine meeting focusing on the safety and effectiveness of NATO’s nuclear deterrent.

IMPLICATIONS

But all 28 ministers, including U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, will have a broader discussion of Russia’s nuclear strategy over lunch. No immediate action is expected from NATO’s side.
Ministers are likely to ask officials to look into the implications of Russia’s nuclear strategy for the alliance, and only then could there be any consideration of whether any changes were needed to NATO’s nuclear posture.

At a time of heightened tension with the West, Russia has not been shy about reasserting its status as a nuclear power.

President Vladimir Putin pointedly noted last August that Russia was a leading nuclear power when he advised potential enemies: “It’s best not to mess with us.”

A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service last year said Russia “seems to have increased its reliance on nuclear weapons in its national security concept”.

Russia has embarked on a multi-billion-dollar military modernisation programme and Russia’s top general, Valery Gerasimov, said last week that support for Russia’s strategic nuclear forces combined with improvements in conventional forces would ensure that the United States and NATO did not gain military superiority.

He said the Russian military would receive more than 50 new intercontinental nuclear missiles this year.

In December, Putin signed a new military doctrine, naming NATO expansion as a key risk. Before the new doctrine was agreed, there had been some calls from the military to restore to the doctrine a line about the right to a first nuclear strike.

DOCTRINE

This was not included in the new doctrine, however, which says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or a conventional attack that endangered the state’s existence.

NATO’s 2010 “strategic concept” says deterrence, “based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy.”

Washington and Moscow have traded accusations that the other has violated a Cold War-era arms control agreement.

The United States accuses Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile. Russia argues that Washington’s use of drones and other intermediate-range arms amounts to a violation of the treaty.

A senior NATO official said Russia’s Zapad exercise in 2013 was “supposed to be a counter-terrorism exercise but it involved the (simulated) use of nuclear weapons”.

The Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, estimates Russia has about 1,512 strategic, or long-range, nuclear warheads, a further 1,000 non-deployed strategic warheads and about 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads.

Tactical nuclear weapons can include short-range missiles and artillery shells, mines and bombs.
The United States had 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013, including tactical, strategic, and non-deployed weapons, according to ACA.

Among other NATO allies, France has fewer than 300 operational nuclear warheads and Britain has fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads. (Additional reporting by Tim Heritage in Moscow; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Even Pakistan Is Worried About A Dirty Bomb

IS’s threat of nuclear terrorism
Dirty Bomb

With the establishment of Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq, and its secret networks and propaganda campaign in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the international community has now focused on the proliferation and smuggling of chemical and biological weapons in the region. The recent debate in Europe-based think tanks suggests that, as the group retrieved nuclear and biological material from the Mosul University in Iraq, it can possibly make nuclear explosive devices with less than eight kilogrammes plutonium. The debate about bioterrorism and bio-defence is not entirely new in the military circles of South Asia; the involvement of IS in using biological weapons against the Kurdish army in Kobane is a lesson for Pakistan and Afghanistan to deeply concentrate on the proliferation of these weapons in the region.

A document from Pakistan’s Internal Security Policy (2014-2018) categorically stated that the country’s security faces the threat of nuclear terrorism. The threat, according to the document’s contents, is in addition to the possibility of chemical and biological terrorism. As the fatal war against terrorism has entered a crucial phase, another powerful extremist militant group (IS) has emerged with a strong and well-trained army in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan to establish an Islamic state. The massacre of 100 innocent civilians, including an Afghan national army soldier in the Ajristan district of Ghazni province, Afghanistan by IS forces, and the brutal killings of children in the army school in Peshawar have raised serious questions about the future of security and stability in South Asia. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility and called it a revenge attack for the Pakistan army’s Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan and FATA regions.

As Islamic State (IS) now controls parts of Iraq and Syria and has carried out successful attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the group now wants to expand its terror networks from Afghanistan to Kashmir. According to some confirmed reports, hundreds of Pakistanis have joined the army of IS in Syria and Iraq. In October 2014, six leaders of the TTP announced their allegiance to IS. IS propaganda material has begun to crop up in various parts of Pakistan. Secret networks of IS are in contact with different sectarian and political groups in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and receive financial assistance from business communities. The TTP commanders of Orakzai Agency, Kurram Agency, Khyber Agency, Peshawar and Hangu district have announced their allegiance to the IS military command.

The problem of nuclear and biological terrorism deserves special attention from the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan because the army of IS can develop a dirty bomb in which explosives can be combined with a radioactive source like those commonly used in hospitals or extractive industries. The use of this weapon might have severe health effects, causing more disruption than destruction. Political and military circles in Pakistan fear that, as IS has already seized chemical weapons in Al Muthanna, in northern Iraq, some disgruntled retired military officers or experts in nuclear explosive devices might help the Pakistan chapter of the group deploy biological and chemical weapons. A letter by the Iraqi government to the UN warned that the militant-captured chemical weapons site contains 2,500 chemical rockets filled with the nerve agent Sarin.

In Europe, there is the general perception that IS has already used some dangerous gases in Iraq. Therefore, it could use biological weapons against civilian populations in Pakistan. If control over these weapons is weak, or if their components are available in the open market, there would be huge destruction in the region. In July 2014, the government of Iraq notified that nuclear material had been seized by the IS army from Mosul University. IS has a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons, and a 26-page religious fatwa that allows the use of weapons of mass destruction. “If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir (non-believers) in a different way, it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction,” warns the fatwa.

The effects of chemical weapons are worse as they cause death or incapacitation, while biological weapons cause death or disease in humans, animals or plants. We have two international treaties that ban the use of such weapons. Notwithstanding all these preventive measures, the threat of chemical or biological warfare persists. In 2011 and 2013, there were complaints and allegations that some states wanted to target Pakistan with biological weapons. The country has been trying to counter biological attacks but has failed due to limited funds and medical knowledge. As Pakistan noted in its statement to the Meeting of States Parties in December 2013: “Pakistan ratified the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 1974 as a non-possessor state and remains fully committed to implementing all provisions of the convention.”

The fatalities of dengue and ebola viruses in Pakistan and West Africa are the worst forms of bioterrorism. In 2011, the Pakistan Medical Association called on the ISI to investigate fears of the deliberate spread of the deadly disease in Punjab. There are speculations that, in future, measles, dengue, polio and the ebola viruses can be used as weapons of bioterrorism in Pakistan. Some states might use drones for the purposes of bio-war against their rival states. In 2013, writing in the Global Policy journal, Amanda M Teckman warned that IS might possibly use ebola as a weapon against the civilian population: “It remains to be seen if a terrorist group like IS, which has demonstrated a willingness to engage in large scale mass murder, including the uninhibited murder of civilians, has the capability to produce a weaponised version of ebola.” The University of Birmingham Policy Commission Report warned that terrorists could also turn remotely piloted aircraft into flying bombs by hooking them up to improvised explosive devices. Sir David, a former British intelligence researcher, warned that drones had gained a reputation as unaccountable killing machines because of their widespread use in the US’s controversial anti-terrorist campaigns in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The writer is the author of Punjabi Taliban and can be reached at zai.musakhan222@gmail.com