To be scared, apparently.
An article in The Times today quotes Jacqui Smith as saying that a biological or chemical attack on the UK is “more realistic” now because of the number of failed states. [more: 1, 2, 3]
Asked whether there was a greater threat of a CBRN attack that five years ago, Ms Smith said: “There is the potential, given the international situation, what we believe to be the aspirations of some international terrorists, that it could be.
“Failed states, conflict, technology – both in terms of the ability to use materials and the ability to learn about how materials are used – contribute to our concern about that as a threat, including what we know about what terrorists may have previously planned to do and may be planning to do.”
So what I find interesting about this is that phrase ‘more realistic’, as in:
“Contemporary terrorist organisations aspire to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Changing technology and the theft and smuggling of … materials make this aspiration more realistic than it may have been in the recent past,”
which is the wording of the government’s Contest Two report.
“More realistic” implies to me that it hasn’t been terribly realistic until now. In fact, it seems to say that it still might not be all that likely. Compare and contrast…
Police and the emergency services have been secretly trained by the Army for a reprisal attack in the UK by al-Qa’ida terrorists using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
A Ministry of Defence report to MPs reveals that senior planners have privately accepted that Britain faces a “significant risk” of attack for supporting President Bush.
Righty. So “significant” but not actually “realistic”. (That’s from March 2002, by the way.)
Does that mean that there wasn’t a credible threat of a terror attack on UK soil using CBRNs, but now there is? Because if that’s so, then y’all at Number 10 should really hang your heads in shame.
And what are all these failed states we’re suddenly talking about, by the way? Is it possible they’re states we’ve invaded or played with and put away in little bits?
For extra random, Jacqui also pointed out that this was not an excuse to be unpleasant about homosexuals.
Er… good-o. That hadn’t honestly occurred to me as the most likely outcome, to be honest, but I suppose I’m pleased anyway.
Now I’m just waiting to be told that there’s some pressing reason why everyone in the UK should wear an RFID chip or something; I mean, once everyone’s good and alarmed, it would be a waste not to try something like that. (Yes, I sound like one of those guys who thinks barcodes are Satan’s brand, don’t I? Oh, well.)
Elsewhere…
(Ew.)
I scored 10/20. This means I have a brain which is perfectly balanced between being a girl-brain and a boy-brain. I’m not sure whether to be completely thrilled or mildly alarmed.
Keep It In Your Pants.
(Do you ever get bored of this one? God knows, I do.)
“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”
That’s undeniable – but, er, how on Earth are we going to reduce our population by thirty million people in any reasonable time-frame? If we need to cut emissions – and yes, yes, YES, we do [reasons to stop arguing about it] – then we have to do it by living more sustainably and by taking steps like, oh, hmm, I don’t know… wait, I do: not building the third runway at Heathrow and not pretending (for the sake of middle class weekend breaks) that cheap flights are environmentally friendly.
Truth is, we can’t sustain “business as usual”. We’re going to have the change how we live.
But it’s so much easier to say: oh, noes! We haz too manies! (Quick. Close the borders.) ‘Cos you get votes for that.
