Scary ‘dirty bomb’ subplot to Brussels terror attacks

Belgian flag_thb

by NW Spotlight

A rather scary side story re-emerged this week during investigations into Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium – attacks that left 30 dead and 230 injured.

On Tuesday, the NY Times reported that two nuclear plants in Belgium had been evacuated – the result of “new information, and the events of today.”

What new information? 

On Thursday, NBC News reported that “an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats” told them “the brothers behind this week’s Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called ‘dirty bomb.’”

The brothers “were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher’s house,” according to “a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe’s nuclear sector.”

As was reported last month by NBC News, “Belgian police discovered the secret film on Nov. 30 while searching the home of a man with ties to ISIS.” According to NBC News reporting this week, the “camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family.”

The NBC News reporting last month said “Belgian authorities have since speculated that the group was trying to figure out a way to collect materials from the nuclear center as the first step in building a bomb.”

The same reporting noted “Many U.S. experts consider the eventual detonation by terrorists of a dirty bomb containing radiological materials to be inevitable.”

Dirty bombs: Goal is fear and anxiety – actual radiation danger limited

According to CBS News, a dirty bomb “can use a conventional explosive to disperse radioactive material,” and “is not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, but experts say such a device could release relatively small amounts of radiation over several city blocks and have its most devastating effect in the panic it probably would create.”

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notes “A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb,” and “is not a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ but a ‘Weapon of Mass Disruption,’ where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.”

Regarding actual impact, the NRC says a dirty bomb “would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness – the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material.”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:25 | Posted in Terrorism | 4 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Don

    Some baldface lies there, they’re making the huge assumption that the bad guys won’t be able to obtain any high grade fissionable materials, only low grade or waste radioactive material. If they can get spent reactor fuel or god forbid plutonium, we’re hooped in a big way.

    • thevillageidiot

      You have been watching too any spook movies. I suppose you think that Iran throwing a nuke at Israel would not result in total devastation of Iran? Israel has enough nuclear power to wipe almost the entire middle east off the map. Your scenario is pretty highly improbable given that that type of material is highly controlled by the major powers and even the minor powers such as India and Pakistan. If your scenario was feasible given the number of terror attacks don’t you reasonably think it would have happened? Terror is much more effective. Look at how our lives have changed since 9/11. increased surveillance, increased police presence, increased searches at all public venues, increased groping at the airports, and eventually coming to all public transportation. so which is more effective terror or a nuke?

      • Don

        Nothing is totally secure, especially in the former Soviet bloc. I think it’s just a matter of organization and willpower, which so far has not seemed to materialize.

        • Eric Blair

          The question is why not? Perhaps it’s not that easy, and that other means of accomplishing attacks are much easier and less prone to surveillance? I’m in agreement with TVI, if such material was attainable, even requiring some effort, it probably happened already. That doesn’t mean that it won’t, just that other methods of terror are easier.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)