# Bomb suspected and blown at NDHQ?



## LakeSup (3 Jul 2007)

I caught a bit of this story on radio news but can't find anything online.  iDd anyone hear about suspected bombs being found outside NDHQ this morning?
Apologies if a thread already started but couldn;t find one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jul 2007)

Maybe you heard part of this scenario?
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2007/07/03/4308186-sun.html


----------



## LakeSup (3 Jul 2007)

No, not that one.
I heard it again on CFRA online news.
It seems there were suspicious packages left near a DND bldg in east end Ottawa....Innes St, I think.
Not NDHQ, but another DND bldg....and they only contained books and some other items.  So, not a big story, I guess.  Might turn up online soon.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Jul 2007)

I think their SME was going along pretty good until he said this - "The purpose of a radiological device is not to kill people but to create disruption, said Tom Cousins, who represented the defence research agency on the study project." 

If it doesnt kill people, the hard-core terrorists and imitators arent likely to use it.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I think their SME was going along pretty good until he said this - "The purpose of a radiological device is not to kill people but to create disruption, said Tom Cousins, who represented the defence research agency on the study project."
> 
> If it doesnt kill people, the hard-core terrorists and imitators arent likely to use it.


I'm sorry, but _your_ subject matter expertise on terrorist's targeteering is based on what exactly?

Terrorism is based on ideas, messages, and perceptions. 
Radiological weapons are very psychological. Using them successfully would allow the terrorists to say, "Hey world, look; we're capable of, and willing to, use nasty weapons....and your security services are unable to protect you." 

The second- and third-degree effects of such an occurrence could be quite extreme.

Depending on the terrorist group's motivations, using a radiological weapon, even without mass casualties, could serve their purposes very well.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jul 2007)

Back on topic:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2c831d1a-e8fb-4738-bd35-dcc61ddb04fd&k=57672



> Employees at the National Defence Building on Star Top Road found two suspicious packages on the property, prompting Ottawa police and military police to close the road for several hours to investigate.
> 
> The Ottawa Police Service Explosive Disposal Unit attended the scene and "neutralized" the two packages. The area was declared safe and opened to traffic at 4:30 a.m.



Not a lot of details yet...


----------



## observor 69 (3 Jul 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but _your_ subject matter expertise on terrorist's targeteering is based on what exactly?
> 
> Terrorism is based on ideas, messages, and perceptions.
> Radiological weapons are very psychological. Using them successfully would allow the terrorists to say, "Hey world, look; we're capable of, and willing to, use nasty weapons....and your security services are unable to protect you."
> ...




Monday, July 02
6:46 PM


Ottawa quietly prepares for 'dirty bomb' attack
JIM BRONSKILL and SUE BAILEY
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — A new federal study says the explosion of a small dirty bomb near the CN Tower would spew radioactivity over four square kilometres, resulting in mass anxiety, a rush on Toronto's medical facilities and an economic toll of up to $23.5-billion.

The nightmarish scenario — detonation of a device containing a modest amount of americium-241, a silvery plutonium byproduct — is among several sobering projections quietly mapped out by federal officials to prepare for a terrorist attack in urban Canada.

The study led by Defence Research and Development Canada also predicts economic costs of up to $8.75-billion should a similar americium-laden device be set off outside Vancouver's B.C. Place Stadium — a venue for the 2010 Winter Olympics — and as much as $2.25-billion if one exploded near the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit.

The grim outline is not far-fetched. A database of lost and stolen radioactive items compiled by The Canadian Press reveals that an industrial gauge similar to the device in the study was snatched by thieves in Red Deer, Alta., in June 2003.

Though later recovered, the gauge was missing for five days before its owners even noticed it was gone.

Two radiation safety experts consulted by The Canadian Press confirmed the device, used to measure oil wells, is a high-risk instrument that would pose a danger if the americium inside were successfully dispersed in an explosion.

The findings come mere months after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said a dirty bomb assault was “overdue.”

http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20070702/wkaboom0702.html


----------



## Greymatters (3 Jul 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Depending on the terrorist group's motivations, using a radiological weapon, even without mass casualties, could serve their purposes very well.



I'm open to new ideas - if its such a great weapon why hasnt any terrorist group used one yet?  The technology and apparently the radioactive material has apparently been around for quite a while.


----------



## kratz (3 Jul 2007)

Not surprising, they want to time their message. 

Most devices at that a normal military holds, are stable or we have enough government funds to pay to stablize the more radical means. I'm sure if they could make use of one, they would.  The reason they have not, is becasue people are doing their jobs so well we do not know about it, for those, I say thank you.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (3 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I'm open to new ideas - if its such a great weapon why hasnt any terrorist group used one yet?



It may not be a bomb with radioactive materials, but the attack type is along the same line.



> "Approximately 350 Iraqi civilians and six coalition force members were treated for chlorine gas exposure," said Lieutenant Roger Hollenbeck of the US-led Multinational Division West, based in Ramadi.



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9DDB5758-2725-4E24-AC4C-32CD8EC80046.htm

The dirty bomb, although without radioactive materials, has been used on several occasions. It made for a rather big story with the MSM a few months ago too.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Jul 2007)

I'm well aware of that one, and chemical weapons have been used by several groups in the past, the most famous use being when sarin was used by members of Aum Shinrikyo in Mar 1995.  But its not the same as an explosion dispersing radioactive materials, which is what we are refering to.      

_(Edit - I forgot to add, 'dirty bombs' refer to explosive devices used to disperse radioactive materials, not chemical and biological materials) _ 

Granted, as *kratz* pointed out, they could be biding their time.  But I'm curious about the rest of what youre trying to say.  Are you refering to nuclear weapons, or to some 'government' (not sure whose you refer to) having dispersal CBRN bombs already made?


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Jul 2007)

I heard it was nothing. Just your average misplaced package full of personal effects dragging everyone our of bed. It won't be in the news because a false alarm is not news. It was at Innes.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2007)

Re: the "dirty bomb".  

Perhaps the threat of one is greater than the reality.  Unless our friendly neighbourhood terrorists can pull off a "convincing" job the first time the threat will lose its effect as a psychological lever.  Not to mention leaving the terrorists with a bad name amongst the general community and their friends.


----------

