True, no 9/11 sized attacks but they’ve stopped a number of low level attacks. Given the 9/11 MO there would be a grandious attack after having spent 10 years planning for it. The first WTC bombing resulted in a laptop file that showed an attack using aircraft. Why they took so long to execute it I can’t say. I thought it was poorly planned as it was but maybe I give terrorists more credit then they are due.
Even if a tiny nuclear bomb were planted that produced no more of an explosion than a large stick of dynamite, it would have a psychological effect because it would have “crossed the line”, something like the US’s proposed uses of small nukes in the last 50 years. Such “tactical warheads” have generally been opposed, not because of the extent of the damage, but the nature of the device, on the theory that once you cross that line, there’s no going back; you can’t put the genie back in the bottle and other metaphors.
I’m from the UK. An English comedian was mentioning something similar just a week ago. He was pointing out that terrorists who want to bring the city of London to a grinding halt don’t really need masasive weapons or intricate plans. A quarter of an inch of snow does the job magnificently.
Want to bring our train network to a standstill? No bombs needed. Just scatter a few leaves on the line, and your work is done.
And the 7/7 bus and train bombs caused only a blip in peoples confidence about public transport…although any Asian with luggage was looked on a little suspiciously for a while.
Didn’t the British Police shoot someone at a train station?
Poor bastard.
that was some rough ‘landing’.