Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Well to be fair with the Litvenko case it took them almost a year for a proper investigation to find the exact low level foot soldiers who carried out the murder, I don't see this being any different. The choice of weapon can only be from one place.
|
Its the start of the evidence chain though, not the end. Basically the Russian response could eventually turn out to be. Sorry, but we decided to do an inventory of our weapons storage and a bottle of the stuff went missing. It happens sometimes, we have an immense black market here and people steal for money.
It opens up a can of worms where the Western World reacts and says you have to fix that problem, but in a sense it clouds the murders in the UK.
I doubt the Russians are too afraid to manufacture evidence or roll out members of the "mafia" for trial.
Britain simply needs more evidence, forensic proof pointing to an actual Soviet Official or known spy at this point.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't do this, I believe of course that they did. But right now the Russians can basically say "we encourage you to find the attackers, but until you do, we didn't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
It's only a police matter until MI5/MI6 agents get killed. How long until more bodies show up ala Gareth Williams.
|
To me using a persistent nerve agent does two things. It pretty much guarantees that its an easier mission. you don't have to be anywhere near the scene for it to work. The mistake that the North Koreans made was using actual people to physically attack Kim's brother. In this case its a matter of understanding the pattern of your victim and then applying the poison where you know they're going to go. Its dangerous because of its persistent nature, but it really removes the attacker from being directly linked to the victim. Unless they get a picture of a guy mixing the chemicals and applying them, this is the perfect murder weapon.
Second of all, it hints at a perfectly horrify ability and willingness to use it scenario. Its basically all about we have long arms and nobody is safe, and we can basically silently kill anyone, anywhere at anytime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
I agree a tit for tat shooting war isn't in anyone's best interests, but to deter Putin, it has to be costly for him. He cares about his power and his money, so those need to be the first things Western nations have to hit until he acquiesce and plays within international norms. Black war seems like the only option.
|
Possibly, but we need to understand the extent of what a black intelligence agency war is, and how far it can go.
I'd argue that the likely response to this will be cyber.