How vulnerable is the UK to hybrid attacks?

[speedy1]

mods note - split from this thread.

Disruption at St Pancras (Possible Bomb Threat) 18/08/26

https://bsky.app/profile/penguinsentinel.bsky.social/post/3mteg3dermcjf Reports on social media that St Pancras was evacuated; an unattended vehicle near the station was dealt with by the bomb squad

www.railforums.co.uk

More hybrid warfare against us? Very easy to execute, no harm, lots of disruption

 

[styles]

More hybrid warfare against us?

Treated as non suspicious now apparently.

But it's an interesting thought. Was the vehicle parked there by an idiot, or by somebody testing the Met's response to a potential bomb situation? I wouldn't rule out either.

 

[speedy1]

Treated as non suspicious now apparently.

Yeah I made my comment in that context.

Seems right up Russia's street? And it's the day after "The Russian embassy to the UK said on Monday that Britain had been deliberately escalating the Ukraine conflict and the deeper its involvement, “the higher the price it will pay”."

This is of course wild speculation on my part

 

[peteb]

They'll have CCTV of the person that parked/abandoned the car there. Should enable a prosecution if they're identified. Not much fun if your Eurostar was cancelled........

 

[Bald Rick]

Hopefully they pick up the bill for the delay minutes too

Very few delays caused by this. Trains still ran, parts of the station were evacuated.

More hybrid warfare against us? Very easy to execute, no harm, lots of disruption

Minimal disruption, as it happens.


As others have said, it’s the best condition I’ve seen a Juke.

 

[Bald Rick]

In such circumstances, the security teams have to take a prudent approach.

Someone intending to do damage to critical infrastructure like this would - if they are anything above a rank amateur - want to make it appear that it is perhaps a breakdown with a large sack of something innocous in the car. And then skip out of there sharpish. The local teams will have (I expect) conducted an assessment protocol, checked the CCTV, all in a matter of minutes and assessed that there was enough of a risk to be considered potentially viable. That’s enough.

 

[Acathater]

Diversion tactics. Gradually increase the number of low-level trivial incidents like this to the point where the police get distracted through the sheer volume of noise and miss the big incidents when they finally start.
For instance how many of the recent grassland/woodland fires were started deliberately to put stress on our emergency services? We'll never know but I suspect some were

 

[AlterEgo]

For instance how many of the recent grassland/woodland fires were started deliberately to put stress on our emergency services?

To do what?

 

[Acathater]

To do what?

Simply to run as distraction, misdirection with an increasing work burden which the Russians hope will result in the authorities missing real serious attacks. If the number of incidents like this start increasing, what happens when the police are suddenly faced with a real bomb? Will they overlook it and get caught?

 

[Egg Centric]

This is pretty conspiratorial thinking. You'd create far more nuisance just calling in a credible bomb threat*. This is clearly someone smooth brained with no idea how to deal with a break down.

So almost no disruption in practice and one less Juke on the road. What's not to like?

*I'm not sure how you make a credible bomb threat, but I'm sure Russia do.

 

[The exile]

Simply to run as distraction, misdirection with an increasing work burden which the Russians hope will result in the authorities missing real serious attacks. If the number of incidents like this start increasing, what happens when the police are suddenly faced with a real bomb? Will they overlook it and get caught?

The answer to that is to be found in recent (ie the last 50 years) history. If it’s known or suspected, no. However a determined terrorist organisation which isn’t too fussed about a particular target will get results. Remember the chilling words of the IRA. “You were lucky. But you have to be lucky every time; we only have to be lucky once” (or words to that effect).”

 

[DH1Commuter]

Back to the original question: very.

Working in the NHS I have been involved operationally when IT systems have gone down for days (due to deliberate attacks by non-state* actors), in an era when we are more and more IT-dependent. Stuff gets cancelled. Waiting lists go up. The recovery phase takes multiples of the time systems were down. Harm results.

And, I suspect, each time how we adapt and recover is watched. Genuinely, I believe that there exist groups, either state or non-state who can turn off large parts of the UK’s electronic infrastructure at will and the questions are when next, how much they target in one go and for how long they turn off relevant functions.

*officially

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuinely, I believe that there exist groups, either state or non-state who can turn off large parts of the UK’s electronic infrastructure at will and the questions are when next, how much they target in one go and for how long they turn off relevant functions.

No doubt. However I also believe there exist groups in the Uk (either state or non-state) who can turn off other state’s electronic infrastructure at will. Mutually Assured Destruction and all that.

 

[styles]

No doubt. However I also believe there exist groups in the Uk (either state or non-state) who can turn off other state’s electronic infrastructure at will. Mutually Assured Destruction and all that.

It's the classic intelligence community operation.

A Russian spy gets caught in the UK, BBC News reports on it.

MI5: "A Russian spy? In the UK? Well we for one are shocked."

Russia: "Ok we're just also going to expel this diplomat who definitely isn't a spook but ya'know, principles."

Countries having a go at each other for cyberattacks when you know full well they're going on both ways, for similarly-sized nations or governments anyway.