INITIAL reports that criminals had gained access to South Africa’s high-security Pelindaba nuclear facility west of Pretoria were alarming in their own right.
But today’s bombshell revelation by authorities that the incident was a planned and co-ordinated “military-style” attack aimed at seizing the institution’s computers is cause for grave concern.
It was not long ago — in 1990 to be precise — that this institution was involved in the South Africa’s nuclear weapons production.
The assumption must be that there would be no computer records of this process on the premises.
But there may well be invaluable research and data stored at the facility on the process of producing weapons-grade nuclear material at Pelindaba.
It is highly unlikely that the “military-style” gang which attacked the facility was merely after the computers for their paltry resale value.
They must have been seeking whatever intelligence they knew to be on these computers.
That they were able to defeat the facilities security system and enter its main emergency control room suggests that they were well-informed about the layout of the facility and about how to gain access to the information they sought to steal.
Such information, aside from being the valuable intellectual property of South Africa — the first and only nation in the world to build and then destroy nuclear weapons — could be put to diabolical uses in an era of global terrorism.
There can be no question now that a full probe into the breach at Pelindaba must be undertaken and our nuclear information must be secured as an urgent priority.
Failure to do so will open this country to assault from the myriad rogue states that seek such information and will severely damage our international reputation.
For a good read on SA’s nuclear history, go here.
Related posts:
The New York Times, which has a correspondent in South Africa, reported on the incident Wednesday this week. There remain unanswered questions (link below) which are probably winding up as rhetorical since the South African government is unlikely to be forthcoming even to the NYT.
Critic-A
November 14, 2007 at 11:21 amRay, as the “editor” of The Times, I would expect your grammar and use of the English language to be flawless, or at least show correct use of punctuation.