Revisiting That UVF ‘Threat’ To Charlie Haughey

The Balaclava Street blog takes a closer look at the supposed UVF threat to Charles Haughey, sent in a letter carrying a supposed UVF letterhead, which was eventually released publicly by the Dublin authorities in 2017: https://balaclavastreet.wordpress.com/2020/06/28/charles-haughey-dodgy-dets-a-bogus-uvf-letter-and-a-water-pistol-full-of-sheep-spit/

2 responses to “Revisiting That UVF ‘Threat’ To Charlie Haughey

  1. paul cosgrove

    This doesn’t affect the overall assessment and I’m certainly no expert, having only read a 40 year old book on mining. I also have no knowledge of the events other than reading your and the other authors discussion of it (and wouldn’t want to comment publicly)- but he is definitely wrong that dets cannot be timing devices. Delay dets are used to influence the forces during demolitions, for example with a single activation you might want structural components to fail at slightly different times because a directional push or tilt is required. My understanding is delay dets are also larger than non delay to accommodate the timing component.

    Regardless of that, while a reduced delay might alter pattern produced from a group, logically it wouldn’t seem to make any real difference to outcome of it is used on its own, nor would it pose a risk to the user if activated when the user wanted to activate it -so why tamper with a det?

    I’d imagine how such circuits are tested for continuity prior to use could pose some degree of risk to the builder if the apparent Det has been built with that in mind, and a delay Det would give you more room for tampering (battery or larger charge) although it is worth noting the letter only mentions premature detonation in any case, making no mention of delay dets which the author incorrectly dismisses as not available. Either way, the user controls the electrical testing stage, and presumably performs it with their safety in mind so may start testing components in isolation, so any such scheme still seems an unlikely method of attack – unless you know the person will be testing full devices because you already built them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.