The latest terrorist plot to blowup aircraft involved two explosives that are both powerful and relatively easy to manufacture; Triacetone Triperoxide (TATP) and Hexamethylene Triperoxide Diamine (HMTD). One of the shoe bombs Richard Reid attempted to detonate on a December 2001 flight contained 8-10 ounces of TATP.
The crystal and liquid components of these explosives could be mixed on an aircraft and detonated by shock or heat. TATP is more sensitive to shock than nitroglycerine. Apparently it can be transported in crystal form, then dissolved in acetone and peroxide for use. The basic recipe is readily available:
TATP can be easily prepared in a basement lab using commercially available starting materials obtained from, e.g., hardware stores, pharmacies, and stores selling cosmetics. TATP is a fairly easy explosive to make, as far as explosives manufacturing goes. All it takes is acetone, hydrogen peroxide (3% medicinal peroxide is not concentrated enough), and a strong acid like hydrochloric or sulfuric acid.
I don’t recommended mixing up a batch for Independence Day celebrations because it’s easy to blow yourself up when you make it.
The current temporary restriction on taking any liquids in carry on luggage could easily be bypassed by those willing to conceal the required substances in. . . orifices. For someone willing to blow themselves up, it would probably be a minor discomfort, and could not be detected by baggage searches and metal detectors.
As it stands, we seem to be wide open to this threat. There are programs underway to train dogs to detect peroxide based explosive, but they have their limitations. Devices made to detect these substances are relatively new and do not appear to be widely available yet. Research is ongoing.
Until a more efficient method of detecting TATP and HMTD is developed, or a way to detect items hidden in the body (passenger x-rays?), those that prefer to skip the full body cavity search, flying could become unattractive in the future!
—–
Isn’t high concentration H2O2 really nasty stuff to handle? I mean, didn’t the Nazis use that stuff for rocket propulsion by using a platinum catalyzt to generate steam? You know, like that James Bond jet-pack in “Thunderball?”
Yes, but so are H2SO4 and HCL - packaging really matters.
More on the concentrated peroxide the Germans used for their rocket-powered Me-163 fighter here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163
Indeed, packaging really matters. However, the possibilities for packaging and concealment in/on/near the body do not appear to have been as thoroughly explored as they perhaps could be in the name of idiotic certainty.
The only way to be (still not 100%) sure that no passenger is “loaded” and possibly a functional “device” will be to make certain that their GI tracts are all absolutely empty (takes about 8 days of supervised fasting - nothing but clear liquids, plus medication), all body cavities are empty, that there are absolutely no anomolous objects (mainly surgical implants of any kind) present anywhere in/on their bodies, that they are naked (no prosthetic devices of any kind allowed either) and completely secured (handcuffs/leg-irons/locked_seat_belt) in their seats, preferably hooded and sedated. Armed “flight attendants” posted throughout the cabin would then add some additional security.
Bottom line would be, show up for your not more than 22-hour flight (non-stop to just about anywhere from anywhere on the face of the planet) about nine days prior to scheduled departure with no luggage. Also, be prepared to be treated as an extremely dangerous “subject.” Alternatively, don’t fly on a commercial airliner.
My dignity is worth more than the supposed convenience of flying under current conditions, let alone really idioticly secure conditions. My time flying on commercial airliners (lots of it) now appears to be in the past.
If the object of the terrorists was to substantially reduce the usefulness of commercial transportation, they have been handed a victory. They have pretty obviously terrorized the authorities, so that would be a two-fer.
I really can’t extract any coherent suggestion out of that comment, ongrua.
The lesson for me from all of this is the continuing reinforcement of the idea that one cannot win the so-called War on Terror by defensive measures alone.
A determined enemy will always find a way to get through, a vulnerability to exploit.
Pre-emption is a solution, but perhaps not the long-term solution in the sense that our intelligence and law enforcement has to bat 100% while the terrorists only have to bat >0%.
Thus, to repeat myself, establishing a competing ideology* is the key:
*I wrote that December of 2004 (published January of 2005).
James is absolutely correct about this. I fear that even this. For fence-sitters, we must create an appealing political alternative, and “real mean moisturize” isn’t it.
I also believe this will not be enough. Fear will have to have a role, too. No one in the Arab world feels “defeated” by us. No one’s will to fight has been broken by horror of ignominious and destructive defeat, because we are overly sensitized to inflicting the sort of humiliation on terrorists that their own governments or they themselves would inflict without hesitation. Even fanatics who don’t fear death fear shame and humiliation. This may require us to become less squeamish in our treatment of those who choose to target civilians, and to have that debate in the context of amending our laws.
We forget so quickly that many of the protections of the law of war don’t apply to terrorists. That’s because the rules were designed as an incentive to make people conform to them. If the worst fate a terrorist fears is a life spent fattening up in Gitmo, what deters him? Glorious death in battle? This isn’t only true for terrorists, but for the states — like Iran and Syria — that still have no apparent fear of sponsoring them. They’re not afraid, because they see that we don’t mean it.
I’ve come to believe that we need to dust off the reprisal doctine. I think we need to find what terrorizes the terrorists and their sponsors for the sake of protecting our own people.
The Iraqis have given us a very good idea of this.
Joshua-
There is no suggestion in that post, coherent or otherwise, and none was intended. I am just irked at what appears to be an “eyewash” effort.
The official thinking(?) and reaction to the latest publicly known big terrorist attempt seems likely to induce use of ever more intrusive but still ineffective screening methods as other possibilities for concealment of terrorist devices are recognized. The current screening methods do not appear to be so much focused on the actual threats as on trying to leave people with the impression that treating all commercial airline passengers as likely terrorists will make everyone safer. I don’t believe that, and am not willing to spend the time or put up with the irritation. If, for example, the trip is from DC to Mid-Town Manhattan, why not take the train? Under current conditions, the total time spent probably will be less and you will not be treated as a suspect of some kind. Boston would likely be a wash time-wise.
Not that I have any illusion that such a suggestion will or would be followed, but dumping the PC attitudes and going for the likely threats, that is explicit profiling (Israel’s excellent method), would be an improvement over the current methods. So far, the likely terrorists appear to fit a crude but easilly improved profile: young male Muslims associated with a limited list of countries such as “Palestine,” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Note, for example, that virtually no women and not many (if any) Indian, Malaysian, Indonesian, or Chinese, Muslims have been involved in similar terrorist efforts. Yes, there have been terrorist attacks in a lot of places, but the perpetrators are regularly associated with the same limited range of countries and almost always young males. Note too that few Iranians or Syrians are “martyrs” (suicide coupled with murder results in no such thing), even if those two countries appear to be the source or conduit of financing for attacks.
Regarding what we need to do, frequently, reprisals will not be possible - for example against third generation residents of the UK - and in places where they would be practical, difficult at best. About the only thing that the terrorists appear to fear is their own total public humiliation, but the US is not likely to go for that. There does not appear to be any reason to believe that they are concerned with retaliation against family or friends.
“It will depend on whether we can help to establish a competing ideology of democratic capitalism with Islamic characteristics in the Middle East.”
The American policy of bombing Middle Eastern countries into democracy is not working out so well. Violence breeds more violence. The terrorists who were recently arrested in Britain were supposedly angry about the Iraq War and what’s happening in Lebanon. There will probably be many more Muslims who will seek revenge against America and Britain in the future.
First, Mi-hwa, there is not policy of, “bombing Middle Eastern countries into democracy.” The U.S. campaign in Iraq removed a dictator first, but tell us, what other countries are we bombing? Second, you seem to imply that the terrorists who were planning the bombing of planes leaving the UK did so b/c of the situation in Lebanon (which the Lebanese government brought upon itself, btw). But the group had been planning for well over 6 months. If the moved up the timetable or not remains to be seen but is moot. That they were angry I think no one would doubt, but so what? Finally, from the mid-to-late 1950s, and even into the 60s, what you’re saying about democracy in the M.E. was the consensus concerning democracy in the ROK, something naysayers should remember.
Mi-hwa is correct,\”violence breeds more violence\”. Having said that, I say—bomb them! Because Joshua is also correct. This war cannot remain as it is. Terrorize the terrorists and their sponsors to protect ourselves. Iran does not fear us, nor Syria. Why should they. As a nation, we are far too kind when it comes to war. Perhaps that needs to change. But you guys are more fully informed than I—except Mi-hwa—what do you think?
To Dan: Military power alone is not enough. America may have won the Iraq War, but it’s losing the peace. What America needs is more anti-war politicians like Lamont. American voters want a change.
Anti-war politicians are exactly what the U.S. does not need; such politicians (in the U.S./UN) and their utter unwillingness to do what was/is necessary only emboldened terrorists and rouge nations. Their non-action/incompetence became the norm so that necessary action now seems heavy-handed to many. The U.S. move to a more active stance is actually going back to equilibrium.
Incompetence is an apt description of the Bush administration. Thank God there’s only two more years left for them, before they do more harm.
Mi-Hwa, I take it you’re a member of the “cut and run” gang. Do you think that will end the war? Do you think it will win us friends anywhere? Do you think it will make us safer, even compared to a continuation of the status quo? Do you suppose fence-sitters will be more or less likely to support the terrorists if we do that?
I’d really like to hear the Mi-Hwa policy and your predictions for how it would work in practice, so that I can identify just how much of it is NOT emotion. If Bush can be criticized for being insufficiently blunt about how messy anyone could have seen this war could be, I’m stunned by the absolute silence from critics of the war as to what anyone can see would happen if they get their way. Nor do I hear the media asking that “what if?” question.
Put another way: don’t expect for them to throw flowers at us we leave, either. This problem will follow us home. To believe otherwise is escapism.
To Dan:
Thank you very much for your outlook on the Iraq War. I couldn’t agree with you more and as for these cut, run and surrender types they have no concept of reality or the simple realization/understanding of just exactly what we are dealing with. Terrorism is a global problem now. The time for talking and kowtowing to political and liberal views is over. It’s time that the nay sayers pulled up their pants and defend the ground they stand on for it can be taken away in an instance by the very terrorists they want to talk with. Thanks again for your point of view.