| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Why Liquid Explosives Aren't |
| 2006-08-11 |
| August 11, 2006: Liquid explosives are back in the news, after British counter-terrorism forces arrested 21 local Moslems on August 10th, for participation in a plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto airliners and set them off once aloft. This has long been feared as a possible terrorist tactic. The recent scare came about because there appeared to be a large terrorist organization supplying the explosives, detonators, and suicide bombers. Liquid explosives have been around for a long time. But these explosives share two bad traits. They are either very unstable (like nitroglycerin), or subject to deterioration as the different elements suspended in the liquid settle, and become less explosive. Overall, liquid explosives aren't very explosive compared to more solid one. Another problem with liquid explosives is that their components are usually noxious, if not poisonous. Nitric Acid, for example, is nasty stuff, but can be added to more benign substances to produce fairly stable explosives, like Nitromethane. In 1995, an al Qaeda bomb maker used nitroglycerine (in a contact lens solution bottle) to fashion a bomb that blew a hole in the side of a Boeing 747, but did not destroy the aircraft. Nitroglycerine is one of the more powerful explosives, but subject to going off spontaneously if jarred. Very dangerous to carry around. Another favorite liquid explosive is one using various types of nitrates. Fertilizer can be mixed with diesel oil to form an explosive slurry. Not something that would pass a smell test at airport screening. But some nitrates, like Methyl nitrate, are more explosive, and only need exposure to another chemical to detonate. Chemicals found in household products, especially those used for cleaning, are popular for home-made explosives. For example, mixing hydrogen peroxide with nail-polish remover or paint thinner produces an explosive mixture that can be set off. You need more than a few ounces (as with nitroglycerine). In fact, a quart or more is needed to assure fatal damage to a large aircraft. These are not particularly powerful explosives, and have not been widely used for terrorist attacks. There are also doubts whether such explosives could actually do enough damage to penetrate the hull of an aircraft, and create a situation that would cause the airliner to crash. Keeping dangerous liquids off of airliners is not easy, for the containers can be strapped to the bodies of the suicide bombers, along with the detonator (which can also be a liquid). The key thing with all of these possible liquid explosives is that you need someone, who knows what they are doing, to mix up a batch that will work. The big thing to come out of the August 10th incident will probably be the capture, or identification, of a guy terrorists like to call, "the engineer." These fellows usually have a degree in something like chemistry, and maybe some work experience in the chemical industry. Terrorist movements don't attract a lot of people like this, and the Israelis figured out that if you went after "the engineers" you could cripple a terrorist movement. This was what the Israelis did two years ago to halt the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign against them. The most dangerous terrorist group to ever exist was Aum Shinrikyo, a 1990s Japanese cult that was able to recruit well qualified engineers and scientists. These people proceeded to achieve the Holy Grail of modern terrorism, producing their own nerve gas. So far, Islamic terrorists have not attracted the caliber of people Aum Shinrikyo (radical Buddhists) was able to recruit. But the potential is there. With Aum Shinrikyo grade techies, Islamic terrorist groups could produce all manner of liquid horrors, including explosives and various chemical weapons. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #10 In this article the writer proves that a little Googling and a lot of typing don't really amount to much. Salt this one DEBKA style, at a minimum. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-08-11 18:28 |
| #9 Maybe not explosives. What if binary nerve agent? Could you sneak each part on the plane as liquid? Wouldn't take much to kill everyone. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2006-08-11 15:11 |
| #8 I wear contacts, so I am concerned about those who are being forbidden to take such fluids onto their planes. However, I have a simple solution: If a passenger has a contact lens fluid bottle and claims it is for himself, have him wash his hands, remove his left contact (test #1), shake the bottle vigorously (test #2), and reinsert using the fluid from the bottle (test #3). Repeat for right hand contact unless he is writhing on the ground or has no free hand to perform removal and re-insertion. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-08-11 13:43 |
| #7 Liquid explosives are difficult and weak. I think that the article has inadvertently identified the most lethal terrorist approach. Release a poison gas agent into the ventilation system. At a minimum the terrorist would kill many passengers. It is also very likely that it would get the flight crew with a crash resulting. Easier to make, easier to deploy. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-08-11 13:18 |
| #6 It appears the explosive they were going to use was the "Mother Of Satan" |
| Posted by: tipper 2006-08-11 12:55 |
| #5 Let's not give Aum too much credit. They attempted seven or eight times to initiate an anthrax attack with zero success. They attempted several Sarin attacks, with two succeeding. The issue with the second attack, the subway attack, wasn't the Sarin. It was the lack of decontamination by rescuers and thus secondary and tertiary exposures far outnumbered primary exposures. The terrorists face one primary issue with every plot, whether it be this one or a WMD one. How do they minimize the number of potential points of failure? In Oklahoma City there was one, the risk that the timer would fail to operate. This whole plot seems to have several points of failure connected tot he transport and mixing of the chemicals. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2006-08-11 11:47 |
| #4 "Okay, sir, now if you'll step over here, put your feet on the footprints in the mat ... very good sir, I'm going to stand behind this plexiglas shield ... now please, sir, jump up and down ten times." |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-08-11 11:43 |
| #3 Nitroglycerine is one of the more powerful explosives, but subject to going off spontaneously if jarred. Very dangerous to carry around. OK! New idea for a security screening! Every passenger has to step onto a platform that jars them up and down a little bit. With a little work, a trip through security could be like a brief amusement park visit. Wheee! |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2006-08-11 11:26 |
| #2 I have several objections to what this article states are disadvantages. I'm no chemist or explosives expert by any means, but it seems to me that if a liquid explosives are A) unstable like nitroglycerin, or B) subject to deterioration, that's not going to bar some suicide bombers who A) are not stable themselves and want the bomb to go off, prematurely or not, and B) plan on using the material immediately, not putting it into storage! Aside from explosives, I'm also concerned about: o Creating a toxic reaction, like chlorine gas or some other poisonous inhalant that could kill/blind/incapacitate many if not all crew and passengers. o Creating a highly corrosive substance that will eat through cables, hoses, and other flight control elements. Remember, these guys aren't concerned about their own safety, much less the safety of others. This only has to work one time for them to score a victory and kill a lot of innocent people. |
| Posted by: Dar 2006-08-11 11:04 |
| #1 The most dangerous terrorist group to ever exist was Aum Shinrikyo Agreed, they may even have attempted an atom (nuclear) bomb. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-08-11 09:35 |