Posted by John Crewdson at 12:34 pm CDT
Since Sept. 11 it has become the hymn sung by those charged with protecting the U.S. and Europe against terrorism: the defenders have to get it right every time, while the terrorists only have to get it right once.
Those abysmal odds have given rise to a corollary: it is not a question of whether the terrorists will succeed again, but where and when.
If investigators in London and Washington are correct, the defenders got it right three weeks ago, breaking up a British-based plot to blow up a number of trans-Atlantic jetliners. Anywhere from five to 15 planes reportedly were going to be targeted.
Ironically, the most important lesson learned from that breakup may be that it is impossible to defend the softest parts of our system and society from those who are prepared to die while taking innocents to their death.
In the nearly five years since Sept. 11, 2001, any number of enhancements have been added to the air transport system that were intended to make such attacks impossible.
Cockpit doors have been "hardened." The number of sky marshals, it is said, has been dramatically increased. Watch lists and profiles have been drawn up to pinpoint suspicious passengers.
Carry-on baggage is tested for PETN, one of the components of plastic explosive. As any air-traveler can attest, body searches and removing one's shoes are now the rule rather than the exception.
And yet, until three weeks ago, nobody apparently thought about the plastic bottles of water, juice, soda, vitamin-laced energy drinks and God knows what else--rumored to sometimes include alcoholic spirits--that nearly every airline passenger carried on board.
It was just such bottles, perhaps fitted with false bottoms, that investigators think the London plotters were planning to use to smuggle liquids on board those trans-Atlantic flights where they would then be combined into something called hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, a powerful but relatively unstable explosive.
The abortive plot, as described by sources within the FBI and Scotland Yard, was on the sophisticated side. Components from the flash cubes in disposable cameras, perhaps powered by the battery in a portable music player or a cell phone, were to be used to ignite the explosives, ripping a hole in the airplane's thin metal fuselage that would cause rapid decompression and implode the plane.
Plastic bottles, and indeed liquids, gels and aerosols of any kind--with very limited exceptions for things like baby formula and medicine--are now banned from carry-on baggage.
But how is it that nobody saw plastic bottles as a potential threat until now?
Not everyone is capable of brewing peroxide-based explosives in an airplane lavatory, or constructing a detonator from spare electronic parts. Indeed, it is not clear that the London plotters would have been able to pull that off.
But how much damage might have been caused to an airplane cruising over the Atlantic--or, worse, beginning its final approach to New York, Washington or Los Angeles--by two or three passengers igniting plastic bottles filled with gasoline, kerosene, or even napalm, which can be made by mixing gasoline with a couple of other things you can buy at the grocery store?
That airplane passengers have, until now, been permitted to saunter on board clutching bottles filled with whatever says something about the foresight and imagination of those entrusted with transportation security.
But it says something even more important: there doesn't seem to be any way the defenders can pre-empt an obvious venue for a terrorist attack before it happens. They can close off those venues after the fact, as they have in this case. But that, as they say, is fighting the last war. Will it ever become possible to fight the next one before it happens?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The thing is, the terrorists don't have to do much more, and they don't even have succeed at anything they try to do. They're already winning. A handful of nutcases hijack a few planes with box cutters, so then no one was allowed to bring fingernail clippers or knitting needles. A handful of nutcases were supposedly going to smuggle on liquid explosives, so now no one can bring toothpaste or contact solution. Next they just need a handful of nutcases to get caught with materials up their rectal cavities and then no one will be allowed to wear clothes. Land of the free and home of the brave.
Posted by: Dienne | August 31, 2006 3:59 PM
Yes Dienne, I couldn’t agree with you more. It seems that politics has more to do with keeping this overboard reaction going than the actual threats.
Posted by: Rory M | September 1, 2006 10:21 AM
And., yet, if all those items were still allowed on board and a plane exploded, Dienne and Rory would be the first to scream "Bush didn't do his job."
I agree that because of terrorist actions, our everyday conveniences are being messed up. I'm not happy that for my upcoming three-day business trip rather than carry on my one bag, I will have to check it.
But how do you deal with people who's only goal in life to is kill as many innocent people as possible? And people who will kill themselves in order to kill the innocents?
Posted by: John D | September 1, 2006 10:40 AM
Little Johnny D.,
I don't believe you're going on any business trip,unless your class is on an extended field trip to Toys R Us.
Posted by: John E. | September 1, 2006 11:24 AM
John D you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than being a victim of a terrorist attack. That is a fact, and if you believe all the hype from Bush, Cheney, and Rummy, go hide back under that rock you came out from.
Posted by: Rory M | September 1, 2006 12:50 PM
No, John D, if someone manages to blow up a plane by smuggling a bomb in a contact solution container or up their backside, I will concede that neither Bush nor anyone else could probably have prevented it. However, if someone manages to pull off an attack through our ports, chemical plants, etc., yes, then I will be the first to say that Bush didn't do his job.
Posted by: Dienne | September 1, 2006 12:51 PM
Slurpee Boy,
My son is coming home from Iraq in 6 weeks for leave.
Why don't you give me your address,and we can all get together for some "coffee"???
Bada Bing
Bada Boom
Posted by: John E. | September 1, 2006 1:08 PM
John E., I'm sorry but I have to ask, where did you learn to debate, the third grade? Your posts are less than enlightening today.
And Rory, all those "less of a chance of getting hit by lightning" statistics you cite don't mean a thing to the people on those planes on 9/11.
The fact of the matter is when we allow people to get knives and explosives (liquid or otherwise) onto planes, knowing full well that terrorists have used these tactics to carry out their mission before, it should be obvious that we're not doing enough for security. I can't believe we even have to have this discussion.
If you think the odds are in your favor, fine, but the %2 who got hit by terrorists don't have that luxury. We owe it to everyone's safety to take simple measures like checking your toiletries and leaving the box cutters at home.
If you don't believe me that this is just common sense and we should've figured it out a long time ago google George Carlin's stand-up routine on airport security (circa 2000) for a nice example of just how absurd it was before 9/11 ("they'll give you a knife!").
If you think "well, if I'm unlucky enough to be on a plane in the 2% of times when terrorists attack then I'm okay with dying," then by all means chlorinate the gene pool. But I think nearly everyone else has their eyes wide open and doesn't want to take that chance. We're not going back to the lazy, it'll-never-happen-to-me, pre-9/11 mentality. The only acceptable ratio of terrorist attacks is 0%.
Posted by: Bill | September 1, 2006 2:59 PM
Billyboy,
You can sign up for that war you love so much anytime now.
I'm sure Dubya would take you in with loving arms.
Posted by: John E. | September 1, 2006 3:22 PM
Bill can you clarify your statistics?
I don't understand where your two per cent comes from.
Posted by: OHCD | September 1, 2006 3:29 PM
I'm with OHCD. If terrorists attacked 2% of the time, we'd have an average of an airplane a day go down. Terrorists have attacked less than about a millionth of a percent of flights. Granted, that still doesn't mean much to those who were on those flights on September 11. But part of the problem is that the terrorists will likely stay one step ahead of us until we've restricted ourselves so much that we've done their work for them. So now that we've outlawed all sharp objects and liquids, you're going to tell me that the terrorists can't find another way? What if they design a remote detonator for liquid explosives in their checked luggage? Should we ban all luggage, checked and carry-on? What if they do conceal explosive material in body cavities? Should all passengers be subject to body cavity search before boarding? Where does it end?
Posted by: Dienne | September 1, 2006 4:03 PM
Sorry - just had a vision of GWB explaining the necessity for pre-flight enemas for all.
A small prize for the most appropriate accronym for that one methinks.
Posted by: OHCD | September 1, 2006 6:22 PM