The New Face of Terrorism?

CNN is running this picture of a suspect in the Norway bombing and shootings. As of now, 91 are dead in the Norway attacks. One of the targets was a youth camp where around 600 were attending. The suspect dressed as a policeman opened fire and killed 84 campers in a shooting spree that witnesses say lasted nearly two hours.

Norway has been throughout most of the 20th and 21st centuries are neutral country more known for its fiords than for invading countries or persecuting minorities. Like much of Scandinavia, Norway is a progressive country with very liberal policies towards immigration. The openness towards immigrants may have be the motive behind the attacks.

The last time Norway had been at war was during the Nazi occupation. Since then, Norway has been a very peaceful place to visit and live. The attack had the kind of success most terrorists can only dream of; an almost paradise wrecked by violence against children. The media and governments will be pontificating about the events for weeks.

The attack comes less than two months from the ten year anniversary of 9/11. It seems ominously coincidently and will have both security professionals as well as conspiracy theorists conjecturing on the timing. Gun control advocates will be beating their drums for disarmament and the NRA loyalists will be launching counter-attacks. DHS will be revamping screening procedures and will be asking for more money to purchase high-tech equipment to detect future attacks.

At the end of the day, none of that would have mattered. At least one person (perhaps more) attack a soft target and was successful. We cannot fortify every single summer camp, little league baseball game or high school football game. If someone wants to commit violence, they will find a way.

The Norway attack stands as a stark reminder that even in Utopia, violence can strike. Oh and it doesn't take a radicalized Muslim either!

Ramped up US airport security deepens holiday travel misery

The additional security measures will discourage not only attackers but holiday travelers as well. The increased security measures will just be another reason for travelers (as well as terrorists) to chose options other than air travel. The beleaguered airlines can't withstand much more in the way of reduced air travel.

DHS has never taken a look at their procedures to determine what is effective and what isn't. Any coach will change plays and strategies to thwart his opponents strategy. DHS and TSA follow a standardized set of procedures based more on personnel policy than any counter-terrorism methodology. Standardized procedures allow for easier assessment of personnel performance and to set standards for promotions. The dirty little secret about TSA is they can only screen for what they are trained to detect. If you have a new means of assembling a bomb or explosive that doesn't appear on the TSA training documents, screeners won't recognize it as a weapon. In other words, TSA is about rote memorizing not critical thinking. Even if TSA were trained to use critical thinking, they can only screen outbound passengers at American terminals. They have no ability to screen incoming passengers from outside the United States. They must rely on the security of foreign agencies and airlines to screen out potential terrorists and to detect weapons.

Terrorists are not limited to a particular type of attack and can freely change their methods to suit the target or circumstances. Secretary Napolitano also seems to be contradicting herself; if there is no sign of a larger plot why ramp up security?

Ramped up US airport security deepens holiday travel misery - Yahoo! News

Posted using ShareThis

High-risk Materials

New York City Police conducted an undercover operation to demonstrate the ease with which a terrorist could obtain chlorine gas. The police set-up a fake water-purification company and were able to obtain three 100-pound cylinders of chlorine. The purchase was done without any direct contact and no background checks. Despite the focus on manufacturers of high-risk materials by Homeland Security, the NYPD operation was able to obtain chlorine with very little effort. Chlorine, even in small dosages, effects human respiratory function and is lethal in large doses. Chlorine can’t be filtered by most masks and will deteriorate the latex seals of many chemical masks.

The New York case is an important reminder of how vulnerable small manufacturers and vendors of hazardous materials can be to a terrorist effort. Unfortunately this story occurred in New York which already receives a lion share of attention from the Department of Homeland Security. I firmly believe that the last place a terrorist will try to obtain materials for an attack in such high-profile areas as New York or Los Angeles. Small chemical manufacturers and vendors in less high-profile areas (such as cities like Kansas City or Des Moines) may not have the budget or the impetus to implement the necessary security oversight over the purchase of their products. A terrorist might also try to obtain smaller quantities from multiple vendors. The products could be gathered in one part of the country to be used in an attack in another part of the country. Of course if all else fails, a terrorist could simply steal the materials from a storage area. While this last option would alert authorities, depending on how quickly the material would be used may make it worth the risk. I recall a case in Kentucky back in 1999 where around several thousand pounds of ANFO was stolen from a demolition company. I don’t know if the material was ever recovered but imagine the logistics required to steal and move such a quantity!

Local first responders, healthcare workers, emergency planners and others involved in homeland security need to really look around their own backyard. Too often homeland security becomes an exercise in defeating some external organization from launching and attack on the United States. Communities that aren’t along the coasts are near major metropolitan areas just can’t relate to such scenarios. These communities, however, could be the ideal location for a terrorist to obtain the necessary materials to create a weapon. Chlorine is just one of many different chemicals that are produced in large quantities for commercial use yet are highly poisonous and could be used by a terrorist group to execute an attack. Very often the plants that produce these chemicals are located in remote areas of the country, area from major population areas. The location reduces the possibility of people being injured in the event of an industrial accident but it also makes it easier for terrorists to obtain the materials either through subterfuge or theft.

These remote communities often don’t have a response plan for dealing with a major disaster at such a facility. First responders and medical treatment facilities may be too small to be able to adequately deal with any type of large scale industrial accident. Sometimes very few in the community are even aware what high risk manufacturers may be located in their community. For example, few here in the Cincinnati area are probably aware of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The plant has 23.0 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, which is stored and processed as uranium hexafluoride (UF6), and other compounds including fluorides, and oxides. (Source: DOE). Most of the first responders I’ve spoken to here in the Cincinnati area have protocols to deal with transporting and treating patients with radiological exposure. Most of the hospitals here don’t have the ability to deal with mass casualties with radiation burns much less decontaminating medical personnel who have handled these patients.

The Portsmouth example is a dramatic example but is shows what may literally be right outside the door of a community. A terrorist operation that targets such a facility for either a fake business transaction, theft or outright attack is far more likely for most communities compared to another 9/11 type attack. The real challenge is to be able to protect these smaller facilities and manufacturers while not increasing their operating costs to the point that they are forced out of business. Too often the immediate conclusion is the terrorists are going to launch an attack when their ultimate goal may be much more subtle. Getting communities to spend large sums of money, restrict business practices, and eliminate other business practices altogether could have an even greater impact to our economy than exploding several cylinders of chlorine gas. Think about the impact security screenings at airports have had on our airline industry. Airlines have had to greatly reduce in-flight services to offset the increase in fuel costs making flights rather unpleasant experiences. Compound the poor in-flight experience with the aggravation of long security lines and the result is fewer people willing to fly commercial airlines. Wealthier passengers chose charter aircraft which results in more aircraft in the skies and increasing the incidence of delays. Less affluent passengers look to rental cars or trains as ways of avoiding the hassles of air travel. All of this jeopardizes many of the major carriers (Delta is looking at merging with another legacy carrier). I’m not saying all of this was caused by terrorist attacks but by having to insure in-flight safety we have inadvertently made airline travel even less attractive than normal.

If we over-react to the New York city case, we may also create economic adversity for our smaller businesses. These businesses may not be able to operate due to the increasing costs of doing the necessary security checks on their customers. Customers may resent the additional paperwork and delays in procuring services and products and may turn to vendors from outside the US. As always, security will come down to how much are we willing to pay?

Citywide Response to a Terrorist Attack

A city in the United States is defined by Webster’s as ‘a usually large or important municipality in the United States governed under a charter granted by the state’. Cities are major population centers with important hubs of economic activity (whether based on trade, manufacturing or service related industries. Cities tend to also be very symbolic by virtue of these economic activities or cultural centers that may be resident. It is these very elements that make our cities what they are that cause them to be targets for terrorist attacks. Terrorism need not be foreign in its origin or affiliation, one need only look at the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995 to the see the consequences of domestic terrorism.

All responses to attack would be handled first by local responders. The federal government and state governments do not have fire departments or medical units to respond. A large scale attack, or for that matter natural disaster, could overwhelm local first responders. An attack that damages major Interstate routes could complicate response efforts by simply denying first responder ingress and egress routes. As people attempt to flee from the attack, or evacuate out of the area threatened by attack, transportation routes become grid-locked. Any injuries or emergencies become difficult to reach due to the increased traffic flow.

Natural disasters, other than earthquakes, tend to give some advance warning and allow first responders some degree of preparation. A terrorist attack however can be for the most part no-notice, anytime, anywhere. The first responders may need to go into an event involving chemical or biological agents dispersed on a large scale. The first responders themselves may even be the targets of attack during their response efforts. A massive attack of this nature may overcome some first responders, therefore it is more critical than ever that communities try to standardize equipment and procedures across the board. Interoperability isn’t just efficient, it is also be a force-multiplier.

Traditionally first responders have included fire, EMS and law enforcement personnel. However another class of personnel needs to be included as well, those who unique skill-sets will be required to operate or maintain critical infrastructures. For example, personnel from public works to operate water treatment facilities, sewer treatment plants, or other utilities would need to be protected and available to assist. Healthcare workers may need to be culled from their normal work centers to become part of a massive medical response unit.

Protecting some targets from an attack is just impractical. Gas stations for example could be used in an attack scenario, however due to the large number of gas stations it is impossible to secure and monitor. Moreover, corporations may not be able to afford to provide the level of security to harden their businesses against possible attack. Hardening a target also means reducing accessibility to customers. Imagine having to show some form of ID each time you purchased gasoline at a particular gas station, more than likely you will go somewhere else that is quicker and more convenient.

Companies are becoming aware that risk-analysis is much broader in its application. Risks are just about profit and loss but of also what company assets may be desirable for use by terrorists. For instance, a small chemical manufacturing company may produce some chemicals that could be used to assemble high-explosives. The company needs to take steps to insure its product isn’t stolen or sold to those with nefarious intentions. Even so, third parties and ruses could be used to get the necessary material. Therefore companies with high-value assets need to be part of the community’s information sharing network.

Information sharing needs to occur across agencies as well as between public and private sector. The time to form these networks is before an attack or disaster happens, not during. Proprietary or “need to know” caveats may have to be altered or completely shattered to create an effective network. All participating agencies and institutions need to buy-in into sharing information from the top to the bottom. Of course achieving this requires money and time, both resources that aren’t in short supply. Grants are available through the federal government to increase training and readiness. Another option is creating a partnership with other industries or communities in other cities or states. Such partnerships could lead to different approaches to creating new response plans or even identifying funding streams for purchasing new equipment.

A terrorist attack need only be threatened to cause a reaction by a city. Strong information sharing networks and mutual aid compacts need to be in place before such times occur.