An Interview on Radicals & IEDs - Part II

On 30 April 2013 I appeared on Channel NewsAsia, a regional Television news network based in Singapore. Before the show I was asked to prepare answers for several potential questions. Those questions and answers appear below

Concerning Bombs & IEDs

1. How dangerous are IEDs? Why are they commonly used (other than ease of making, is it their ability to hurt)?

      First, let’s understand what constitutes an Improvised Explosive Device (or IED) by understanding what is NOT an IED.

     A military or commercial explosive device used as designed, is NOT an IED. So a land mine is NOT an IED. A hand grenade or rocket propelled grenade is NOT an IED. An artillery shell, fired from an artillery piece, is NOT an IED.

     On the other hand, any explosive device used by a bomber in a creative way that disguises its intent is an IED, even if the actual chemicals that explode are military or commercial grade. An unstable chemical compound mixed from products bought at a store and placed in a glass jar where they will explode when dropped constitutes a simple IED. And a car filled with artillery shells detonated by a cell phone is also an IED.

     The Boston Marathon terrorists apparently used an IED made of some explosive chemicals and nails, placed in a pressure cooker so the top would lock in place and the blast would be forced out the sides. This is why so many people were wounded in the legs and below the waist.

     The terrorists who attacked Beslan School Number 1 in Chechnya back in 2004, and killed more than 300 people (almost 200 of them children), apparently used IEDs made of military or commercial explosives fashioned into suicide vests and bombs that exploded if the terrorists were killed.

     So IEDs may be used for many reasons to include adaptability to the site of the attack, ease of disguise, and non-availability of standard explosives.

2. Is the IED the only weapon that can hurt so many people at the same time without being discovered? Who do the bombers target with such devices?

     As explained above, an IED may be used for many reasons, ranging from ease of hiding it to difficulty of obtaining more traditional explosives. Terrorists may use IEDs to attack almost anyone. Tourists were attacked with an IED in Bali. Soldiers were attacked with IEDs in Iraq. Prime Minister Bhutto was attacked with an IED in India.

3. If an IED ever explodes, what can one do to minimize damage? Where can you run to?

     First, it is frequently impossible in an emergency to know if an explosion is a terrorist attack or simply a commercial accident. So you should immediately get down and beside or behind anything that would provide additional protection – like a table or a wall.

Expect the air to be full of dust or smoke, and if you are inside, fire may follow. It will easiest to breath near the floor.

     Of course you will want to get out if you are inside and away from the scene if you are outside. But if it is a terrorist attack there may be a second bomb near the exit or placed on the street where people will try to get away. So move quickly and stay away from parked cars, bags or boxes on the street, or anything that might contain another bomb. If there is some way out besides a crowded exit – through a broken window for example – it might be a good idea to take that improvised exit.

     And be prepared to help others – those who are injured or just disoriented by the blast and dust and smoke.

4. How can we spot an IED? What should members of the public do if they spot on, other than alerting security?

     It may be impossible to see a well concealed IED. The Irish Republican Army once attacked the Prime Minister of England with a bomb build into the floor and bath tub of a hotel.

     Suicide bombers can sometimes be identified because of their bulky clothes, but not always.

     However, many IEDs can be identified because they are concealed in a way that would look out of the ordinary to any citizen. An IED was detected in Times Square in New York City because a street vendor thought a car was parked in an unusual place. He was right – it was full of explosives.

     Yes of course notify security anytime you see something that looks suspicious – like a package or bag left unattended. And you should NOT incite panic when you cannot be sure that what you are seeing is a bomb.

     But when a suspicious object is matched by suspicious behavior – like a driver abandoning a truck in front of a government building, or a person setting down a brief case and walking away – it is time to get away, tell others, and notify security.

What Ever Happened on that Thing in Korea?

When we last left the boy wonder of North Korea, he was threatening to launch nuclear missiles against Tokyo, Guam, and Austin, Texas (?!), and turn Seoul into a “sea of fire.” And unlike the tirades of the past (the family seems to produce an unusual number of drama queens), this time (perhaps partly thanks to Iran), North Korea may have the means to make good on some of those threats. We have been worried, and rightly so.

Then real people were killed and maimed by real bombs in Boston, and the media (always the one trick pony) turned its full attention from international nukes to domestic pressure cookers.

So whatever happened to that thing in North Korea, anyway?

Answer: It is still there. It is still dangerous. And assuming they let us out of the crisis this time, it will be worse the next time, and the next.

North Korea retains a huge land army, a few aircraft and submarines, and thousands of artillery pieces burrowed into rock hillsides, close enough to release a devastating fire on Seoul. It is a bad situation, but one we have lived with for decades. By itself, this is no reason for new alarm, even if the North Korean rhetoric is more bellicose than usual.

What is new is a Defense Intelligence Agency opinion that North Korea may have succeeded in mating a small nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile, putting our allies, our military, and citizens on our own soil at risk. This is in the wake of another North Korean underground detonation of some sort, and the orbiting of a “package” that could presage the placement of nuclear attack capabilities in space.

Added to all this is the growing concern over a possible Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon. Nuclear detonations are known to release a “pulse” of high intensity electromagnetic radiation strong enough to overload and destroy sensitive electronic circuits. In theory, if a nuclear weapon were properly designed and exploded at high altitude, it might destroy all electronic circuits in a footprint hundreds of miles across. The American cities featured on the famous “targeting map” from a recent North Korean photo might find all electronic assets, from watches to power plants, destroyed in the blink of an eye – and without a single human casualty on the ground.

Put all this together with an opaque North Korean leadership that seems to thrive on brinksmanship, and the result is a dangerous situation bound to get more dangerous over time.

Fortunately, in addition to negotiations and the “best efforts” of our “friend” China, we do have one more ace in the hole – a limited ballistic missile defense. But the story here reminds one of the old joke about the man who fell out of an airplane. Fortunately, he had a parachute. Unfortunately, it didn’t work . . . etc., etc., etc., right down to the moment that he missed the pitchfork in the haystack on the ground . . . but also missed the haystack.

Yes we have some shipboard radars and shipboard interceptors to engage one phase of hostile missile flight. And we have a few ground based radars and interceptors if attackers get past that thin line. But the number of interceptors is limited, and the 2009 buy of additional interceptors (which take four years to produce) was cancelled by President Obama when he first took office. So additional rockets are not available to reinforce our limited defenses. And the North Korean plan may be to launce multiple types of rockets and missiles to confuse our systems and possibly cause us to waste interceptors on bogus launches.

If we get through the next several years without a North Korean missile attack, we will see  additional ground-based interceptors added to our Pacific “shield”, thanks to a recent resource decision by the new Secretary of Defense. But in a reprise of the fortunate-unfortunate man falling from the airplane, they will be taken from a similar thin shield against Iranian missiles that might one day be fired at our allies, troops and citizens with a cross-European flight trajectory. Good news: moving money means we will have more defenses in Asia. Bad news: this sets up the Iranians to play the same Rope-a-Dope game with us on the other side of the globe.

Also, the ships we recently dispatched to reinforce the Pacific shield can’t stay forever, and there are not enough similar ships in the fleet to keep them circling in Japanese waters indefinitely.

What’s the solution?

For sixty years we have been playing for time, hoping a responsible regime will come to power in North Korea. So much for a strategy of hope.

But the alternative is to take a big risk – perhaps shooting down any missiles launched, with the cooperation of Japan who has defenses of its own. This is dangerous because North Korea might use this as a pretext to attack Seoul and kill thousands before bartering a peace. And it sets a dangerous precedent for the next time we want to test a weapon over the open ocean and somebody else claims to feel threatened.

Of course, we might argue in the court of world opinion that this is a special case, since the North Korean leadership has been proclaiming a state of war for weeks. We might argue that under these conditions their “test” constitutes an act of war and our response is legal under international law.

Beyond that, what if our interceptors miss? What does that tell opponents worldwide? Or what if our rockets hit but opponents produce replacement missiles before we can produce replacement interceptors? What if?  What if? . . ..

This is a high risk game. Nuclear war and many thousands of lives are on the line. The story playing out in Boston is important. But we better be able to handle two crises at one time. Because “that thing in Korea” is not going away any time soon.

Early Thoughts on Boston Bombing 15 April 2013: #1 Remember Tonight

            Remember tonight -- because right now we do not know who did this.

            The FBI has several unexploded devices in hand, and my bet is they will have a pretty good line on the origin of the attack very soon. Bomb makers have unique styles, almost like fingerprints. In fact, the FBI may find finger prints inside. But we don’t have that evidence right now.

The materials from the bombs will eventually give us lots of clues as well. For example, many amateurs favor improvised explosives like PETN, as opposed to military or even commercial grades of high explosives. The pictures of the event (lack of blown out windows, etc.) seem to indicate a low order explosive. But right now, we do not know for certain. One early medical report indicated a lack of nails, ball bearings, marbles, etc. which is surprising. A different report claimed that such materials, intended to create shrapnel and casualties, were in the bombs.  More contradictory information will come out before the truth emerges.

And so far, no one has claimed credit.  If past experience holds true, before long, several fakers will claim they did it.

So there is a lot of evidence to go on, and authorities will soon have some hard leads. But not right now. All we know right now is that the attacker (attackers?) falls into one of several categories:

1.      INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST – which means an attack mounted from overseas by a foreigner and concerning an overseas political issue. (Example: Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)

2.      DOMESTIC TERRORIST – an American who mounted the attack from inside the US over an internal / domestic political issue. (Example: radical right, radical left, radical environmentalist, etc.)

3.      HOME GROWN TERRORIST  – US citizen inspired by overseas political issues, perhaps supported by overseas resources. (Example: Times Square bomber)

4.      DOMESTIC CRIMINAL – US citizen with a financial motive for the attack (unlikely in this case, but it could happen).

5.      TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL – International origin with a financial motive for the attack (drug cartel, Russian mafia -- probably not in this case, but a growing concern).

6.      DOMESTIC NUT (pardon the technical term) – US citizen with a personal agenda (Example: Uni-bomber)

Not only do we not know the origin of the Boston attacks at this moment, but the situation is so uncertain that no experienced analyst is willing to stake his (or her) reputation on a guess. That is the part we need to remember.

Because some political ideologues are right now fairly panting at the prospect that the attacker might ultimately be linked to their political opponents. Once the attacker is identified, these opportunists will claim the link is the inevitable result of their opponent’s political views, and use this to justify restrictions on political speech. And thus the actual crime may be used as grounds for an even greater crime – the murder of the right to free speech.

Of course, groups that espouse violence really are dangerous and should be recognized as such. In particular, some groups have declared war on America and the American people. We can’t just ignore their threat.

But political disagreement alone does not constitute a threat. This is a good rule to remember when the identity of the Boston bomber(s) becomes known, and ideologues begin to argue that the linkage to their opponents’ political ideas made violence inevitable.

            Don’t over react. Don’t spend money unnecessarily for the unnecessary consolidation of bureaucratic power. Don’t surrender rights and liberties in the pursuit of perfect security. We don’t know much tonight. But we do know these truths. In the coming days, it would serve us well to remember them.

An Overview of the North Korean Situation

Bottom line first:  This is a bad situation with no easy way out. We cannot give the North what they want. They may not be able to back down. The big danger is not that they will launch a nuclear attack (although there is a small possibility that might happen) or even a major ground assault on the South. The big danger is they might launch a limited conventional attack that killed thousands of South Koreans and Americans. Then we would have a land war on our hands that we are not prepared to fight. And we might get there not through calculation or even mis-calculation but by accident. Finally, there is another possibility – remote but real – that would post a threat to the survival of the United States.  So this is not a problem we can “hope” away.

I will try to be short, but the situation is complex.  North Korea:

·         Has a large, well equipped land army. But if they lay it out in the open in order  to attack, the US will destroy it with precision weapons. Good start . . . but how do you finish it without the massive commitment of ground troops?

·         Has a respectable air force, although without much flying time and experience. We could sweep it from the skies.  Then what? Forgive and forget? How do you punish a dictator without hurting innocent people?

·          Has some submarines – quiet enough to have sunk a South Korean ship 3 years ago. They might hit a US or Japanese ship.  We would probably respond by taking out most military targets. Surely they know that – so how have they planned to respond?

·         Probably has thousands of agents prepared to infiltrate or already in South Korea - they could not win a war, but they could create a lot of havoc and kill many people.  Our victory would look like a loss.

     The really big deal in this situation is that North Korea has many artillery tubes buried in the mountains – all within range of Seoul and other populated parts of South Korea. They could easily cause tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and taking them out would be difficult and time consuming.

     They probably do not have a nuclear weapon yet – but they might.

     They probably could not reach the US with a missile – but they might.

     And IF they have a nuclear weapon – they might reach South Korea or Japan  with a missile or in some other way.

South Korea:

·         Has a large military – much larger than the US forces in Korea, although in theory under US Joint Command. They were hit twice in the last 3 years and have vowed to retaliated this time – or even preempt if they see an attack forming.  The reputation of the new Prime Minister hangs on the ability to deter North Korea from attack, and the ability to wage a sharp, quick response if deterrence fails.   Might they do this without coordinating with the US?

Japan:

·         Has powerful self-defense forces in the area, but would be hard pressed to hurt North Korea.

·         Still – if they are hit, would their leaders stand by and wait for the US to act, or take action of their own?

·         And if US bases there were hit, there would be new pressure for them to be moved.

China:

·         Always plays both sides against the middle.

·         Shows no indication that they want war, but they are happy to see the US distracted, powerless, and with its shoelace in the sprocket.

·         Also, China is at odds with Japan over island claims. They might tell us they would help convince their ally North Korea to back down, if we lean on our ally Japan to surrender the islands.  The would put the US in an even worse jam.

Why would North Korea cause this crisis?

·         They stage some sort of crisis every year during annual US/South Korea military exercises.

·         But this year sounds and feels different.

·         The new leader, Kim Jung Un, is young and inexperienced. He may be trying to prove himself to his generals. Or someone may be controlling him behind the scenes. Or he may really think he can get what he wants. He may believe he can hurt the US or cause it to back down, making his country a world power.  We don’t know.

What does North Korea want?

    Well . . . that’s not clear either.

·         What they say they want is respect and a good economy, and they think the route to those two things is a program to build (and share) nuclear weapons technology.

·         Kim Jung Un appears to be trying to move forward with this plan – maybe for internal consumption - by testing missiles and warheads.

·         The US coordinated new UN sanctions as a result, and he may regard this as a direct threat to his rule – humiliation in front of his generals may be unacceptable. So he feels driven to make the US back down to reinforce his position.

·         It is also possible that US secret negotiations (the North has demanded direct negotiations for years) and the US military drawn down have left him with the impression that we would not respond if he pushes the envelope. Our President keeps saying that force is never the answer and the only road to peace is diplomacy. (He said this again last week in Israel.)  If Kim Jung Un took us at our word, and moved offensively expecting us to bend to his will in  negotiations, then he is now exposed with no way out except a humiliating withdrawal. So he probably wants a way out of this jam and forward with his plan at the same time.

  

 OK --  now what?

·         The US top priority is preventing a nuclear threat from developing from North Korea, or any place where they share their technology (like Iran). And our announced strategy is negotiation and sanctions coupled with military withdrawal and drawdown. Given our budget situation, this would not be easy to change.

·         While the US searches for something to give, and North Korea tries to decide what it will accept, somebody could make a mistake that pushes everybody over the edge.

Sounds challenging, but like nobody wants war. That’s good.  Is there a possible interpretation that is worse?

Oh yes. 

·         Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is a flash of energy released by a nuclear detonation that overwhelms and destroys electronic circuits. IF it works as advertised, then a single nuclear weapon detonated over a large city might destroy every electronic device for many miles around.

·         The North Koreans have apparently detonated some type of nuclear device.

·         The do have a multistage rocket that has put some type of “package” in orbit.

·         If the North Korean plan is not to create nuclear weapons and missiles for leverage, but a couple of EMP weapons for attack, then the United States might be facing a real threat to its survival.

This last point is unlikely but a real possibility, and explains why the US is moving additional forces into the region. It cannot afford to let this challenge go unanswered.

(By the way, the US does have a defense against this specific threat – a type of missile interceptor based in the US as an outgrowth of the old Ronald Reagan “Star Wars” plan. Whether we have enough to cover all types and directions of attack from North Korea is questionable, and additional interceptors were scheduled for purchase in 2009 and deployment this year.  President Obama canceled the additional interceptors when first elected to office. The new Secretary of Defense has ordered a replacement buy to begin immediately. Those weapons will be deployed in 2017.  The money for these additional West Coast interceptors has been diverted from plans to field similar interceptors in Europe to protect against Iranian attack.)

Is there a lesson here?

     Yes. Talking is better than fighting.  But we have been talking with North Korea for 60 years – three generations. Diplomacy without military power behind it is a waste of time. And eventually you run out of time.