Yesterday, the press had one of its semi-regular terrorism panics, this time over the warning that jihadists are thinking about sewing bombs into wannabe martyrs. Relax, an explosives specialist at the Department of Homeland Security writes in an e-mail to Danger Room. If Al-Qaeda and company are turning to cockamamie ideas like surgically-implanted explosives, it’s a sign that the terrorists are in very, very bad straits.

Sure, it’s a bit of self-interested argument. But the note was interesting enough, I thought I’d run it in full.

Say what you want about the Transportation Security Administration and their use of body scanners. TSA has proven that the deterrent they have established is working. Consider the following:

- [Shoe bomber] Richard Reid was able to move an improvised explosive device through a (foreign) airport security system that utilized a metal detector and carry-on x-ray system. By utilizing no metallic components in his shoes, he was able to walk through the metal detector without causing any alarm. The result? Failed execution and American security begins to require passengers place shoes into the x-ray.

- Fast forward to Christmas day 2009. [Underwear bomber] Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab smuggles an explosive device on his body and through a (foreign) airport security system. al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula knew that shoes would most likely have to be removed and x-rayed alongside carry-on/accessible property. That meant the device would not be placed into the x-ray. Using no metallic components once again, Abdulmutallab entered the metal detector and caused no alarms. Results? Failed execution and American security has new ammo in their fight for using body scanners.

With the implementation of body scanners, the “technological deterrent” is complete within the airport environment. Regardless of technological capability, a bomber will avoid placing their device in their shoes, in their carry-on property, in the checked luggage, or on their body. What’s left? The only thing left to consider is to place the device internally.

The attack on Prince Mohammad bin Nayef [in which a bomber allegedly put a bomb in his anus] was not an internally placed device. Witness statements indicate the presence of a “flash,” meaning the device was either on the leg/buttocks. Don’t consider it a “trial run” for Abdulmutallab’s attempted attack either, the bin Nayef device had a legitimate target and detonated effectively.

Before we consider if an internally placed device is viable, we have to remember that a threat is what you can do versus what you want to do. Do the terrorists want to utilize a Colombian drug-smuggling semi-submersible to attack a major oil terminal? Maybe. Do the terrorists actually have the ability to use a small motorboat with an IED using ordnance as the main charge to attack oil merchants? Yes.

When we look at the “threat” of internally placed devices there are many limitations. Explosives are toxic to the body. Even the explosives used by the U.S. military can have adverse affects on skin. Placed inside the body, these explosives would have to be sealed. If sealed, would all of the components have to be included within the sealed “package”? There are too many variables, but each leads the “experts” to believe that an “expert” is needed to pull this off. Somebody trained in medicine, not [new al-Qaeda leader] Dr. [Ayman] Zawahiri’s old ass, would have to perform the surgery without killing the person during/after the surgery itself.

The second limitation would have to be initiation of the device. If completely internally placed (no external components), a digital watch or cell phone’s circuit (not for a call, but for the alarm clock) could be used within the package. If completely concealed inside the body cavity, the quantity of explosives could be fairly large.

Luckily for us, there aren’t too many large guys in the AQ club that have enough “torso” to hold large quantities. The only exception would be [U.S. native Adam] Gadahn, as he eats more than anybody else (you can take an extremist out of America, but you can’t take the American out of the extremist). He’s not that kind of team member though.

Well, what about half-inside/half-outside? Explosives and detonator inside, means of initiation on the outside. Wires running through the skin would have to be well sealed and well-installed. Any “open” wound is prone to infection which isn’t a good thing to have in 3rd world countries.

The third limitation is time. How long is the device supposed to be in the body? How long after the surgery does the device have to be used? These time limitations could mean the attack, when considering aviation as the target, would most likely be a shorter flight. Especially when you consider that Reid and Abdulmutallab failed on longer flights.

The fourth limitation is “tamping.” In the bomb tech world, we call it “tamping” when we would bury large amounts of explosives with dirt before detonation to limit the size of the frag/blast. The body does a very good job of “tamping” explosives, how many Medals of Honor are for guys diving on grenades? That’s not a dumb tactic, but a tactic that works. Would the body be a good “container” for an explosive device? Not really. The body is mostly water, and water is not the best means for attacking a target. Your explosive quantity would have to be high, where the blast would then be your primary weapon versus the fragmentation you add/internally-supply (ribs/femurs/etc.)

There are many ways to conceal the device and initiate from the inside or outside. Consider how many people are walking around with “ports” into/out of the their bodies? Colostomy bags, diabetic monitors/insulin pumps, and all of the other various portacaths for medicine/antibiotics. It all comes down to the can. What can they do?

Right now, we think of all of these as the next step in aviation attacks because it makes sense when we try to think “around” the equipment. It is definitely possible to conceal a device inside your body and cause it to detonate, no doubt. From a technical standpoint, many don’t believe that they have the ability to actually pull it off. They have the ability to try and fail though, which is just as effective as a success.

As you can see, lots of variables and lots of “unknowns” at this point. Hopefully some of this is of value, as this “internal threat” story is hitting all levels of media. We haven’t found any volunteers for this yet, but there are training aids currently being offered for body-cavity devices.

Photo: AP