Is a nuclear warhead small enough to fit in a suitcase fact or Hollywood fiction? Ambassador Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said during a trip to Russia his counterparts there were kind enough to show him models of suitcase bombs that were small enough to be carried by one person. “You’d have to be strong, but you could carry it,” he told military reporters. And if the Soviet Union’s designers could make such a thing, U.S. engineers could undoubtedly do the same, he said.
Harkening to the adage that “close” only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear bombs, Brooks said the real threat is a group of terrorists sitting in their basement, constructing a large, crudely made nuclear bomb and transporting in the back of a rental truck or aircraft. They don’t have to get too close to their target, or make a sophisticated bomb, for it to be effective, he said.
The question is: has there been any loss of control of the so-called suitcase bombs?
There have been periodic rumors, dating back to the early 1990s, that there are three Soviet-made suitcase bombs loose in the Middle East. His office has spent time and funds investigating the rumor.
“As far as I can tell, it’s an urban legend. The Russians don’t think it’s right. We don’t think it’s right. And it would seem very strange that they’ve been over there since the early 90s and nobody’s used them,” Brooks said. A more pressing concern is keeping the materials to manufacture a crude nuclear bomb out of the hands of terrorists, he added.
Cruise Missiles a Threat to Homeland, Expert Says
As if there weren’t enough things to worry about, add the possibility of terrorists or a rogue nation launching a cruise missile from a commercial ship at a U.S. city to the list. Ben Stubenberg, chief of analysis and scenarios at the Missile Defense Agency, spends his days imagining such events. He admitted that his theory is an “exotic threat” and “controversial” in Washington. “Not everyone buys into this,” he told a Defense News Media Group conference. But the possibility is being discussed more frequently in government defense circles, he said.
In such a plot, a container ship hiding a cruise missile, or perhaps an unmanned aerial vehicle, comes close enough to a major city or port and sends the projectile into the heart of a downtown area.
One example would be a ship heading to the port of Ensenada on the northern section of Mexico’s Baha Peninsula. While ships heading for U.S. ports must transmit their intentions to Customs and Border Protection 96 hours in advance, including their manifests and crew lists, vessels sailing to Mexico are not required to do so. A ship staffed with a crew of terrorists or operatives from a rogue state, for example, could come within a few miles of U.S. territorial waters, and be within range of downtown Los Angeles or San Diego. Because of tightened security at U.S. ports, a “stand-off attack becomes more of an option,” he said.
The proliferation of missile and UAV technology makes it more feasible, as does their affordability. A missile can be constructed from off-the-shelf technology for as little as $5,000, he said. A New Zealand man, Bruce Simpson, has set up a web site claiming he can build one for that price in his garage. State actors would have the resources and knowledge to carry out such an attack. Iran has built UAVs, Stubenberg noted.
Still, there are many skeptics to this scenario who believe that it is too elaborate a plot to pull off, Stubenberg added.
Exploring the Shadowy World of Terrorist Financing
The number of convictions for financing terrorist activities worldwide can be counted on one hand, a leading authority on the subject claimed.
Rooting out such activities is like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, “but the field is full of haystacks,” said Cliff Knuckey, former chief of Scotland Yard’s anti-money laundering unit, who now consults for RISC Global, a London-based security firm.
Money laundering is the process for turning bad money into good money, while terrorist financing is often the process of turning good money to bad, he said.
Terrorist financing has been going on in one form or another since World War II, but received little attention until 9/11, he said at the GovSec conference.
Terrorists are constantly changing their tactics for raising money, Knuckey said. The top down distribution of funds, as practiced by the wealthy Osama bin Laden, is largely a thing of the past. Individual cells are raising their own funds. And it doesn’t cost much. The Madrid bombings in 2004 cost the perpetrators about $2,000. The London bombings last year cost about $1,000, Knuckey said. New tactics for raising funds include cooking the books at legitimate businesses, such as Halal butchers in Europe, to funnel money to cells, said Jonathan Winer an attorney at Alston & Bird LLP, and former assistant secretary of international law enforcement at the State Department. Religious charities remain another source because they do not have to open their books to U.S. authorities, he said.
Knuckey said al-Qaida has delved into counterfeit consumer products to fund its activities simply because it is a low priority for law enforcement. They will always seek the paths of least resistance, such as countries with weak anti-money laundering laws.
Bulk currency smuggling, and the use of gift cards such as those sold in retail stores, are common ways to move funds. “They’re anonymous and transferable,” Winer said.
In one case, a terrorist group in Sub-Saharan Africa purchased two new Mercedes Benz sedans and traded them for explosives and weapons, Knuckey said.
“If you can barter it, then it can be used in terrorist financing,” he added.
Supporters Promote Little-Known SAFETY Act
The Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act, also known as the SAFETY Act, was designed to protect companies that provide technologies to the homeland security market from lawsuits in the event of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
Three years after its passage, the benefits to government and industry are not well known.
More than 10,000 participants registered for the recent GovSec conference in Washington, but only two of them attended a panel discussion on the act, and both were members of the press.
The four-member panel, clearly disappointed by the turnout, nevertheless touted the act’s benefits for companies willing to go through the process, and its goal, which is to foster technologies that can help defeat attacks on the homeland.
Mark Robertson, chief of staff of the general counsel office at the Department of Homeland Security, said about 70 technologies have been approved by the office so far. Once the technologies or services have been certified by DHS, they are afforded a great deal of liability protection if they should fail to help prevent a terrorist attack. The law puts jurisdiction in federal court, which prevents plaintiffs from shopping for local courts that may grant favorable rulings. It limits damages to the amount carried by insurance, and bars punitive damages as well.
To gain certification, companies must provide data that proves the technology or service is safe and effective. To win a lawsuit, plaintiffs would have to prove that this data was submitted with willful disregard of the truth, or fraud.
“That is a very high bar,” said Ray Biagini, a partner at the McKenna, Long & Aldridge law firm, who also helped write some of the legislation. After 9/11, insurance companies tightened up the amount they will cover for companies that could be exposed to liability in the event of a terrorist attack. If the act did not exist, “you could be betting the company as far as liability concerns,” Biagini said.
Robertson said the 70 technologies or services approved so far is not a lot, but he expected the number to go up as more become aware of the act’s benefits.
“We’re beginning to see technologies that have received SAFETY Act protection make a difference in the larger homeland security context,” Robertson said. John Wall, a staff attorney for the engineering firm, the Washington Group International, said the act allowed his company to take on a port security project it would have otherwise left alone due to liability exposure. However, the application process is time consuming, he said.
DHS is trying to streamline the process, Robertson said.
Health Role For Homeland Security Department Debated
In May, the Department of Homeland Security released its “National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza” report detailing who will be responsible and for what in the event of a massive outbreak. The report says “overall domestic incident management and federal coordination” should reside with DHS. However, there is growing consensus that DHS should not take the lead in the event of such an emergency. DHS is more about “badges and guns” than public health, critics have maintained.
The Department of Health and Human Services should be the “center of gravity” if a public health crisis should strike, said Bob Kadlec, staff director of the Senate subcommittee on bio-terrorism and public health preparedness.
The lessons of Hurricane Katrina pointed out the need to consolidate command and control during disasters. “The [HHS] assistant secretary for public health and emergency preparedness should be the theater commander” in the event of a national health crisis, Kadlec said at the National Press Club.
DHS appointed Dr. Jeff Runge last year as its chief medical officer, but he has a small staff and a miniscule budget, prompting congressional leaders to ask what exactly his role is and whether he can effectively carry it out. He is also splitting his time as acting undersecretary for science and technology.
The White House has also endorsed transferring the national disaster medical system back from DHS to HHS, and President Bush, despite the report, has also asked that HHS be the lead agency in such scenarios.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee is drafting legislation to formally give HHS control, Kadlec said, and Secretary Mike Leavitt has testified before the committee that his department is already making preparations to take the reins if a health crisis should strike.
Health and Human Services will have a lot of work to do, Kadlec added. Like DHS, there are many fragments within the department that need to be consolidated.
While acknowledging the president’s wishes, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said a pandemic would require the cooperation of every part of the government. “There would be other dimensions besides the actual medical dimension. There would be economic issues. How do you make sure the power plants are still working? How do you make sure the water is flowing? So we’re going to have to draw on the expertise of the whole government,” he said at a press briefing in El Paso, Texas.