The Pentagon will have some help in its ongoing effort to defeat improvised explosive devices if Jay Cohen, director of science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, gets his way.
“We’re going to get back in the IED business. I don’t have enough money yet, but I will,” Cohen vowed at a speech before National Defense Industrial Association members.
And while infamous examples of such incidents have derived from homegrown terrorists — namely Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh at Oklahoma City and Eric Rudolf at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics — Cohen believes attacks will come from overseas.
“I believe that our enemy is fixated on air transportation, [but] that doesn’t mean they won’t attack other transportation,” he said.
It is only “a matter of time” before tactics used in train and subway bombings in Madrid and London are employed in the United States, he said.
Cohen, a retired Navy rear admiral who previously served as head of the Office of Naval Research, took over the directorate in August. The department has received its share of criticism for some of its technology programs such as the transportation worker identity card, airport screening machines and nuclear material detectors at ports of entry. Development of radiation screeners now falls under the department’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. All other homeland security related technologies falls under Cohen’s purview.
Technology to defeat and deter chemical and biological weapons will take up about half of the directorate’s $800 million budget. “This is a subject that can keep you awake at night, but the good news is we’ve got the world’s leading technology here …We’re making enormous, tangible progress in this area,” he added.
Cohen intends to emphasize the “human factors” side. “I’m more interested in the bomb maker than the bomb,” he said.
The human factor division in his office is charged with applying social and behavioral sciences to the problems the department must solve. At airports, for example, screening technology can be used to look for “hostile intent,” which may manifest itself in rapidly blinking eyes or a raised heart rate, he said.
As the Department of Homeland Security continues efforts to devise efficient ways to detect nuclear material or bombs entering U.S. ports through shipping containers, two experts said it is more likely that such a bomb would be assembled inside the nation’s borders.
Peter Zimmerman and Jeffrey Lewis raised eyebrows in November when they published an article in Foreign Policy Magazine that described how such an operation would take place.
While a crude, but effective nuclear bomb could be constructed in the United States, it’s still likely that a terrorist group would have to smuggle uranium 235 through the border, they said. That may not be as complicated as it sounds.
“Highly enriched uranium is probably one of the most difficult to detect radioactive materials that we know,” Zimmerman, a professor of science and security at the department of war studies, King’s College, London, told a gathering of military writers.
“It has very little neutron, very little gamma emission … You can shield it with a few thicknesses of aluminum foil basically.” The amount needed to build a bomb wouldn’t even upset the balance of a cargo container, he said.
Its high density will stand out, but that requires an active x-ray machine to scan every container.
“I have to say that I am not optimistic that current efforts to inspect and scan will have any payoff against highly enriched uranium,” said Zimmerman, who once served as the chief scientist at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said during a press conference that scanning for density, along with the radiation leakages, will give Customs and Border Protection a new tool that “dramatically enhances our ability to identify containers” that need to be inspected.
“At the end of the day, though, here’s the kicker,” Chertoff added. “When in doubt, we pull it out. And then we open it up and we look at it. And this is basically a way of selecting among the millions of containers that are on the way to the U.S., those that require a closer look.”
Zimmerman said using x-ray scanners may pose a health hazard, and slow down commerce.
Lewis said the United States should put more resources in its efforts to secure overseas facilities where uranium is enriched. While there has been progress in upgrading security at such facilities, the threat may come from within. A lab worker, for example, could be bribed to smuggle out such material.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, one of the first engineering and technology universities in the nation, helped give birth to the space age. It now intends to be the first to offer a bachelor’s degree in robotic engineering.
The private university located in Massachusetts, and founded in 1865, will offer the degree beginning this fall.
“Robotics is one of the fastest growing areas of technology and has the potential to change many aspects of our world,” said Carol Simpson, the school’s provost and senior vice president. She said the program is designed to foster a “new breed of engineer.”
The increasing demand for robots in the homeland security and defense sectors, as well as health care and consumer markets, prompted the school to add the major.
WPI helped usher in the space age through its most famed undergraduate, Robert Goddard, the father of modern rocketry. He later taught at the college and used its labs to develop his first prototypes.
The institute plans to continue sponsoring its kindergarten through 12th grade outreach programs, as well as student robotics competitions. “Whether in science fiction or real life, robots have the power to fire young people’s imaginations and spur their interest in technology,” Simpson said.
Massachusetts is home to several robotics firms associated with the defense industries, including iRobot, maker of the PackBot, Black-I Robotics, which manufactures expendable four-wheeled robots being used to counter roadside bombs, and Bluefin Robotics, which specializes in undersea vehicles. Representatives of the companies serve on the program’s advisory board.
While there has been a great deal of attention paid to preventing a terrorist attack at a U.S. port of entry, there is a renewed focus in the Department of Homeland Security to determine what happens in the aftermath of a disaster.
DHS officials, speaking at Customs and Border Protection’s annual trade symposium, admitted the topic has received scant attention in years’ past. However, they devoted one session to “recovery and restoration” this year.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, and the possibility of pandemic flu, point to the fact that the threats go beyond the doomsday “nuclear weapon in a shipping container” scenario.
Rear Adm. Brian Salerno, director of inspection and compliance for the U.S. Coast Guard, said recovery must involve a partnership between all levels of government and the private sector so trade can resume as quickly as possible. That is different from the immediate response of “putting out fires and saving lives,” he said. This period can take months, or even years. However, the goal is to mitigate the damage done to the U.S. economy.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 required DHS to focus on recovery. The maritime infrastructure recovery plan spells out in broad terms how the different agencies will work with industry to keep goods flowing.
Katrina taught the government that more detailed terms are needed, Salerno said. The ripple effects can go beyond DHS’ purview. Midwest grain growers who use barges to move their products down the Mississippi were abruptly cut off from their main ports. Roads and highways that lead to ports, where DHS has no authority, can become clogged, he noted.
And if one port is shut down, will industry redirect its shipments to a secondary harbor? If so, that would require the redeployment of federal inspectors to handle an increased workload.
“We must communicate early and often,” said Tom Bush, acting executive director of CBP’s office of anti-terrorism.
To eliminate any confusion on who will be in charge in the event of a disaster, the SAFE Port Act of 2006 designated the commandant of the Coast Guard as the leader who will prioritize which ships will be allowed to dock and in what order.
Stuart MacPherson, director for emergency preparedness and health and safety for Canada’s Border Services Agency, took part in a recent exercise in Detroit to test recovery and response at a port. The flow of people may be as important as the flow of goods, he pointed out. For example, there is a large number of Canadian nurses who work in Detroit, but live across the border, he said. Steps have been taken to ensure they receive priority to cross in the event of a public emergency.
While the Coast Guard’s ongoing problems with its new fleet of ships and aircraft have been well documented, the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general warned that the service’s information technology backbone may also be headed for rough seas.
Command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, known in the business as C4ISR, is a key part of the Coast Guard’s Integrated Deepwater program, a 20-year effort to modernize its ships and aircraft. The program has run into problems with the fast response cutter, the Eagle Eye unmanned aerial vehicle and upgrades to the already existing HH-65 series of search-and-rescue helicopters.
The Coast Guard’s failure to properly oversee the work of contractor, Integrated Coast Guard Systems, has received much of the blame.
When and if these components are fully deployed, inner-connectivity — an envisioned system of systems — is intended to be one of the program’s strengths.
The Coast Guard’s “limited influence over contractor decisions toward meeting Deepwater IT requirements and a lack of discipline … provide little assurance that the requirements remain up-to-date or are effective in meeting program goals,” said the inspector general’s annual performance and accountability report.
“Further, due to limited oversight, as well as unclear contract requirements, the agency cannot ensure that the contractor is making the best decisions.”
The report, which also addressed DHS’ overall performance, came only days after Secretary Michael Chertoff delivered his annual speech summing up the department’s accomplishments and outlining challenges for the year ahead.
Deepwater, along with the department’s many other troubled technology programs, did not make his list. The speech was mostly devoted to accomplishments. Unlike the previous year, the secretary left without taking questions.
However, in a detailed management response to the report, DHS said it is actively addressing the Deepwater C4ISR issues. One of its first steps was to bring in experts from the Space and Naval War Command to help iron out the C4ISR difficulties.
Please email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org