Containing the Threat from Illegal Bombings An Integrated National Strategy for Marking, Tagging, Rendering Inert, and Licensing Explosives and Their Precursors (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 20-39
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 20... ...
::::::::::::::::::::-:::::-i ; Jiii;;:~ :::::::::: ::::::::::... :ii.:.:~:.:.:.:.:.:~: :::::::::i ::: :::.::::::::: :` Wreckage of the George R
|
From page 21... ...
In particular, there has been interest in the possibility of reducing the threat through some combination of introducing additives called detection markers or identification taggants1 into explosive materials to facilitate detection or tracing of the materials (Box 1.1~; decreasing the explosive potential of certain chemicals that might otherwise be used to manufacture explosives; and/or imposing licensing or other controls on explosive materials and/or their chemical precursors. Currently, licensed manufacturers are required to place identifying markings on the packaging for explosives that can assist in tracing them for law enforcement purposes.2 However, there is no requirement that the explosives themselves contain tracer elements markers or taggants that could be used to assist preblast or postblast law enforcement.
|
From page 22... ...
, Congress mandated (through the Treasury Department) a broad study of issues related to detection, tagging, rendering inert, and licensing of explosives.3 The Committee on Marking, Rendering Inert, and Licensing of Explosive Materials was charged to assess the following:4 · The viability of adding tracer elements to explosives for the purpose of detection, · The viability of adding tracer elements to explosives for the purpose of identification, 3In parallel, ATF has its own task force that is also examining many of the same issues.
|
From page 23... ...
The analyses were to include cost drivers, benefits, and the potential drawbacks of various technical alternatives, as well as identification of technical and economic obstacles that exist and further research and development activities that may be needed. The committee was not charged with doing a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
|
From page 24... ...
, although military plastic and sheet explosives are also discussed owing to their high energy content and concealability. As required by the 1996 Terrorism Prevention Act, black and smokeless powders were specifically excluded from the scope of this study.5 EXPLOSIVES AND THE BOMBING THREAT Types and Sources of Explosives Would-be bombers have several options for obtaining main charge explo sives.
|
From page 25... ...
fraudulently, or stolen, from commercial sources; or improvised by mixing together widely available chemicals, such as ammonium nitrate (AN) fertilizer and fuel oil.
|
From page 26... ...
For example, the most widely used plastic explosive, called composition C-4, is composed of 91 percent RDX and 9 percent plasticizers. C-4 is particularly attractive to terrorists because it has great shattering capability, can be handled safely, remains plastic between -57 °C and +77 °C and so can be molded easily into any shape for concealment, is difficult to detect with existing trace explosive vapor detectors, and is very stable.
|
From page 27... ...
INTRODUCTION TABLE 1.1 Abbreviations, Names, and Chemical Structures of Som Common Explosive Chemicals 27 e Abbreviation Name Chemical Structure NO Nitroglycerine PETN Pentaerythritol tetranitrate TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene Tetryl N-methyl-n-2,4,6-tetranitroaniline RDX 1,3,5-trinitro- 1,3,5-triazacyclohexane HMX 1 ,3,5,7-tetranitro- 1,3,5,7-tetraazacyclooctan AN Ammonium nitrate H 1 1 1 O2NO ONO2 ONO2 ONO2 CH2 H2 1 O2NO-C I H2 H2C CH3 ONO2 O2N ~No2 NO2 N O2~`,r.~,, NO2 NO2 H2 O2N: ~C: KNOT 1 1 N H2C: ,CH2 .
|
From page 28... ...
The choice of main charge explosive depends on the blasting conditions and the type of job to be done e.g., shattering rock or heaving a large mass of cover material in a mining operation. Underground coal may be blasted only with certain explosives called "permissibles," or with explosives approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
|
From page 29... ...
29 o Em to VO o Cq o Em Cq a' VO a' ·_4 o VO Cq a' .> o x U
|
From page 30... ...
NOTE: These voluntarily reported data represent a lower bound to actual production figures. Permissible explosives (those approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration for use in underground coal mining)
|
From page 31... ...
INTRODUCTION 31 mining operations began the use of large-diameter boreholes in coal stripping, and dry drilling techniques became common. These developments contributed to the increasing use of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO)
|
From page 32... ...
The two most significant bombings in the United States in the 1990s of New York City's World Trade Center and Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building both involved homemade synthesis or formulation of the explosive materials (synthesized urea nitrate in the former case and AN mixed with a fuel in the latter case)
|
From page 33... ...
The total of 5,026 devices includes improvised explosive devices used in bombings or attempted bombings as well as those that were recovered, for instance, in searches of residences. As a result the breakdown presented cannot be compared directly with statistics that include only actual or attempted bombings.
|
From page 34... ...
Of the total of 20,528 bombing incidentsl5 in the United States during that 11-year period, these two major bombings alone were responsible for 39 percent of the deaths, 39 percent of the injuries, and 90 percent of the property damage.l6 If these two incidents are set aside, the remaining data indicate that the increase in the total number of bombing incidents from 1985 to 1995 was not matched by commensurate increases in the number of injuries and deaths or the amount of property damage caused by the bombs. For example, excluding the Oklahoma City bombing deaths, 25 people were killed in 1995 as a result of bombings, while 28 people were killed in 1985.
|
From page 35... ...
35 Do cq a' TO a' a' · - ~ cq a' · - ~ a' · - ~ o x o a' cq by - ~ · c)
|
From page 36... ...
Explosive Materials Used in Actual or Attemoted Bombings in 1995 ~c:, Black powder, smokeless powder, and Pyrodex~ were the most frequently used fillers in the 1,979 actual or attempted bombings in 1995 in the United States, occurring in 32 percent of these cases.~7 Bombs using gunpowders were responsible for 7 deaths, 53 injuries, and an average of $390 per incident in property damage. Chemical mixtures, defined by the FBI to include mixtures that evolve gases that cause brittle rupture of containers, were the second most commonly used i7The percentages given in this section, based on a subset of the data presented in Figure 1.2, are based on testimony to the committee by Gregory Carl, FIJI Explosives Group, Materials and Devices unit, March 3,1997.
|
From page 37... ...
High explosives, including commercial materials such as dynamites and ANFO, as well as military explosives such as TNT and composition C-4, were involved in 3 percent of bombing incidents in 1995. ANFO itself was used in only five actual or attempted bombings, although one of those caused the massive death and destruction in Oklahoma City.
|
From page 38... ...
UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING THE BOMBING THREAT Among the numerous explosive materials for would-be bombers to choose from are military plastic explosives, commercial products such as dynamites, black and smokeless powders, pyrotechnics, and homemade chemical formulations. Common explosive chemicals that can be formulated into powerful bombs can be obtained relatively easily from a wide variety of retail outlets, and videos and written recipes for making bombs are available in bookstores and on the Internet.
|
From page 39... ...
Recognizing that the bombing threat is likely to continue but may vary in nature and severity, the committee scaled its recommended options according to the perceived level of threat.20 In considering the level of threat, the committee emphasized not only the severity of bombings (in terms of lives lost and property damage per incident) , but also the public's perception of its vulnerability to bombings.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.