I wonder if the British military can handle the security risk implied by the Afghan airliner hijacked by Afghanis opposed to Taliban rule. (So they say.)

Keeping in mind that several big terrorist campaigns (scheduled for 1/1/00) were foiled, and that Oslama Bin Laden is reportedly facing kidney failure, the pressure is on for these organizations to make a big play.

Let's just assume that a terrorist organization wants to deploy a weapon of mass destruction to make a point. Missiles can be shot down, so can a kamikaze airplane attack. Smuggling is error-prone (terrorists found it's not as easy as they hoped to sneak across the Canadian border into the U.S.).

What better way to sneak in a nuke or bio-bomb than to stash it in a commercial airline that you just hijacked? You're free to land at any international airport--nobody is going to shoot down a commercial jet, right? (Well... it's happened before.)

So we have this hijacked jet on the tarmac of Stanstead Airport in London, and what if they're carrying a WMD? If it's nuclear, authorities have extremely sensitive radiation detectors, but how much shielding would it take to foil them? Given that's it's an Afghani plane in the first place, it could all be a setup.

And forget about biowarfare agent detection.

What worries me is that the hijackers seem to be biding their time and haven't made any concrete demands, and seem uninterested in negotiating. (Supposedly they want opposition leader Ismail Khan released, but that was just hinted at when the plane was in Moscow.)

If it turns out it's just a straightforward political motivation for the hijacking, so what? The West remains vulnerable to this type of sneak WMD attack in the future.

Open societies are always vulnerable, but this is ridiculous. Do I have any suggestions? I don't know. I suppose a country's air force could force a hijacked airliner out of its country's air space or to a remote landing facility, where it could be throroughly scanned.

Didn't the hijackers know that the British government will not allow the plane to take off again, as a matter of policy? And that they generally don't negotiate with terrorists? How will this end?

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000

Answers

Ceemeister-You present an intriguing hypothesis but, how do you suppose they got the WMD on the plane?

-- I.M. Benedict (prayingdown@theriver.com), February 08, 2000.

Well, Cee, they would have to have a pretty good reason to do that (in this specific case). The idea is ingenious and possible since security is usually focused on passagers as they come and go to the boarding areas or in the luggage handling areas.

Use of a WMD device would have to be clearly in the overall interests of the attacker. If the attacker was known, then there would be 'liabilities'. The case of Egyptian Encephelitus (sp) showing up in New York last summer may be an example of a 'quiet war' type of WMD attack. In such a case no 'enemy' is appearant and so no 'counter attack' can be launched.

If someone wanted to nuke a city they probably would do it in the downtown area where the financial center is located. An airport wouldn't really be a prime place to do it.

Let's hope this never happens.

BTW IMHO terrorists don't want to make anymore trouble for themselves than they already have. They enjoy the support of a wide, dispersed patronage (money) and don't want to scare off their supporters. Alot of terrorism plays for the home crowd, anyway. If they can 'punch the Great Satan in the nose' on occation then that helps them retain their influence on the masses of the faithful back home. All part of the game. If they get rid of the GS, then they have no one else to focus the blame for their failed domestic governance.

This works here as well. Quite well it would seem, eh?

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), February 08, 2000.

Well, I may be naive, but it is an Afghan plane. Oslama bin Laden is in Afghanistan. The CIA once reported that OBL probably has a dozen suitcase-sized nuclear bombs in his possession. (A lot of nukes went missing after the fall of the Soviet Union, and OBL has $billions of personal and family wealth.) Would it take the cooperation of the Taliban, which is trying to improve its world rep? Not necessarily, but they are certainly friendly with terrorists. They let the Pakistan hijackers get away scot free.

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000.

It's true that a truly heinous terrorist attack would damage an organization's ability to obtain patronage. That never stopped the IRA from keeping the money flowing in. And you'd have to have a pretty darn good reason (if you're a logical person) to deploy a WMD terrorist attack.

But the hatred of the West by many Islamic-jihad groups justifies almost any such action, for no particular reason except to destablize the West by inducing fear and panic. IMHO, we're long overdue for a terrorist nuke, so something must be working to keep us safe.

Of course, there are cynics (who are starting to provide proof) that claim that many "terrorist" plots are actually government-sponsored attempts to curtail civil liberties or otherwise further the agenda of the "New World Order goons."

Anyway, that's getting off topic. The point I'm making is that the risk is real, and there isn't much we can do about it. True, an airport at the edge of London isn't as good a target as the Financial District, but good god, if a WMD ever goes off inside a world capitol, all hell will break loose.

Psychotics do this sort of thing for fun. I think it's reasonable to assume there are many psychotic types in the elite power structure of the world and in terrorist organizations. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000.

Link

Wrecked airport is security free

FROM ZAHID HUSSAIN IN KARACHI AND ARTHUR LEATHLEY

KABUL airport is virtually without security, having been wrecked by years of fighting among rivals in the Afghan conflict. The ramshackle airport building is guarded by a few Taleban soldiers and the airfield is littered with the wreckage of destroyed aircraft.

There is no X-ray machine for baggage and passengers are often seen carrying a vast amount of luggage without being examined. A Western journalist recently saw an Arab boarding a plane carrying several pistols.

It is not difficult to conceal weapons inside the sprawling traditional Afghan dress and turban and, therefore, it is not surprising that a number of heavily armed people managed to get on to a weekend flight to Mazar-i-Sharif without interference.

Security at other Afghan airports is even worse than at Kabul, although before the United Nations imposed sanctions Ariana, Afghanistan's national carrier, had about 1,500 staff in several countries. With the sanctions banning Ariana from international airports, the airline runs only domestic flights. It has just three Boeing 727s and three Antonov 24s.

The Security Council imposed the sanction last November after international condemnation of the Taleban movement's refusal to to extradite or expel Osama bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist suspect who is officially a "guest" of the Islamic movement.

-- Ceemeister (ceemeister@hotmail.com), February 08, 2000.