An informed reflection on bombing airplanes

The recent scaremongering by HM Government on behalf of al-Qu'eda has yet to be put to the test of evidence, but while we wait for charges to be forthcoming for one or two arrestees, I thought that I would share with you an article on the feasibility of blowing up airplanes with 'liquid explosives'. The author gives in to a certain melodramatic urge, but his science is sound and backed up with appropriate papers.

Like the dangerous front-room poison gas makers that were apparently able to make deadly poisons in the front room of their semi when highly quailfied chemists would need remarkably specialised equipment (not least to avoid gassing themselves if successful) the new bomb makers were able to discard the rules of chemistry. The article bears reading, but here's a snippet that I think is quite telling:

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Reg

We've given extraordinary credit to a collection of jihadist wannabes with an exceptionally poor grasp of the mechanics of attacking a plane, whose only hope of success would have been a pure accident. They would have had to succeed in spite of their own ignorance and incompetence, and in spite of being under police surveillance for a year.

But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned.

Now, there is always the option that the people arrested actually believed they could manufacture this stuff in a toilet and bring down a plane or three. They were under surveillance for a year, and one would hope for a reason other than having a beard.

But the over-reaction to the 'plot' which showed a complete lack of understanding of what serious terrorists can do, followed by the government's constant propaganda that caused unwarranted fears (as demonstrated by the good burghers of Manchester noted in another thread) means that even an unrealistic threat actually succeeds in spreading terror and economic damage. The reaction looked more like - 'oh, we've got this fancy new warning scale, can we use it? Please, pretty please?'

This last note is my opinion entirely (my emphasis):

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Reg

For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.

You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.

Meanwhile, the real thing draws ever closer.

As I noted elsewhere, joined up thinking from real terrorists would have set up some peanut-brained jihadists, got the government going silly, driven some taxis full of explosive into Heathrow and the milling thousands and boom. Or, given that the delays were so bad at one stage, had their people volunteer for the temporary staff that were drafted in to load the hugely delayed baggage, none of whom were security checked because everyone was relieving people of their toothpaste at check-in, and spent a leisurely few hours loading up explosives into hold luggage.

Terrorists are largely morons, but there are a few who can think. Pity that's not true of our governments.