Surgically implanted explosive device

The 27 August 2009 suicide bomber attack on the Assistant Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, used a BCB type-weapon. This was an IED inserted into the bomber's rectum. Activated, once the bomber was close to the Prince Muhammad, the prince was nevertheless only ‘lightly-injured’ in this attack. The aftermath of the Nayef attack seems to confirm that the blast event is largely contained by the attacker's own body (who was later identified as al-Asiri). Europol have assessed the possible use of the BCB, and made the following findings:[1]

• It would be possible to explode a device concealed in the rectum.
• Activation by radio-frequency seems to be likely.
• Concealing an IED in the rectum would limit the amount of explosive available.

Europol found as well—"should there be conclusive proof that the attack took place with an IED concealed inside the perpetrator’s body", it would definitely have an impact in aviation safety and the current standard operational procedures in place should be reviewed.

The BCB is an explosive device inserted within a human being or an animal,[10] with the view to hiding it from detection. It involves "new tactics, techniques or procedures (TTPs)." Concerning the BCB tactical evolution: "Suicide bombings (human- and vehicle-borne) have been a staple of terrorist strategy and tactics. They provide a means of low-cost precision targeting that amplifies casualties and ensures the attacks are noticed. As countermeasures (weapons screening, searches, etc.) become more effective, a shift in targeting and/or TTPs is a likely terrorist adaptation."[10]

Tactically speaking, the use and employment of the BCB falls into a category of tactics known as ‘in-situ’ attacks.[11][12] The factors which could thwart the effective use of the BCB, are:

• By its very nature, as a weapon it is intended for closed-in attacks (the attacker carrying the device has to be in direct contact with the target);
• This is because the blast yield, has been shown to be low, to negligible.[1]
• The attacker, to be successful, has to enact an ‘in situ’ attack, physically placing their body against the target, and initiating the device.

The other constraint is that this weapon likely decreases in effect if used outdoors, as indoors closed environments offer the best physical possible properties, where blast-reflection is a factor in confinement. Thus, as can be seen, the very factors that make the BCB effective are also highly limiting.

The 2012–2013 post-analysis research has enunciated tactical propositions that limit the effect of the BCB, and its "tactical use of the BCB is limited to a specific set of circumstances".[1]

• This is dictated by its extremely low blast capacity as a consequence of the limited yield of these weapons, namely size and concealment constraints; as well as,
• The likely lack of fragmentation from ‘hard’ casings (again a consequence of the need for greater concealment).

The likely employment of the BCB will be in circumstances where the attacker will attempt a one-on-one attack, specifically on an individual or object (such as an airplane's critical control system), in a ‘close-in’ attack, requiring physical contact with the victim/target.[1] However, "the BCB may also ultimately develop into a purely terror, or a ‘protest horror’ weapon; the impact of which has less to do with its overall effectiveness, and more to do with its grotesqueness—a weapon designed to invite horror and revulsion."[1]

A summary of body scanning techniques for airport security reveals that the BCB can evade most of the commonly used sensor strategies. For instance, the current operational methods are:[1]

• Metal Detector: The detectability of a BCB is subject to the sensitivity of the detector and metal content of the BCB. High sensitivity leads to high false alarm rates, making detection problematic. Security personnel need to be aware of the BCB threat, in order to interpret the signal from a handheld metal detector correctly.
• Millimeter Wave Scanner, or ‘mmW-scanner’: These are unable to penetrate skin, and cannot detect a BCB. They could eventually detect a device used to ignite a BCB, if interpreted correctly.
• X-ray Transmission Scanners: These have a very high detection probability. However, the scan is carcinogenic, therefore it is not being used in airport security. These machines exist in some U.S. prisons and proved their capability to detect objects hidden in body cavities.
• Puffer machine (explosives trace detection machine): This could detect explosives in rectal, vaginal, and oral cavities, but not implanted explosives. It can detect traces of explosives, if the carrier has been in contact with them before implantation. At least two different detection mechanisms exist: (i) ion mobility spectrometry and (ii) mass spectrometry.
• Backscatter X-ray: This gives a much lower radiation dose than transmission scanners and penetrates skin slightly but not sufficiently to detect a BCB reliably. Possible health effects are still being debated.

In the case of sensor strategies under development, such as the Radiometric Scanner, these are unable to penetrate skin and cannot detect a BCB. These could eventually detect a device used to ignite one, if interpreted correctly. Several other methods can also be considered and for example include:[1]

• Thermal Scanner (passive infrared): The BCB would most likely obstruct heat transfer to the body surface and could therefore be detected by a thermal scanner. However, for some reason, this technique does not seem to be discussed for airport security screening, but is only applied in medical imaging.
• Active Infrared Scanner: Currently under development as a stand-off scanner for U.S. Police, it is unable to penetrate skin, and cannot detect a BCB.
• Ultrasonography: This would detect a BCB with very high probability. However, it is too time-consuming for a primary scan. Therefore, it is only used in medical imaging.
• Magnetic Resonance Tomography: Would detect a BCB with very high probability. High magnetic fields would dislocate or even pull out iron parts of the BCB or painfully heat up any other metal. The same holds true for any other metallic implant. Even more time-consuming than ultrasonography, it is therefore, only used in medical imaging.

Dogs may be able to detect explosives in rectal, vaginal, or oral cavities, but not implanted explosives. Dogs can also detect traces of explosives if the person has been in contact with them before implantation. However, they are subject to exhaustion. Additionally, issues exist concerning canine training procedures, as most bomb dogs are trained to ‘alert’ on items and not on individuals for detecting explosive material residues.

Physical examinations can detect a BCB with a medium-high probability. In practical terms, this is time-consuming for a primary scan. This method is more than likely to be challenged by privacy groups, in particular, the issue of violation of a potentially pregnant woman.

It has also been speculated that there appears to be a partial overlap between mm wave radar and terahertz radar. Some of the public source information suggests that there are some possibilities for terahertz radar, which lies between mm wave radar and long infra-red in the electromagnetic spectrum. Namely, there is at least some penetration with terahertz radar as it is used for thickness and density measurement and biomedical scanning, and is suggested for detecting weapons under clothing. It can detect specific chemicals, including explosives, in vapour phase by the adsorption spectra. This should be able to detect explosives vapours inside a sealed package, provided there is some air void in the package when sealed. Some prototypes for area security scanning have been tested in the field, but the results as not publicly known. The capabilities appear to be better than given for mm wave radar. Ideally, a fully developed terahertz radar system might have the sensitivity of ultrasonic scanning, positive identification of explosives chemicals, and non-contact scanning as well as reducing the inconvenience to travellers. However, such a development may be far in the future.

The BCB primarily involves a device inserted into a body opening.[1] As well, the idea of creating a surgically implanted IED (improvised explosive device), placed within a body, with the explosives detonated by injecting a chemical trigger, has been frequently discussed in news reporting, including media claims, that such a medical procedure to place a BCB inside a person or an animal, has been perfected.[5] However, this possibility has been extensively reviewed in research literature on terrorism TTPs, which has concluded, that while this may give a much higher blast yield capability; such a procedure nevertheless:[1]

• Involves a complex medical procedure (which may not be successful).
• Likely need for recuperation time (weeks in some cases, in particular time to allow surgical scarring to fade).
• Requires highly developed medical facilities, including a substantial medico-logistical support capability.
• High likelihood of the patient dying, as a result of the procedure.
• As well, medical complications where the container to hold everything together, as well as provide a barrier to the carrier's body from the toxic exposure to the explosives used, breaches.