Which side is technology on in the war against terrorism?
Terrorists now have at their disposal a sophisticated arsenal of weapons, including plastic bombs like the one that killed four passengers on a TWA jet over Greece and plastic handguns that are difficult to detect during security checks.
As a result, security agencies are scrambling to develop new anti-terrorism devices. Within a few years, experts predict, new technology will make airports and embassies, two favorite targets of terrorists, far less vulnerable than they are today.
Even before the latest spate of attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration had increased funding for the development of technology to supplement the metal detectors and X-ray imagers that now serve as the mainstays of airport protection. Two new technologies appear very promising, according to Fred Farrar, an FAA spokesman.
One is a radiation system that would provoke and then detect gamma ray emissions from bombs and guns. The other, a ”mechanized sniffer” more sensitive than a dog`s nose, is intended to detect the odors given off by explosives.
In addition, one manufacturer is about to market a new X-ray machine intended to spot plastic guns and bombs, which are invisible to standard X-ray equipment.
As for embassies, the National Academy of Sciences has provided the U.S. State Department with blueprints for designing new compounds that afford greater protection through electronic surveillance and earthquake-resistant construction.
But protecting random targets–like the West Berlin nightclub where a bombing two weeks ago resulted in two deaths and a U.S. air raid against Libya –presents a much tougher challenge, experts say.
Human error is the biggest factor behind the ability of terrorists to sneak weapons and bombs aboard airplanes, experts have found. Alert and conscientious people can avert violence, as happened on Thursday when an El Al guard discovered 10 pounds of plastic explosives in the bag of a woman about to board a plane for Israel at London`s Heathrow Airport.
Too often, however, security people become bored while looking at hundreds of X-ray images each hour. Even trained dogs, considered state of the art for sniffing out bombs, grow weary with the work and begin to ignore the baggage.
The new technology being funded by the FAA is envisioned as an answer to the boredom factor because it automatically would spot suspicious passengers or luggage.
One technique, called thermal neutron activation, involves bombarding luggage with very low levels of radiation that cause items within it to give off radiation of their own. Sensors would detect the specific patterns of gamma rays given off by explosive materials, then sound an alert.
The other entails a machine which could sense even minute levels of explosive materials, lock in on them and alert authorities. This technique, called vapor detection, is envisioned as creating an artificial counterpart to the olfactory nerve systems in humans and animals.
Odors are associated with the molecules that all substances emit naturally. To be effective against terrorism, vapor detection devices would have to be able to sample a wide array of molecules given off by thousands of substances, then zero in on those molecules emitted only by explosives.
The new detection technologies, if they become practical, could be installed at airports in addition to existing devices. Most likely, the neutron radiation activator would be applied to luggage after it had been X-rayed. And metal detection booths could be equipped with suction systems that draw gases from people passing through them, then analyze the gases.
Both technologies have been used in research laboratories. But whether they can be made cost effective or reliable enough to be practical at airports is questionable.
”Even if you had only a false positive rate of 1 percent, that would be too high,” said Sydney Gordon, a chemist at the IIT Research Institute in Chicago. ”One false alarm in every 100 pieces of luggage would mean that something on every flight would set off an alarm, causing delays.”
Still, Gordon is optimistic that the ”mechanical sniffer” approach can be applied successfully to airport security. Gordon said he and colleagues have used the technique in several research situations and found it to be very specific.
By analyzing people`s breath, for example, researchers have been able to determine whether or not they took a hot shower before coming to work. If so, they had elevated levels of chloroform in their breath because of the chlorine mist produced in showers.
People who have visited dry cleaning stores on their way to work have been spotted because of elevated breath levels of tetrachloroethylene, a chemical sometimes used in dry cleaning.
The cost of utilizing vapor detection technology will also help determine if, and how soon, it appears in airports. According to Farrar, any new security technology at airports will be financed by individual airlines.
One possible side effect to the research might be the development of equipment to detect other contraband such as cocaine as well as weapons and bombs, providing a boost for efforts to prevent drug smuggling on commercial airline flights.
The shortcomings of airport security were dramatically demonstrated recently at Washington`s National Airport when Noel Koch, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, walked through three security checkpoints with a handgun inside his carry-on bag.
The gun, a Glock 17 made in Austria, is constructed partly of hardened plastic and uses an aluminum ammunition clip, so only its barrel, slide and springs show up in an airport X-ray scanner.
”The purpose of that test was to see if our equipment could spot this new weapon,” said the FAA`s Farrar, ”and it can. You can see a shape that is definitely suspicious. It`s just that the people operating the scanners missed it.”
Even though the explosive component of plastic bombs has no specific shape to recognize, it requires wires, batteries and initiators to detonate the bombs, Farrar said, and these should all show up on X-ray imagers. The problem, again, is that even though operators are trained to recognize suspicious objects, they often don`t on the rare occasions when one pases before them.
Dogs especially trained to sniff out bombs are considered the most effective anti-terrorist measure now available, and they are excellent for examining passengers and luggage on a specific flight where danger is suspected, Farrar said. But even dogs are not up to screening every piece of luggage on every flight, he said. They get tired and bored after a few hours. Some research has been proposed to determine whether other animals, such as gerbils, might be trained to sniff out explosives. So far, though, it hasn`t been fruitful.
Much more promising is a new model X-ray scanner being manufactured by American Science & Engineering of Cambridge, Mass., which is intended to display images from plastic materials as well as metals. The scanner, which will be available for delivery within six weeks, includes two screens.
By looking at the two screens simultaneously, security guards will get a clearer picture of what is really inside a piece of luggage, according to Dick Sesnewicz, marketing manager for the firm.
One screen shows traditional images of materials such as metals that absorb X-rays readily. Another shows materials such as plastics that absorb X- rays very little and reflect most of them.
Although the new scanner costs about $70,000, twice the price of a standard airport unit, it would more than pay for itself if just one airplane was saved by detection of a carry-on bag of explosives, Sesnewicz said.
In the diplomatic arena, efforts to bolster security mean the embassy of the future almost certainly won`t be a stately mansion located along a row of similar mansions in an ”embassy row” near the downtown of a capitol city, said Richard Dertadian, the State Department officer in charge of foreign buildings.
Future embassies should be built on sites of 7 to 10 acres, according to the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences report. The building itself should be set back at leat 100 feet behind a protective fence, the report advised, and built with reinforced concrete to the same specifications used for construction in zones at high risk of severe earthquakes–to make it more resistant to damages from bomb blasts.
Dertadian said less glass and more stone will be used in future embassies. A central courtyard with trees and grass may provide an open yet secure area for embassy functions.
Television surveillance and computerized security systems will provide U.S. Marine guards with the same kind of information used by security forces for many private American businesses, Dertadian added.
”In planning new embassies, we were surprised to learn just how many architects and engineers have a lot of knowledge about security they`ve picked up working for private enterprise,” he said. ”A lot of businesses concerned about protecting trade secrets have pioneered security technology we weren`t even aware existed.”
The goal, Dertadian noted, is to produce a secure embassy that will still appear to be an open building with a friendly ambiance. ”We feel these buildings represent the United States in foreign countries, and we want people who visit them to get an impresson that is open and friendly,” he said.
At present, several security measures, such as metal detectors, have been installed in all U.S. embassies, Dertadian said, and in many cases they look out of place. In future embassies, the metal detectors will be designed as a natural part of the decor, he said.
”People will still know they are being scanned, but it shouldn`t seem as intrusive,” he said.
Specific efforts by the FAA and State Department to develop anti-terrorist technology are only part of a broader picture, according to Edward Marks, who has served in the State Department`s office to combat terrorism. Marks, now a senior foreign affairs fellow at Georgetown University`s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the government is interested in technology developed for other purposes that may have applications in fighting terrorism.
”The administration is considering establishing a central office to monitor and foster anti-terrorist technology,” he said. ”It would define problems, suggest answers and fund research.”
Terrorists have benefitted from a general improvement in weapons technology. Whereas they once used handguns or rifles, they now often have automatic weapons, Marks said. Sticks of dynamite have been replaced by plastic explosives that look like putty, are light weight and very stable.
While terrorists have access to modern weaponry, it is ”off-the-shelf technology,” said Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terrorists from the Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.
Once new technology renders an airport or an embassy more secure, it is unlikely that terrorists will invent a new generation of weaponry to overcome the new level of protection, Hoffman said. Unlike the superpowers engaging in an arms race, terrorists don`t have access to high-tech research capability and vast sums of money for development of new weapons.
”Terrorists are very clever at using what is available,” Hoffman said.
”If you make airports too secure for them, they will find another target, maybe something unrelated to airplanes.”
A report by the Georgetown Center notes that few terrorists come from technical fields such as engineering, but tend to come from educations in liberal arts, political science or law.
When governments lend their support to terrorist groups as President Reagan charges Lybia has, the technological level of terrorist weapons rises, the report said. But the report suggests it is unlikely that governments would provide terrorist groups only marginally under their control with access to their most advanced technology.
Nuclear weapons and those based on biological and chemical warfare are unlikely to be obtained by terrorists, the report said, but if such an unlikely thing were to occur, ”it would be really scary for society,” Marks said.
Despite advances, technology may never be developed to prevent such random acts of violence as the bomb blast at the West Berlin nightclub.
”You have to realize that there is nothing we can do to solve the problem of terrorism,” Marks said. ”It isn`t going to go away in the forseeable future. All you can do is to address components of the problem, to try to make your most vulnerable targets more secure.
”That will cause the terrorists to shift targets, and then you address the new problems. There is no technology nor any other strategy that is going to provide a final solution to this problem. It`s something we have to live with and learn to cope with.”
