Return to Transcripts main page

INSIGHT

Dirty Bombs

Aired November 20, 2006 - 14:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SHIHAB RATTANSI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: A weapon of mass disruption. A dirty bomb not only kills but contaminates. It's a terror tool that works long after the blast with the spread of radioactivity and fear.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A dirty bomb is only a question of time. It's not if, but when.

RATTANSI: Welcome to INSIGHT. I'm Shihab Rattansi.

It was supposed to be a fun family night at the fair in one U.S. town this past weekend, but the discovery of two suspicious canisters, one marked "nuclear" and the other marked "cobalt," abruptly shut the party down and forced the evacuation of about 500 people from the New Mexico State Fairgrounds.

Officials say the cans contained radioactive materials, although they believe no one was endangered by the chemicals. But police still don't know who left the cases or why.

It's all part of a nightmare scenario for terror investigators across the globe. A large crowd, a dose of hazardous compounds and at the very worst an explosive device to set it all off.

Paula Newton has more now on how a dirty bomb could be the next weapon of terror.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): We know the drill. By now, we can follow the plot line. And on both sides of the Atlantic, authorities simulate the doomsday scenario again and again so they're ready for it. For more than five years after 9/11, the risk of a dirty bomb detonating in the United States and Europe is as high as ever, possibly higher than ever before.

SANDRA BELL, RUSI: We have to think the dirty bomb is now a very real threat. It is a weapon that will cause disruption and it will cause disproportionate terror, and it's a very, very clever weapon.

NEWTON: Clever because it won't just have the big bang of a conventional explosive. It's more than that. A dirty bomb is one laced with radioactive material, spreading radiation and panic.

SAIJAN GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: We do know that terrorist groups have been actively trying to purchase material to try to put together, to create a type of a dirty bomb. It's only a question of time. It's not if, but when. And it's going to happen sooner or later.

NEWTON: In 2004, it almost did. Earlier this month in London Darren Barot, an al Qaeda operative, was sentenced to life in prison for what Scotland Yard calls a plot to wreck havoc in the United States and Britain. Among his deadly plans, exploding a dirty bomb. His targets of choice, financial sites.

BELL: And so therefore, you could close off large areas of infrastructure for a very, very long time.

NEWTON: Just imagine the cost of emptying parts of New York or London for weeks, even months, as dozens of city blocks are decontaminated.

(on camera): The alarming thing is the scheme was so simple. Stockpile thousands of smoke detectors, harvest each one for the minute amount of radioactive material in them, and then simply burn them.

(voice-over): A crude plot to be sure. The radioactive material to make a bigger, more sophisticated bomb, is as close as your nearest hospital.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is the radioactive exhaust.

NEWTON: Radioactive material is used all over the world for radiation therapy and more. Industrial and research uses, too. Much of those sites are unsecured. No cameras, no guards.

David York is an American expert on the illicit trafficking of radioactive material.

DAVID YORK, RADIATION MATERIAL EXPERT: I believe there is a real threat of materials falling into the wrong hands. And based on the data that I've collected, I would say that it's a probability that some of the material has already fallen into the wrong hands.

NEWTON: In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency runs an illicit trafficking database that now shows that incidents have doubled since 2002. And no wonder. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that a radioactive source is lost or stolen in the United States every day.

PETER ZIMMERMAN, U.S. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS CMTE.: I have to wonder how many sources that ought to be protected and locked up aren't.

NEWTON: Peter Zimmerman is a former chief scientist to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He says given the lack of security, there's only one reason a dirty bomb hasn't gone off.

ZIMMERMAN: We've been lucky.

NEWTON (on camera): That's the only reason?

ZIMMERMAN: That's the only reason that I can give that I actually believe.

NEWTON (voice-over): In Britain, authorities are now convinced and recent chatter on the Internet only bolsters their opinion. Terrorists are now hard at work trying to build and detonate a dirty bomb.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's something we've been considering and preparing for for a very long time. The intelligence has been very clear that terrorists groups do have aspirations to mount that kind of attack.

NEWTON: The threat is as chilling as it is credible, yet radioactive sources continue to be some of the most vulnerable assets out there, ready for the taking for anyone looking for a new twist on terror.

Paula Newton, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RATTANSI: We're going to take a break. But when we return, how prepared are we for a dirty bomb attack?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RATTANSI: A dirty bomb has a lethal second wind. The explosive is laced with radioactive elements, perhaps cesium-137, which is used to treat cancer and run atomic clocks. In 1987 a cesium-137 leak shut down a Brazilian town, causing four deaths and forcing tens of thousands of people to be screened for contamination. But that leak was caused by an abandoned medical device, not a dirty bomb.

Welcome back.

In 2003, British intelligence agents found documents and diagrams in an al Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan that suggested the terror group was trying to build a dirty bomb. In 1995, Chechen rebels planted but failed to detonate a bomb containing dynamite and a radioactive compound in a Moscow pub. So it seems the will to use the devices is there, as well as the know-how to make them. So why aren't we seeing more of them? Or is it only a matter of time?

For that, let's turn to John Pike. He's a leading expert on defense and intelligence policy at GlobalSecurity.org.

Thank you for joining us.

Is it, then, just luck that we haven't actually seen one of these successfully used?

JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, I mean, it's really hard to say. There are a number of other good-idea terrorist plots that we also have not seen. But I think that the consensus of the community is that it is a sufficiently straightforward device to construct and would have such disproportionate results, that this plot would have to be pretty close to the top of the plans that terrorists were working on, and if they're working on the plan, eventually they're going to implement it.

RATTANSI: But it's been some time since 9/11 now. Why haven't they used it? What might be mitigating against terrorists using this particular form?

PIKE: I think that one thing that terrorists want to be sure they accomplish is to actually implement the plan. They don't like plans that have a lot of moving parts. That's why we continue to see people blowing themselves up, detonating car bombs. They know that that's going to work.

You start to add the complexity of actually disbursing the radioactive material and I think that most terrorists are going to look at that and say this plan is just too complicated.

But eventually, you're going to have somebody say, well, all of these other plans have already been tried, I want to do something unique and different. I'm going to be the dirty bomber.

RATTANSI: So we were discussing earlier, or Paula was discussing earlier in her report, the potential of thousands of smoke alarms put together, at least the radioactive material within smoke alarms, put together and detonated. What sort of effect might that have?

PIKE: Well, I think that the main effect that it's going to have is to frighten people. If, for instance, you were to detonate it in a subway station or detonate them, say, several of them, in multiple subway stations, those subway stations are basically going to be closed until they have been completely decontaminated and the standards for that decontamination are extremely rigorous.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of people who simply have a morbid fear of radioactivity. You say radiation, and they think mutants. You can't see it, you can't smell it, you can't taste it. And so people are going to be very adverse to visiting a place where one of these has been detonated until it's been certified to be completely clean. And that can be hard to do.

RATTANSI: Having been detonated, how much of an increased risk of cancer, then, would someone in the vicinity have?

PIKE: In most cases, probably not a lot. But it doesn't take a lot in order to violate public health standards for what's acceptable for public access.

The more lethal the bomb is going to be, the larger it would have to be, the harder it would be to get the radioactive materials. So I think that that's the reason that these things are referred to as weapons of mass disruption rather than destruction.

RATTANSI: But to put it into context, though, I mean, say you were to compare the increased risk of cancer from the aftermath of the dirty bomb and inhaling a cigarette. What sort of comparison would there be?

PIKE: Again, it really depends on how big the bomb is and how far away you are from it. But it's possible to describe plausible dirty bombs that would pose a significant risk to health.

RATTANSI: How prepared are authorities to deal with a dirty bomb?

PIKE: It depends on which authorities you're talking about. If you're talking about hazardous materials units, fire departments and major cities like New York and Washington, I think that part of it, they're pretty well prepared to deal with.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a well-conceived attack that shuts down multiple subway stations providing access, say, to the financial district in New York or government offices here in downtown Washington, I don't think that they've really thought through how you would go about operating the federal government from some other location for the weeks that would be required to clean the thing up.

RATTANSI: You call it a weapons of mass disruption. Are we part of that, though? Do terrorists need to detonate a dirty bomb? Is the mere fact that we're talking about it and raising fears about the potential of a dirty bomb disruption enough?

PIKE: No. I think that it's increasing public understanding of it, to understand both that there is a risk here, and also to put it into proportion, because mainly the dirty bombs that people have seen have been movie dirty bombs or made for TV movie dirty bombs, which I think are probably beyond what is a plausible scenario. But if you had the plausible scenarios, it would not make for a good movie.

RATTANSI: But if you were to rate a terrorist arsenal, how effective would you say a dirty bomb would be? And how concerned are you about a dirty bomb in comparison to other weapons?

PIKE: I think it's a good plan. I think it's a good plan. It would have to -- it's on the short list of about 1/2 a dozen good plans and, as you mentioned at the beginning, you really almost have to wonder why we haven't seen it. It's not the only good plan that hasn't been implemented yet, but it's certainly on that short list.

RATTANSI: Very briefly, I suppose we should clear up the difference between a dirty bomb and a nuclear bomb.

PIKE: Well, an atomic bomb is an explosion and a dirty bomb is something that is also called a radiological disbursal device. It basically scatters the fallout, but there is no explosion apart from the conventional explosion that scatters the radioactive material.

RATTANSI: John Pike, thank you very much.

PIKE: Thank you.

RATTANSI: Let's take another break.

Ahead, can authorities keep pace with the terrorists? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RATTANSI: A dirty bomb has never been successfully used by terrorists anywhere in the world, but officials say it's not because they haven't tried. Alleged terror suspect Jose Padilla goes to trial in January after being held as an enemy combatant for 3-1/2 years. The U.S. government says senior al Qaeda members recruited Padilla to try to detonate a radioactive bomb on U.S. soil.

Welcome back.

Padilla has pled not guilty to charges of terror and says he was tortured while in U.S. custody. The government strongly denies this.

Meanwhile, British investigators say they made progress in another high profile terror case. Earlier this month, a British man was found guilty of, among other things, planning a dirty bomb attack.

Paula Newton, again, on how police cracked that case.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON (voice-over): Before 9/11, before the war on terror, Darren Barot was an accomplished terrorist stalking both the U.S. and Britain. His plans laid out in a London courtroom are as unnerving as they are credible, the evidence as damning as it is peculiar.

Stashed at the end of the Bruce Willis video "Die Hard With a Vengeance," surveillance tape shot in 2000 and 2001 of the New York stock exchange and other financial targets in New York and the World Trade Center. On the tape, someone mimics an explosion.

But after 9/11, Barot's plot to blow up sites in the United States was trumped. So he set his sites on London and what he called the gas limos project, a sinister scheme to blow up gas cylinders in the underground parking garages, possibly of London hotels, and then simultaneously blow up subway cars, preferably while under the Thames River. And then a dirty bomb, explosives laced with radioactive material.

In handing out a life sentence, Judge Neil Butterfield told Barot, "This was no noble cause. Your plans were to bring indiscriminate carnage, bloodshed and butchery, first in Washington, New York and Newark and then the U.K. on a colossal and unprecedented scale." The judge says Barot was too dangerous to be released for at least 40 years.

Barot muttered angrily to himself as he was sentenced, stared bitterly at the judge as he left the courtroom.

It's been more than a decade since Barot was seen at his north London family home. His motives still register shock here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember him as being a school kid, you know, going to school, but if I met him now I wouldn't know him.

NEWTON: Born into a devout Hindu family, Barot converted to Islam at 20. neighbors say his family still can't figure out how he became so consumed by terror.

The key evidence in this case, files and research found on computer CDs and disks, encrypted files and decoy messages with innocent sounding labels, "peachy," "Brad Pitt," "Bridge Jones' Diary," a collection of Western pop culture.

Barot traveled the world in search of terror training and got it in Pakistan and Afghanistan from al Qaeda.

PETER CLARKE, METROPOLITAN POLICE: I think it's fair to say that of all the terrorists we've investigated and put before the courts in the United Kingdom, I can't recall any that have been more dedicated, more committed, more highly trained in the art of terrorism than Barot. He's an important capture.

NEWTON: Barot's codefendants have pled not guilty and will be tried next year.

(on camera): Barot confessed to these crimes, but in the end he will still spend most of his life in prison, and authorities here in Britain are hoping that his prosecution and his sentence will serve as a deterrent to anyone even in the earliest stages of a terror campaign.

Paula Newton, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

RATTANSI: Certainly there have been some successes in tracking down terror suspects before they act, but is it enough since the faces and efforts of terror keep changing, or so we're told.

Joining us now to talk about this is homeland security expert Frank Cilluffo.

Thank you for joining us.

Are you confident that we're doing enough, then, to stop the potential terrorism? Or is it a matter of luck that hasn't yet run out?

FRANK CILLUFFO, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Well, clearly, it's a bit of a cat and mouse game. We can defend against one target or one modality of attack, and the terrorist who has time at his advantage can merely shift their modus operandi or their target selection.

So we need to continually try to get ahead of the curve, and I do think that bugs and gas will never replace bullets and bombs as the terrorist weapon of choice, but these aren't either/or propositions. We can and must defend against all.

RATTANSI: And we're going to go through some of the more sophisticated weapons in a terrorist's potential armory, but, I mean, as we just saw, people who just use gas cylinders in their taxi, why would they bother with nuclear or bioterrorism or chemical weapons?

CILLUFFO: That's a very valid question. Historically, bombs have been very effective, so that has been the terrorists' selection, their weapon of choice.

But we can't be complacent. We're also seeing -- traditionally terrorists were largely imitators. We're starting to see terrorism take on innovation, and this is something we need to constantly be prepared to defend against.

One thing they are looking for is the single common denominator of all terrorism is, it's a psychological weapon intended to erode trust and undermine confidence in our government, our institutions, our values, and to create fear and panic.

So I think part of the solution needs to be much more emphasis on taking some of the terror out of terrorism.

RATTANSI: At the risk of creating more fear and panic, let's go through some things, then. What about nuclear weapons? How close might any terrorist group be to acquiring them?

CILLUFFO: I think on the nuclear side, this is very difficult, both in terms of acquisition of an actual nuclear device and then, ultimately, the delivery and the dissemination therefore.

There are indicators along the way that the authorities could pick up, both through technical means and through human means, that I think puts the likelihood relatively low.

That said, the consequences are very high and we need to remember that bin Laden did proclaim in the late Nineties that to acquire a nuclear weapon was a religious duty, so we need to take is seriously. But I think in terms of the likelihood, that would require a state or connections to a state to be able to acquire and deliver.

RATTANSI: All right, what about chemical weapons?

CILLUFFO: Chemical weapons by and large are readily available. They have historically been used by terrorist organizations. It depends on the sophistication and the dissemination or delivery of the chemical agent.

By and large, to be able to respond to a chemical warfare attack, you need to be able to administer aid rapidly. They call it the golden hour. You've got about an hour to administer aid and I think that this is something that at least in the major metropolitan areas we're becoming more and more prepared to deal with.

RATTANSI: Specifically, what are we talking about when we talk of chemical weapons?

CILLUFFO: That's a good -- there is a whole host of different chemical warfare agents that can be used, from military grade, mustard gases, through to much less sophisticated chlorine made type weapons. So it certainly is within the realm of possibility.

Will it have the affect that they're looking for? They're all trying to meet a bar that by and large was set very high after the catastrophic attack on 9/11. And I think we need to step back a little and look at the terrorism picture. You've got three forms of terrorism where I see it going right now. You've got al Qaeda classic. This is largely the Mujahedeen, Osama bin Laden-driven al Qaeda. This is -- by and large, we've degraded their capacities and capabilities quite extensively, but in so doing you've created -- to some extend, it's like hitting mercury with a hammer. It's spread.

So what you have are these groups, groups that think globally but act locally. So you have networks of terrorist organizations and then what is perhaps most concerning and most difficult to get on the radar screen is what I call the leaderless movement. These are individuals that are inspired by al Qaeda. They are very manipulative in terms of using the Internet and other means to reach out, to radicalize individuals, many of whom live in Western countries.

RATTANSI: Just to return, though, to this idea of using weapons, these types of weapons, you say that part of it is disruption and it might undermine confidence in government. Aren't discussions like this, isn't the fear of this also something that can bolster governments and help them create Draconian laws? It's also good business for you. Arguably, it's good business for us at CNN, when people are discussing these fears, and we haven't actually seen them actually being carried out, such sophisticated plans as we're dreaming up right now.

CILLUFFO: Well, the last thing we can do is build the walls too high, because the terrorist win by default because our way of life has been lost. So we need to constantly look at this issue through the lens of risk, what's possible, and let's not take Draconian steps that give the adversaries the upper hand.

RATTANSI: Wouldn't it be easier, though, perhaps to look at technology. Cyber-terror, for example, might that not be a lot easier, a lot less hassle, and a lot more effective?

CILLUFFO: I do think there is a lot of emphasis in terms of how do we defend our cyber assets from terrorists organizations. By and large, what we've seen there is not so much computer network attack, where they use cyber means to attack facilities, but rather as a means to fundraise, as a means to recruit, as a means to radicalize and spread their propaganda, as a means to share trade craft as well as developing and designing weapons.

So I think by and large what we've seen is the Internet as an enabler, as a force multiplier. One thing we should be concerned about, though, is a conventional attack followed up by, say, a cyber attack that disrupts our emergency 911 communications in the United States or 999 in the United Kingdom. These are tactics that are on the high end. I wouldn't necessarily put them highly likely, but we need to think about them.

RATTANSI: Frank Cilluffo, we'll stop there.

Thank you very much.

CILLUFFO: Thank you.

RATTANSI: And that's INSIGHT. I'm Shihab Rattansi.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com