Surgically implanted explosive device

2009 attack on Prince Muhammad bin Nayef

In August 2009 Abdullah al-Asiri, the younger brother of Ibrahim al-Asiri, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's chief bomb-maker tried to assassinate a Saudi prince Muhammad bin Nayef with a bomb, later identified as a 'Body Cavity Bomb' (BCB). Al-Asiri absorbed most of the blast, which killed him instantly. Saudi prince Muhammad bin Nayef managed to escape with only minor injuries.

Media speculation

In May 2012, various reporters leaked their acquisition of documents describing the preparation and use of such devices. According to The Daily Mirror UK security officials at MI-6 asserted that female bombers could travel undetected carrying the explosive chemicals in otherwise standard breast implants. The bomber would blow up the implanted explosives by injecting a chemical trigger.

Concept

The concept of a surgically implanted improvised explosive device (SIIED) is derived from the Body Cavity Bomb (BCB) concept enunciated by Dr. Robert J. Bunker, a research associate at the Terrorism Research Center. Bunker's work for the last few years, has been on assessing the potential use of body cavity bombs (BCB) or body cavity suicide bombs (BCSB) as a variation of suicide bombing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

The term SIIED was used in a Newsweek article in May 2012, and was described in this article as a "explosive device hidden inside the body of a person in order to commit a suicide attack." However, it should be noted that, currently the US DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, only recognizes the acronym 'IED (improvised explosive device)'. As well, the more common phrase used to describe these devices is 'Body Cavity Bomb' (BCB), defined in Dr. Robert J. Bunker's work, namely:

Bunker's 2011 report largely originated with the 2005 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) training keys on Suicide (Homicide) Bombers: “No recorded use of cavity bombs (i.e., in the stomach, rectum, or vagina) exists, but this tactic represents a potential threat.” The author recognized early on the iterated offensive and defensive dynamic of suicide bomber and security force countermeasures and saw the offensive potentials inherent in an explosive device carried by a suicide bomber secreted inside of the human body. This resulted in a non-public disclosure series of presentations on projected BCB employment that took place between September 2006 and August 2008 in the United States and later in the United Kingdom. These presentations were resumed between October 2009 and February 2010 as a by-product of the first recorded use of a BCB device by Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula in August 2009. This was the attack, on 28 August, where a suicide bomber blew himself up in Jeddah during a Ramadan gathering that included Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, head of the security services. It was the first attempt on the life of a royal since the murder of King Faisal in 1975. The prince was treated at a hospital and released. This incident was the subject of two specific studies:

2010 Europol analysis

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 Prince Muhammad attack seems to confirm that the blast event is largely contained by the attacker’s own body (who later is identified as al-Asiri). Europol have assessed the possible use of the BCB, and made the followings finding:

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.

Tactical critiques and post-analysis

The BCB is an explosive device inserted within a human being or an animal, 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.”
Tactically speaking, the use and employment of the BCB falls into a category of tactics known as ‘in-situ’ attacks. The factors which could thwart the effective use of the BCB, are:

The other constraint is this weapon likely decreases in effect if outdoors attacks are involved, 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.

2012–2013 post-analysis research

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".

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. 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."

Airport security scanning methods

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:

Future detection strategies

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. Inconvenience for passengers is low. Several other methods can also be considered and for example include:

Canine detection

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 terrorist has been in contact with them before implantation. However, they are subject to exhaustion. Inconvenience for passengers is medium, and this method has operational status. 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 detection

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

Future technology detection capacity

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 status may be ‘under development’ rather than operational, but 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. 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. 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:

In popular culture

The BCB has a long history in science fiction writing and film history. Notwithstanding, in conventional security thinking, it has been noted, that: "placing bombs inside live human beings was still definitely not on the radar", prior to 2009.
The concept of the BCB has been regularly used as a theatrical–plot device in many popular TV shows and movies since at least the late 1960s (and perhaps earlier), and a number of popular U.S. films and television series episodes have featured the BCB, "ironically illustrating many of the key tactical concepts herein—that is, it is hidden in the human body, camouflaged from intelligence sensors, and used for attacks on specific targets". For example: