'Dirty Bomb' Arrest
With Thomas Sanderson
Deputy Director, CSIS Transnational Threats Initiative
Monday, June 10 2002; Rescheduled 3:45 p.m. EDT

Attorney General John Ashcroft Monday said U.S. authorities had prevented an attack on the United States with a radioactive dirty bomb by capturing an Al Qaeda operative. Ashcroft said Abdullah Al Mujahir was in the custody of the U.S. military and being treated as an enemy combatant, suggesting plans for the first military tribunal of an alleged terrorist. U.S. Detains Alleged 'Dirty Bomb' Terrorist, (AP)

Thomas Sanderson, deputy director of the Transnational Threats Initiative (TNT) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, will be online Monday, June 10 at 3:45 p.m. EDT, to discuss the recent arrest of the alleged terrorist involved in a plot to explode a "dirty bomb."

The Transnational Threats Initiative (TNT) focuses on the convergence of terrorism, international crime and trafficking. Sanderson served as a defense analyst with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), U.S. government consultants based in McLean, Va. At SAIC, he conducted extensive studies of terrorist groups and terrorism policy for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. He has written on religious-based terrorism, the psychology of extreme violence, and organizational behavior. He also has four years of NGO development experience focussed on Central Asia and Russia.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: How difficult would it be for an individual to obtain radioactive materials sufficient to build and detonate a "dirty bomb?" What would be the effect of such a detonation?

Thomas Sanderson: It is relatively easy to obtain radioactive material. The world's second worst civilian radiological diaster (after Chernobyl) came in Brazil when several villagers broke into medical equipment and were contaminated with Cesium 137. 4 people died and dozens of others were sickened. For the affects of a dirty bomb, please see Phil Anderson's report on such a scenario presented to local officials in Washington, DC. This can be accessed at www.csis.org

Plano, Tex.: General Ashcroft seemed to be alledging that Abdullah al Muhajir was a primary driving factor in the attempts to DESIGN a dirty bomb. His full background has not been released, but your average common criminal doesn't seem like a good choice for a weapons designering in an organization that is supposedly packed with extremely well educated Engineers. Has al Qaeda used up its well educated members in sucide attacks already, or is the USA position that Mr. Abdullah al Muhajir was a rare genius that al Qaeda thinks they saved from a life of crime for their "Noble" Cause?

Thomas Sanderson: Without knwoing much about his background, my guess is that Muhajir would serve as a suicide bobmber or at least a recruiter. I think a "pref-fab" kit could have been given to him with instructions on what target to attack. Like Richard Reed (shoe-bomber), I don't think this operator was on the top rung of the Al Qaeda leadership. But much remains to be learned about this individual

Washington, D.C.:
Amid our current obsession with Al Qaeda, do we risk overlooking other major terrorist groups that may be plotting against us? For instance, isn't the Aum Shinrikyo cult, which gassed the Tokyo subway, still going strong? Are there others on the horizon?

Thomas Sanderson: Aum Shinryko has a new name...Aleph. It is still active, though much more closely watched. To answer your question: yes, there are other groups of concern, though Al Qaeda is unusually sophisticated, well-funded, organized and motivated. And with big successes under its belt, could be on the make to maintain the momentum...US counter-terror and military efforts aside.

Washington, D.C.: Any guesses as to what city would be a likely target for a potential Ai-Queda "dirty nuke"? I would guess that we here in DC as well as our friend in NYC would once again be likely targets. I'm surprised the effort and logistics of putting together such a bomb in the US wouldn't lead potential terrorists to target, say, Tel Aviv instead (or other European/Middle Eastern targets not requiring a long flight or boat ride, plus scruticy of US border officials).

Thomas Sanderson: In order to make an a major poltical statement, terrorists could do one of two things: Attack Washington and New York again as if to say: "You Americans can't even protect the cities we've already hit" That would make a dramatic statement. However, because some polls show the American public to feel relatively safe due to the focus on NY and DC, attacking a major cultural, recreational, economic or other site elsewhere in the US would also make the fear widespread...as if to say: "we can hit you anywhere" After such a large strike on 9/11, the terrorists would LIKELY have to match that feat to send their message to the US, leaving fewer major targets.

Oakton, Va.: Why is Abdullah Al Muhajir an "enemy combatant" and John Lindh a criminal? Seems like Lindh was actually involved in combat, whereas Al Muhajir is accused of plotting a terrorist act. Where did Bush get this power to make such a determination anyway?

Thomas Sanderson: Good question. The President has wide lattitude in what he does, and the answers to these questions will emerge in the next few days I presume. It is something that should give all Americans pause to think about what the rules are and how we will need to balance security and civil rights

Falls Church, Va.: Today's "dirty bomb" headline made very real something that many of us have been worried about for years: the disorganization and insecurity of the former USSR's ageing nuclear capital. Where do you think the materials from this "dirty bomb" came from? Is it possible that radical groups in former Soviet states like Uzbeksitan and Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were able to acquire the nuclear material, and then funnel it through Pakistan?

Thomas Sanderson: Excellent point. First off, there is no bomb, as of yet. From what I've heard, it looks like a plan was halted mid-stream. The old Soviet arsenal remains the largest in the world (far beyond the 6,000 strategic warheads aimed at the US). I believe (check ceip.org) that the Russians still have 12,000 tactical nuclear weapons that do not have the sophisticated detonation codes (called PALS) needed for actual use, nor do they have the top levle of security around them. Russia remains a great problem, but otherwise, look for the materials to come from within the US (commerically used radioative isotopes)

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Is the policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" dead. Under what conditions can you see the U.S. using nukes as a first strike weapon?

Thomas Sanderson: In this case MAD does not apply to terrorists who are willing to trade their lives. The Soviets had a center of gravity that could be threatened (The military, Soviet homeland, industrial and population centers). How can you threaten someone who flew himself into the Pentagon or Trade Towers.
Nuclear weapons may be used in the following ways: Actual attack by a nuclear armed nation; pre-emptive US attacks on nations and terrorist groups possessing or developing WMD or preparing to attack the US with WMD

Columbia, Md.: Was Mr. Al Muhajir involved in a plot to explode a dirty bomb, or a plot to obtain one? Did he have one? Can you really plot to explode one without having one or maybe even any realistic prospects of having one? What sort of threat is this? Was he close to obtaining one? The newspaper headlines make it seem like he was picked up on his way to washington with a nuke in the trunk of his car.

Thomas Sanderson: I think the media has initially made this out to be more than it is, but time will tell. One of the primary goals of the "dirty bomb" would be to sow panic, which is why a well-informed public that receives accurate, timely inforamtion is the best defense against this. Hundreds could die in the trample out of a city, while the dirty bomb itself could kill far fewer. As of right now, it sounds like a bomb did not exit, only the intention to plan the the attack.

D.C.: If a "dirty bomb" was detonated on say the Mall near the Washington Monument, what would the ramifications be for the Metro Area. I know it depends on the isotopes and all - but worst case, would people be safe in say Reston or Gaithersburg?

Thomas Sanderson: Consult an excellent report on a recent scenario conducted with the DC (and other) government. The author is Phil Anderson of CSIS. www.csis.org

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Based on your professional knowledge, how difficult would it be for Al Qaeda operatives (or members of a similar terrorist organization) to obtain, assemble, and detonate a "dirty bomb" on an American city?

Thomas Sanderson: See previous resposne. In sum, it would not be difficult to make this happen. Look at Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma City. 4,000 lbs of ammonium nitrate, wrapped around widely available commercial isotopes...the scenario is well within the realm of the possible.

Washington, D.C.: Is there anything the average citizen can do to protect him or herself from the threat of a dirty bomb? Are changes being implemented to deal with the possibility of attack or do we all just have to keep our fingers crossed?

Thomas Sanderson: There is conflicting advice on this. Many experts say to "shelter in place" Many isotopes would not penetrate homes. Communities around nuclear reactors are given potassium iodide (I beleive that's the medication) that must be taken immediately at the time of exposure. To take real, anti-radiation measures would be onerous and unrealistic, and would end up causing the psychological damage that the terrorists aimed for in the first place.

Saratoga, Calif.: In your opinion which economic/manufacturing centers are most critical and vulnerable? Is a low-tech dirty bomb likely to render a significant area radioactive above national health safety levels?

Thomas Sanderson: Yes, economically important centers are likely targets. Al Qaeda realizes that 9/11 resulted in roughly $750 billion in costs to the U.S., not a bad return on $500,000 in program costs incurred by Bin Laden. The terrorists are not like other nations: they don't seek to cripple military capabilities in search of a surrender, but instead attack the soft side of America: economic, industrial, power, cultural, psychological targets are more likely.

Saratoga, Calif.: Isn't it obvious, that Iraq is busily building dirty bombs and, under the "use it or lose it" doctrine, will be syndicating weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations around the world? Unless we move real fast isn't the outcome completely assured?

Thomas Sanderson: Many believe so, and are preparing for just such an attack. Iraq knows however that if anything was traced back to their country, the response would re-define the word severe. Deterrence still works with them to a degree, but again, not with teorrists willing to trade their life. Saddam is not about to trade his position of power or his 20 some-odd palaces.

Washington, D.C.: Some of the talk surrounding what ordinary citizens can do stems on remaining vigilant. However, there really hasn't been a clear operational definition as to what vigilant means within the context of asymetric acts of terrorism in the US. Can you provide some of the manifest items that would help to define vigilance given the news from today?

Thomas Sanderson: Many local cities have helpful instructions on how to prepare for diasters. Some of this information is useful in such an event. But because a radiological attack is unprecedented, we're operating from point zero.

Alexandria, Va.: The person in question is an American citizen, by all accounts I have read. Why the "secret detention"? Where is the hearing and bail process? What about innocent until proven guilty? This man may well have done everything the government has claimed, but the President seems to have laid down a conviction for him already. How can the government hold a US citizen as an "enemy combatant"? Under what circumstances can someone be declared as such?

Thomas Sanderson: Please see an earlier response. When dealing with such a threat, it may call for unprecedented measures. But my own opinion is that every move by the USG in pursuing these indivduals should be closely watched because abuses are so easy. But again, we're dealing with extreme threats to the US.

Cumberland, Md.: Don't you think the time is ripe for a National Identity card to help sort out illegals from citizens? They are used successfully in many European Countries and seem to add an additional security check.

Thomas Sanderson: Major civil rights issues aside, it sounds good on the surface. But tell me, how many millions of high school and college students have first rate fake ID's? There's a good rule of thumb to live by: for every measure, there is an equal and effective countermeasure. This is no different.

Minneapolis, Minn.: What is the likelihood that the Russian military may have sold tactical nuclear weapons to the blackmarket (i.e. 1 kilo ton?)

Thomas Sanderson: Well, discipline within the Russian military is at an all time low, or certianly was in the early to mid-90s. Strategic nukes are well guared. Russian soldiers are poorly fed, clothed and often unpaid. Many tac-nukes are loosley guarded, and clearly all 12,000 of them are not perfectly catalogued. What would you do if your family was honestly faced with starvation and someone offered you money for radioactive material and also threatened your life in the event of non-compliance? Massive attention should have been focussed on this problem from the get-go in early 1992. There is a lot of blame to go around for this disaster in waiting.

Washington, D.C.: Would you advise copanies and organizations in DC to expand their emergency procedures to include procedures of what to do in case of a "dirty bomb"?

Thomas Sanderson: Yes, the consequences are too great to ignore this. But again, the primary affect is psychological...panic and such, and should be a primary focus of any "what to do" plans

Houston, Tex.: Are there specific types of radioactive material that are better than others in creating these dirty bombs?

Can they just take a bunch of x-ray machine radioactive material and use it or do they need like the stuff from nuclear reactors or from missiles?

Thanks.

Thomas Sanderson: Many terrorists operate with a simple rule of thumb: take the easiest, time tested route. Obviously, 9/11 was a complex operation, but trying to get radioactive material from a US missile or reactor is next to impossible, while x-ray and other radioactive equipment is easier to come by. Of course, there are always plenty of sources outside the US, which could be snuck in among the 17 million (+/-) cargo containers that enter the US every year. Did I mention that roughly 2% of these are inspected?

Cumberland, Md.: Janes believes that it is in the realm of possibility that Al-Quaeda could get its hands on Nuclear Device since many of the Al-Qaeda militants who fled Afghanistan have regrouped in Pakistan with the aim of destabilising relations between the two states through a series of high-profile terrorist attacks in India and Kashmir. If so, Jane's says then concerns that Al-Qaeda could gain access to nuclear weapons may be realised.

Do you think this is a plausible scenario?

Thomas Sanderson: It is a scenrio that is being considered, unlikely though it is. Some in the US are looking at striking Pakistani nukes or taking custody of them in the event of a radical take-over. Problem is finding the 6 or so sites, which the Paks were good at hiding from US intell for years. It is frightening and possible

Washington, D.C.: In order to get the cooperation of otherwise hostile nations in the Middle East in tracking down terrorists who may be planning such an attack, do you think President Bush should announce (privately or publicly) that a radiological or nuclear attack on the US will be treated by the US as an attack by one or more of those nations, requing a full retaliatory response (like President Kennedy did with the USSR during the Cuban missle crisis)?

Thomas Sanderson: Just such a message has been communicated to these nations. IF any nation is found to provide WMD or radiological weapons to terrorists, the US will respond with overwhemling force, even before an attack occurs. These leaders are well aware of this.

Silver Spring, Md.: Please share with folks that a radiological bomb is not an atomic bomb but a big way of spreading contamination. Unless there is significan airborne contamination from small particles and wind to spread the mess- it might amount to affecting a "relatively" small area. Yea it is very bad for folks who get inhaled particles and decon is a terror. But it probably isn't near as bad as most chemical weapons. An biologic can be much worse too- think some genetically engineered rift valley fever thing., Agree or Disagree

Thomas Sanderson: Agree. A small amount reading on the part of the public will reveal what a dirty bomb could do. IT would would be a bad, even tragic event that would take lives, but it is not the catastrophic event that we think of when a Russian or Chinese nuclear warhead strikes the US.

Santa Barbara, Calif.: It has been said that Iraq has deep bunkers developing WMD. Currently these bunkers, along with their contents, could only be destroyed by the high temperatures of a nuke. Certainly we are considering all options. Since we are considering ALL options, would Iraq be justified in a first strike against the US - for the same reasons that we use to justify a first strike?

Thomas Sanderson: Some major differences here, but I can sense your point. The US is not providing WMD to terrorists, though there is no evidence that Iraq is either (otherwise, there would be a new republic in Baghdad.) There is obvious evidence though that Iraq is run by a megalomaniac who is not democratically elected, who kills his rivals, used Mustard Gas on Kurds and Shia, and has threatend his neghbors, attacked them, and has made his intentions known. While the US may have its warts, we are far more justified in our approach to pre-emption than Iraq.

Washington, D.C.: I heard a report on the radio this morning about a new terror warning for nerve gas on the metro system, but haven't seen or heard any info since. Was this credible information that I heard? Do you have more details on any such threat?

Thomas Sanderson: Unlikely. And I have no information on this threat. But it has already happeend once: The Aum Shinryko cult used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in the mid-90s.

London UK: How do you think this guy was recruited? Do you think there is an recruiting infrastructure in place in prisons across the country, or do you think he found his way into the organization on his own? Do you think American Islamist organizations like CAIR or Nation of Islam are acting as fronts for Al Qaeda?

Thomas Sanderson: There is no difficutly in finding willing individuals. They are recruited all over the place, religious institution, in cities abroad, on-line, etc. They also just "walk in"

Thomas Sanderson: Thanks everyone, I enjoyed answering your questions. If you need more info, please contact csis.org for Phil Anderson's report on the dirty bomb scenario. I can also be contacted at the CSIS Transnational Threats Initiative.

Take care and keep yourself informed.

Tom Sanderson

   |      |