Semtex in the Hand Is Worth Two Dirty Bombs in the Bush the Historical Relation Between Explosive Technology and Terrorism
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Utrecht University Faculty of Science Master thesis in the degree program “History and Philosophy of Science” Supervisor: Professor Dr. Bob de Graaff Second reader: Dr. David Baneke Date: June 30, 2015 Semtex in the hand is worth two dirty bombs in the bush The historical relation between explosive technology and terrorism Jonas Feltes Student number: 4102037 Degree program: Research Master “History and Philosophy of Science” Zwischen Semtex und Utopie liegen sie sich in den Armen. - Einstürzende Neubauten- Abbreviations ANALFO Ammonium nitrate aluminium fuel oil ANALNM Ammonium nitrate aluminium nitromethane ANFO Ammonium nitrate fuel oil ANNM Ammonium nitrate nitromethane CBRN Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear DDNP Diazodinitrophenol EDD Explosive detection dog ETA Euskadi Ta Askatasuna FARC Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia HMTD Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine IED Improvised explosive device IS Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant PIRA Provisional Irish Republican Army LeT Lashkar-e-Taiba PETN Pentaerythrol tetrastearate PLFP Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PLO Palestine Liberation Organization RAF Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Faction) RDX Hexogen TATP Triacetone triperoxide TNT Trinitrotoluene Table of Contents 1. Innovation focus in terrorism research – An introduction ……….………………………6 2. Definitions and outline 2.1. Defining terrorism, technology, knowledge 2.1.1. Terrorism ........................................................................................................10 2.1.2. Explosive technology .....................................................................................12 2.1.3. Knowledge .....................................................................................................13 2.2. Outline of this thesis 2.2.1. Structure of the introductory chapters ............................................................15 2.2.2. Structure of the case studies ...........................................................................16 3. Use and terrorist use of selected explosive technologies 3.1. Ammonium nitrate 3.1.1. The innovation ................................................................................................19 3.1.2. The life cycle of ammonium nitrate ...............................................................20 3.2. TNT 3.2.1. The innovation ................................................................................................24 3.2.2. The life cycle of TNT .....................................................................................24 3.3. RDX 3.3.1. The innovation ................................................................................................28 3.3.2. The life cycle of RDX ....................................................................................28 3.4. PETN and Semtex 3.4.1. The innovation ................................................................................................31 3.4.2. The life cycle of PETN and Semtex ...............................................................32 3.5. Special case: Peroxide explosives – Terrorist explosives? 3.5.1. The discovery of peroxide explosives .............................................................35 3.5.2. The re-invention of peroxide explosives in the 1970´s ..................................36 4. The acquisition and use of explosive technologies by terrorist groups – Nine Cases 4.1. The acquisition and use of ammonium nitrate 4.1.1. Sterling Hall Bombing (1970) ........................................................................39 4.1.2. Oslo Bombing (2011) .....................................................................................46 4.2. The acquisition and use of TNT 4.2.1. King David Hotel Bombing (1946) ................................................................53 4.2.2. United States Embassy Bombing (1998) ........................................................60 4.3. The acquisition and adaption of RDX and C-4 4.3.1. Bombay Bombing (1993) ...............................................................................67 4.3.2. Tequendama Hotel Bombing (2000) ..............................................................74 4.4. The acquisition and use of PETN and Semtex 4.4.1. “Mai Offensive” of the Red Army Faction (1972) .........................................82 4.4.2. Pan Am Flight 103 (1988) ..............................................................................89 4.5. The terrorist use of peroxide explosives – London Bombings (2005) ......................95 5. “What to do with the results?” The possibilities of quantitative research in the history of terrorism and technology ...............................................................................................102 6. Discussion, applications, concluding thoughts 6.1. Discussion ...............................................................................................................106 6.2. Applications of the results .......................................................................................111 6.3. Concluding thoughts ...............................................................................................113 References ............................................................................................................................115 Appendices ...........................................................................................................................136 1. Innovation focus in terrorism research – An introduction (…) [T]he history of the use of advanced chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in guerilla warfare is limited, the fact of the matter is that in most cases where groups have considered pursuing these capabilities have ultimately led to them being abandoned in favor of more obtainable and efficient tactics. They simply fall well short of the destruction wrought by simpler and more conventional explosive devices. Pound for pound, euro for euro and hour for hour of effort, high explosives are far more effective (…)1 Anders Behring Breivik With groups like the self-proclaimed “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levante” (IS) on the rise, terrorism is one of the leading topics in the media and global policy. Especially violent attacks of terrorist groups are extensively and publicly discussed and call for intensified efforts to counter these attacks by identifying and eliminating the sources of terrorist weaponry. However, in both public discourse and academic analyses, most debates about the relation between terrorism and weapon technology are focused on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism. Here, not only discussions concerning the future threat of CBRN terrorism, but even discussions concerning the historical relation between terrorism and CBRN weaponry are overwhelmingly extensive. Beginning as early as in the late 1970´s and early 1980´s with books like Richard Charles Cark´s Technological Terrorism, an innumerable amount of publications about the threat and the historical dimensions of CBRN terrorism have been published.2 However, despite this enormous popularity among researchers, CBRN terrorism 1 Breivik, 2083, p. 1022-1023. 2 Only to a few examples of publications with some emphasis on historical aspects of CBRN terrorism are: Apikyan et al., ‘Nuclear and Radiological Threats’; Arnon et al. ‘Botulinum Toxin; Carus, ‘Bioterrorism’; Cole, Page 6 of 139 can be seen as rare phenomenon in the terrorist world. In fact, according to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), only 99 incidents of CBRN terrorism have occurred until 19703. Moreover, even terrorists themselves, as for instance Anders Behring Breivik states in the quote above, have been expressing a certain disfavor of CBRN technologies in the terrorist world. In contrast, other weapon technologies, namely conventional explosives, have been used considerably more frequently by terrorist groups: The GTD lists 49,770 cases of incidents in which explosive were used by terrorist groups and lone operators since 1970.4 However, despite this enormous popularity of explosives among terrorists, only few publications discuss the relation between explosive technologies and terrorism. Furthermore, although especially an historical investigation of the relation between explosive technology and terrorism is needed to understand today´s threat of explosive terrorism, only approximately very few publications deal, at least in parts, with this historical relation.5 Furthermore, although, in general, first steps have been made to shift the focus back to conventional weapon technologies in terrorism studies, for example in the proposal to include Changing Face; Clark, ‘Technological Terrorism’; Handysides, ‘Bioterrorism’; Leitenberg, ‘Botulinum Toxin’; Morse, `Historical Perspectives; Pichtel, Terrorism; Pita&Gunaratna, ‘Anthrax’; Pita, ‘Toxin weapons’; Salem, ‘Chemical and Biological Terrorism’; Schmid&Kaufmann, ‘Anthrax in Europe’; The National Security Advisory Group, Reducing Nuclear Threats; Tucker, ‘Historical Trends’; Tucker (Ed.), Toxic Terror; Wilkinson (Ed.), Terrorism and Technology; Ghosh (Ed.); Science and Technology; Ivanova&Sandler, ‘CBRN Incidents’; Ivanova&Sandler, ‘CBRN Attack Perpetrators’; Cenciarelli et al.. ‘Bioweapons and bioterrorism’; Dembek, ‘The History and Threat’; Barras& Greub, ‘Biological warfare and bioterrorism’; Riedel, ‘Biological warfare’. In a more general and not representative search, a Google Scholar search of the combination of the exact terms “CBRN” and “History”