Panties in a Wad

No country has the right
to occupy another country
--Lion of the Desert

I'm a walking nightmare, an arsenal of doom
I kill conversation as I walk into the room
I'm a three line whip, I'm the sort of thing they ban
I'm a walking disaster, I'm a demolition man
--Demolition Man
_______________

A few words regarding the nuts and bolts of bombs and intelligence analysis per the Christmas almost-bomber, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

The plastic explosive, which obviously clears airport metal detectors, is PETN, which was the same that al-Qaeda operative "shoe bomber" Richard Reid used in his soles when he tried to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami in 2001. In fact, Abdulmuttalab reportedly tried to use 80 grams of PETN to Reid's 50 grams, more than enough to blow a hole in the plane (Was Christmas bomber Part of a Bigger Plot.)

Imagine the horror of 80 grams (2.82 ounces) of PETN hung in a jock strap. PETN is a high order explosive, IF detonated. To detonate PETN, also the explosive found in det cord, it is necessary under normal circumstances to use blasting caps -- either electric or in conjunction with timed fuses. Neither technique was used by either previous shoe bomber-manque Reid or the unfortunate Mr. Abdulmutallab.

PETN is relatively stable and relatively difficult to detonate using expedient means. It was highly unlikely that either device, whether shoe- or underwear-bound, could be set off with a match-lit source. So why all the scare?

It is not a bomb unless it can go BOOM. Even if the 2.82 oz. of PETN were detonated, this would not have brought down and airliner. The threat has been overstated to the extreme. If anyone doubts this, go to the History Channel and take a gander at all the U.S. Army Aircorps birds of World War II that were still flying after being hit with high ordnance flak rounds.

Obviously, an expert demolition man might be able to do damage if the 2.82 oz. were strategically employed and correctly detonated. But that was not even remotely the case in either of the high-scare scenarios we are talking about here.

In the 1980's, a terrorist left a man's wallet with probably a quarter-pound charge of SEMTEX on an aircraft. All he accomplished was blowing a hole in the fuselage while the plane was in flight, after which the pilot safely landed the craft. The threat of the hapless Christmas bomber-to-be is overstated, and it was simply time for a woman (Ms. Napolitano) to have her upbraiding as did her predecessor, Mr. Heckuva-Job Brownie. However, the "failures" are far from commensurate.

While Reid and Abdulmutallab had every intention of doing a dastardly deed, and they did manage to carry explosive materials onto an aircraft, their capabilities and operational skills were inferior to their lofty goals. Intention is not doing.

Ranger wonders how these people will be tried for being bombers when it has never been proved that either device would have gone boom. Shouldn't there be a government burden of proof to show that these devices were, in fact, bombs?

Intent and capabilities are two separate issues.