IEDs: Bane for Humanity

Introduction
The various theatres of war against terror are taking a huge toll of human lives both military and civilian through the incessant use of a weapon known as an improvised explosive device (IED), also identified as a roadside bomb. An IED is generally a rudimentary homemade explosive device constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. Its construction may comprise conventional military explosives, such as an artillery round, attached to a detonating mechanism. With the passage of time, IEDs are becoming more and more lethal and the addition of ball bearings or iron/steel shrapnel not only cause greater damage but result in maiming a large number of victims. Hiding the IEDs in seemingly harmless containers like household utensils, food packets and more horrendously, in toys, result in greater casualties comprising women and children.

The Geneva Convention has placed a ban on the use of anti-personnel mines and IEDs but research indicates that for more and more terrorist organizations and armed non-State actors (NSAs) the use of IEDs is becoming a weapon of choice due to their low cost and easy availability. The situation has become so grim that it merits independent study to identify the problem and recommend ways and means of reducing the damage caused by all types of IEDs, including victim-activated ones.

Genesis
The term “Improvised Explosive Device” originated with the British Army in the 1970s when it came across explosives constructed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) with the help of agricultural fertilizer and semtex smuggled from Libya to make highly effective booby-trap devices or remote-controlled bombs.ii

One of the first examples of coordinated large-scale use of IEDs was the Belarusian Rail War launched by Belarusian guerrillas against the Germans during the Second World War. Both command-detonated and delayed-fuse IEDs were used to derail thousands of German trains during 1943–1944.iii

The first exposure to IEDs by US troops was during the Vietnam War, where the Viet Cong employed them to target land and river-borne vehicles as well as personnel. They were commonly constructed using materials from unexploded ordnance of the US. Thirty-three percent of US casualties in Vietnam and twenty-eight percent of deaths were officially attributed to the IEDs; these figures include losses caused by both IEDs and commercially manufactured mines.iv

During the second Iraq War (2003-todate), IEDs have been used widely against coalition forces and by the end of 2007 they had become responsible for approximately 63% of coalition deaths in Iraq.v In most insurgencies in the recent past, IEDs have commonly been used. Cadres of the rebels in Sri Lanka like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) mainly used IEDs against military targets before the LTTE was dismantled in mid-2009 by the Sri Lankan military forces.vi

In India and Nepal, IEDs are increasingly being used by Maoists. On 13 July 2011, three IEDs were used by the Indian Mujahidin Group to carry out a coordinated attack on the city of Mumbai, killing 19 people and injuring 130 more.vii

IEDs were also widely used in the 10-years long civil war of the Maoists in Nepal, ranging from those bought from illicit groups in India and China, to self-made devices. Typically used devices were pressure-cooker bombs, socket bombs, pipe bombs, bucket bombs, etc. The devices were used more for the act of terrorizing the urban population rather than for fatal causes, placed in front of governmental offices, street corners or road sides. Mainly, the home-made IEDs were responsible for destruction of majority of structures targeted by the Maoists and assisted greatly in spreading terror among the public.viii

The experience of the United States in facing attacks by IEDs on home ground merits a brief mention. At 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, a 5,000-pound bomb, hidden inside a Ryder truck, exploded just outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The explosion caused massive damage to the building and killed 168 people, 19 of whom were children. Those responsible for what became known as the Oklahoma City Bombing were home-grown terrorists, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. This deadly bombing was the worst terrorist attack on US soil until the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack.ix In January 2011, a shaped pipe bomb was discovered and defused at a Martin Luther King Jr. memorial march in Spokane, Washington. The FBI said that the bomb was specifically designed to cause maximum harm as the explosive device was, according to the New York Times, packed with fishing weights covered in rat poison, and may have been racially motivated. No one was injured during the event.x On May 4, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a US citizen of Pakistani origin attempted to blow up Times Square through an IED constructed with the help of Urea based fertilizers planted in a van. Fortunately, the bomb failed to explode but Mr. Shahzad was arrested while endeavouring to flee on a Dubai bound flight.xi

IEDs have also been used extensively in Chechnya, Lebanon and Israel. Afghanistan has had its fair share of casualties caused by the use of IEDs by insurgents. It has been estimated that since 2001—to the present date, 66% of the coalition casualties have been caused by IEDs.xii Owing to its proximity to Afghanistan and involvement in the war on terror, Pakistan too has suffered immensely due to IED attacks. The available data reflects that casualties caused from IEDs are on the rise. The data collected from official and some other sources shows that the IEDs explosions caused 67% of casualties from the year 2002 to 2011. As many as 1,011 security forces personnel have embraced martyrdom while 1,627 were injured due to 574 IED blasts in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province only. In Balochistan during the last four years 1,479 incidents of IED blasts were reported which resulted into killing of 991 civilians and 71 security forces personnel. While 513 civilians and 121 security forces personnel were injured due to these IEDs. A total of 399 incidents have been reported in Balochistan where militants targeted gas pipelines, electricity pylons and railway tracks during the last three years.xiii

Afghanistan and Pakistan will be discussed in detail but before that, let us first examine what constitutes this deadly device, which is being constructed with impunity by terror organizations.

Assembling an IED
There are a wide variety of IEDs in use, some of which will be briefly discussed in subsequent paragraphs. In general, an IED is a bomb fabricated in an improvised manner incorporating destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic, or incendiary chemicals and designed to destroy or incapacitate personnel or vehicles. In some cases, IEDs are used to distract, disrupt, or delay an opposing force, facilitating another type of attack. IEDs may incorporate military or commercially-sourced explosives, and often combine both types, or they may otherwise be made with homemade explosives (HME). IEDs may be used in terrorist actions or in unconventional warfare by guerrillas or commando forces in a theater of operations.xiv

An IED comprises five components: a switch (activator), an initiator (fuse), container (body), charge (explosive), and a power source (battery). An IED designed for use against armored targets such as personnel carriers or tanks is specifically designed for armour penetration, by using either a shaped charge or an explosively formed penetrator. IEDs are extremely diverse in design, and may contain many types of initiators, detonators, penetrators, and explosive loads. Antipersonnel IEDs typically also contain fragmentation-generating objects such as nails, ball bearings or even small rocks to cause injuries at greater distances than blast-pressure alone could. IEDs are triggered by various methods, including remote control, infra-red or magnetic triggers, pressure-sensitive bars or trip wires (victim-operated). In some cases, multiple IEDs are wired together in a daisy-chain, to attack a convoy of vehicles spread out along a roadway.

Homemade IEDs or those put together by inexperienced designers or with substandard materials may fail to detonate like the one in the failed Time Square bombing incident, and in some cases actually detonate on either the maker or the emplacer of the device (these unintended early detonations are known as pre-detonations). Some terrorist groups, however, have been known to produce sophisticated devices that are constructed with components scavenged from conventional munitions and standard consumer electronics components, such as cell phones, washing machine timers, pagers, or garage door openers. The sophistication of an IED depends on the training of the designer and the tools and materials available.

IEDs may use artillery shells or conventional high-explosive charges as their explosive load as well as homemade explosives. However, the threat persists that toxic chemical, biological, or radioactive (dirty bomb) material may be added to a device, thereby creating other life-threatening effects beyond the shrapnel, concussive blasts and fire normally associated with bombs. Chlorine liquid has been added to IEDs in Iraq, producing clouds of chlorine gas.

Most improvised explosives are comprised of chemical constituents easily found in any home or local community, even in large quantities. Improvised explosives, such as military and commercial explosives, are typically mixtures of an oxidizer and a fuel. Regardless of type, all are extremely hazardous. Most improvised explosives are based on formulations used in commercial applications or research. Legitimate users do not use improvised explosives very often today. This is due to their sensitivity and unsuitability to be handled in a safe manner. Improvised explosives can be as effective as manufactured explosives in many applications. Terrorists employ these in all sizes of devices. The common types of improvised explosives being utilized today by terrorists include Potassium Chlorate, which has approximately 83% of the power of TNT and is a common ingredient in some fireworks and can be purchased in bulk from fireworks or chemical supply houses. Potassium chlorate normally appears in white crystal or powder form. Another domestically prepared IED is Peroxide-based, which is used by international terrorists for some time, in addition to Hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine (HMTD) and Triacetonetriperoxide (TATP), which were initially developed 100 years ago. They are both extremely sensitive and are used as an explosive by terrorists/bombers as both an initiator (blasting cap) and as a main charge. TATP is commonly found as the main charge being employed by Middle East terrorists in suicide bombings. HMTD has between 60-116% of the power of TNT, and is comprised of peroxide (ideally 30% or above), citric acid, and hexamine (heat tabs). TATP has 88% of the power of TNT and is comprised of peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric (battery) acid.

In dry form, HMTD and TATP could appear similar to crack cocaine. These explosives react violently with drug field test kits. HMTD and TATP are ideal as explosives for improvised blasting caps, and were originally developed for such use.

Powdered Ammonium Nitrate and Aluminum Powder Ammonium nitrate can be procured in powdered form; one example is a common cold pack. These use either ammonium nitrate in prill or powder. If ammonium nitrate is in prill form such as in fertilizer, it is a simple task to grind it into a powder. The aluminum powder can be procured at a professional paint store, or simply filed from an ingot. The explosive has 75% the power of TNT and is sensitive to friction impact, or ESD. It requires only a blasting cap for initiation. While this is only one-half pound of explosive, consider that this mixture of readily available constituents has been used in very large devices. In 1997, there were three apartment complex bombings in Moscow and each consisted of ammonium nitrate in amounts equivalent to 500 pounds of TNT. The devastating effects from each of those devices resulted in over 100 casualties per incident.xv

Urea Nitrate is also considered a type of fertilizer-based explosive, although, in this case, the two constituents are nitric acid (one of the ten most produced chemicals in the world) and urea. A common source of urea is the prill used for de-icing sidewalks. Urea can also be derived from concentrated urine. This is a common variation used in South America and the Middle East by terrorists. Often, sulfuric acid is added to assist with catalyzing the constituents. A bucket containing the urea is used surrounded by an ice bath. The ice serves in assisting with the chemical conversion when the nitric acid is added. The resulting explosive can be blasting cap sensitive. Urea nitrate has a destructive power similar to ammonium nitrate.

Some improvised explosives are hypergolic in nature. This means when two particular chemical constituents are brought together they can violently react with each other, with the surrounding atmospheric temperature often being the catalyst; they are highly unstable and unpredictable. This reaction will result in either an incendiary effect or an explosion. An example is sulfuric acid (oxidizer) and sugar (fuel) in a Styrofoam cup. The acid slowly eats through the Styrofoam and mixes with the sugar, causing a hypergolic reaction within seconds and resulting in an explosion.

Preparing Improvised Explosives

• Commercial coffee grinders are very effective for the process of grinding
• Grist Mills for the crushing of barley or wheat are also effective. A ton of material can be processed through one this size in about two hours. Consider how terrorists might access such a machine
• Odd job mixers or even a concrete mixer would be suitable for the mixing of the ammonium nitrate and the liquid fuel.xvi

Types of IEDs
There are numerous types of IEDs; however, for a clearer comprehension of the threat, classification of various types is being presented in this article according to the type of warhead, the delivery mechanisms employed and trigger mechanism used.

Type of Warhead
In general, the warhead maybe of two types: conventional explosive or non-conventional, i.e. nuclear, chemical or biological. The latter type may include incendiary warheads.

Conventional Explosive warhead comprises an IED, which has been designed to destroy, incapacitate, harass or distract targets using destructive, lethal, noxious, pyrotechnic or incendiary chemicals. This kind of warhead may employ military material but usually it is devised from non-military components.

Non-conventional Nuclear warhead, also known as a dirty bomb incorporates nuclear materials aimed at spreading radioactivity to spread destruction and loss of human lives. The detonation of a “dirty bomb” would not cause a nuclear explosion, nor would it release enough radiation to kill or injure a lot of people on a large scale. However, it could cause severe disruption and require potentially very costly decontamination procedures and increased spending on security and preventive measures.xvii

The threat of this kind of warhead became heightened with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and its fragmentation into the Central Asian States. It was feared that since the nuclear program of the USSR was not confined to a single location, groups with militant or terrorist designs may acquire some former Soviet nuclear weapons through the black market. The nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s vigilance has borne fruit. While no warheads are known to have been mislaid, it has been alleged that at least some very small or suitcase size bombs might be unaccounted forxviii, causing nightmares to every security watch agency, necessitating extreme vigilance.

In the same context, there have been serious concerns expressed by the Occident regarding the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and their possible proximity to terrorist centers. Numerous strategists and analysts have voiced the fear of terror mongers stealing or acquiring Pakistan’s nuclear warheads and detonating them in western theatres causing mass damage and destruction. Pakistan’s Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), which was created as a serious watchdog to preclude such a dangerous scenario, through its Strategic Plans Division, undertakes measures for the safety and security of strategic assets including: development of a strategic C4I2SR; over watch and regulate the movement of its scientific manpower through Personnel Reliability and Human Reliability Programs; weekly, monthly and quarterly intelligence reports; sensitive material control and accounting; transportation security and specialist vehicles; two man rule, codes and Permissive Action Links (PALs). These steps should satisfy most of the security concerns for Pakistan’s nukes, both for national and international critics and defence analysts.xix

Chemical warheads comprise devices incorporating the toxic attributes of chemical materials designed to result in the dispersal of these toxic chemical materials for the purpose of creating a primary patho-physiological toxic effect (morbidity and mortality), or secondary psychological effect (causing fear and behavior modification) on a larger population. Such devices may be fabricated in a completely improvised manner or may be an improvised modification to an existing weapon.

Biological warheads employ biological materials designed to result in the dispersal of vector borne biological material for the purpose of creating a primary patho-physiological toxic effect (morbidity and mortality), or secondary psychological effect (causing fear and behavior modification) on a larger population. Such devices are fabricated in a completely improvised manner.

Incendiary warhead utilizes exothermic chemical reactions designed to result in the rapid spread of fire for the purpose of creating a primary patho-physiological effect (morbidity and mortality), or secondary psychological effect (causing fear and behavior modification) on a larger population or it may be used with the intent of gaining a tactical advantage. Such devices may be fabricated in a completely improvised manner or may be an improvised modification to an existing weapon. A common type of this is the Molotov cocktail, also known as the petrol bomb, gasoline bomb, Molotov bomb, fire bottle, fire bomb, or simply Molotov. Due to the relative ease of production, they are frequently used by non-professionally equipped fighters and others who cannot afford, manufacture, or obtain hand grenades. They are primarily intended to set targets ablaze rather than instantly destroy them.xx

The Delivery Mechanism
IEDs can be delivered through means of being vehicle-based, boat-borne, animal-borne, collar bombs, suicide bombers, platter charges, and explosively-formed penetrators.

A vehicle borne IED, or VBIED, in military parlance implies a car bomb or truck bomb. These are typically employed by insurgents, and can carry a relatively large payload. They can also be detonated from a remote location. VBIEDs can create additional shrapnel through the destruction of the vehicle itself, as well as using vehicle fuel as an incendiary weapon. The act of a person’s being in this vehicle and detonating it is known as an SVBIED suicide. Vehicle borne IEDs are generally used to target convoys or more recently, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, they have been used to ram into targeted buildings, structures and cause massive destruction.

Boats laden with explosives can be used against ships and areas connected to water. An early example of this type was the Japanese Shinyo suicide boats during World War II. The boats were laden with explosives and attempted to ram Allied ships, sometimes successfully, having sunk or severely damaged several American ships by war’s end. Suicide bombers used a boat-borne IED to attack the USS Cole, US and UK troops have also been killed by boat-borne IEDs in Iraq.xxi

Aircraft may be considered as a delivery mechanism. The Japanese zero fighters and Kamikaze pilots of World War II and more recently, the terrorists who rammed hijacked civil airliners into New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11 are examples of the same. In more recent times, IEDs have been dropped from aircraft in seemingly unsuspicious packets like food containers and toys, causing death and destruction.xxii Historically, air delivered IEDs are traced back to the event described in the Qurάnic Sūrah (Verse) named after the elephant, Al-fíl, In the year 570 of the Christian era that blissfully happened to be the year of the birth our Prophet Muhammad—May peace of the Allah and Blessing be upon him and his progeny—Abraha, the Abyssinian potentate of the Yemen invaded Makkah. The invading horde had a mammoth—called Mahmūd by the Sīrah writers—elephant that created such panic among the Makkans that they fled from the city and, in the words of ‘Àbd’ l-Muttalib the Makkan Chief, “Left the House of Allah in Allah’s care”. What happened to the invading force and their Mammoth is best narrated in the above quoted Qurάnic verse, which reads in ‘Allama Yusuf Ali’s English translation:

Seest thou not How thy Lord dealt With the Companions Of the Elephant
Did He not make Their treacherous plan Go astray? And He sent against them Flights of Birds, Striking them with stones Of baked clay. Then did He make them Like an empty field Of stalks and straw, (Of which the corn) Has been eaten up.
(105: 1-5)xxiii

Animals both dead and alive have been used to hide or transport IEDs. Monkeys and war pigs were used as incendiaries around 1000 AD. More famously the “anti-tank dog” and “bat bomb” were developed during WW2. In recent times, a two-year old child and seven other people were killed by explosives strapped to a horse in the town of Chita in Colombia.xxiv The carcasses of donkeys and dogs were also used to conceal explosive devices by the Iraqi insurgency.xxv

Collar or necklace bombs are IEDs strapped to the necks. Their initial use came to light with farmers in Colombia, around whose necks; such devices were wound by guerrillas for extortion.xxvi American pizza delivery man Brian Douglas Wells was killed in 2003 by an explosive fastened to his neck, purportedly under duress from the maker of the bomb.xxvii In 2011 a schoolgirl in Sydney, Australia had a suspected collar bomb attached to her by an attacker in her home. The device was removed by police after a ten-hour operation and proved to be a hoax.xxviii

Suicide bombing usually refers to an individual wearing explosives and detonating them in order to kill others including themselves, a technique supposedly pioneered by the Sri Lankan rebels, LTTE. The bomber will conceal explosives on and around their person, commonly using a vest and will use a timer or some other trigger to detonate the explosives. The logic behind such attacks is the belief that an IED delivered by a human has a greater chance of achieving success than any other method of attack. In addition, there is the psychological impact of terrorists prepared to deliberately sacrifice themselves for their cause. The modern use of strap-on, carried, and vehicular suicide bombs as a conscious military policy, however, can be traced back to the Second World War. This use policy was found primarily in the Pacific Theater later in the war as beleaguered Japanese forces resorted to more extreme measures, derived from the philosophical tenets of Bushido, to stop the advance of the opposing allied forces. Japanese soldiers carrying satchel charges willingly jumped onto American tanks and detonated themselves, engaged in mass infantry (Banzai) charges lead by officers carrying samurai swords, and rammed their bomb laden aircraft (Kamikazes) and manned-torpedoes (Kaitens) into allied warships. Other belligerents in this war, including the Italians, Germans, and Russians also utilized their own suicide units and tactics although to a far lesser extent than that of the Japanese forces that readily choose death over surrender. Suicide bomb use proliferated from the latter 1980s on, as terrorist groups began to use this form of attack not only to target military, law enforcement, and political targets but also innocent civilians. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, young men are motivated or coerced into donning a suicide jacket and blowing himself up in the vicinity of the target. This aspect of delivering IEDs has caused maximum damage and taken a heavy toll of human lives both civilian and military, including high profile leaders like Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto and Afghanistan’s former President Burhanuddin Rabbani. This phenomenon has been described in detail in my article ‘The making of a suicide bomber’ published in Criterion January/March 2011.xxix

Platter Charge is a delivery mechanism, which propels the platter into the target with an approximate velocity of 6,000 feet per second (1,800 m/s).The effective range can be as far as 50 meters, limited by the accuracy. The platter charge consists of a suitable container that is filled with uniformly packed explosive and placed behind a platter. The platter is metal (preferably round, but square is satisfactory) and weighs 1 to 3 kilograms. The explosive required is equal to the weight of the platter. The container may not be necessary if the explosive can be held firmly against the platter (tape can be used). The charge is primed from the exact rear center, and the blasting cap is completely covered with a small amount of C4 to ensure detonation. The charge is aimed at the direct center of the target.xxx

Explosively formed penetrator (EFP), also known as an explosively formed projectile, is a self-forging warhead, or a self-forging fragment. It is a special type of shaped charge designed to penetrate armour effectively at standoff distances. As the name suggests, the effect of the explosive charge is to deform a metal plate into a slug or rod shape and accelerate it toward a target. They were first developed during the Second World War. These are especially problematic to counter because they can be placed far from their intended targets. An EFP is essentially a cylindrical shaped charge with a concave metal disc (often copper) in front, pointed inward. The force of the shaped charge turns the disc into a high velocity slug, capable of penetrating the armor of most vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan.xxxi

Rocket
In 2008, rocket-propelled IEDs, dubbed Improvised Rocket Assisted Mortars (IRAM) by the military, came to be employed in numbers against U.S. forces in Iraq. They are similar to some Provisional IRA barrack buster mortars. Also known as lob bomb, it is a rocket-fired IED made from a large metal canister (usually a propane gas tank that has been drained of its contents and filled with explosives, scrap metal, and ball bearings), powered by 107 mm rockets, which has been used by insurgents during the Iraq War since late 2007. The weapon is essentially an airborne version of an IED.xxxii

Trigger Mechanisms

Wire
Command wire-improvised explosive devices (CWIED) utilize an electrical firing cable that affords the user complete control over the device right up until the moment of initiation.xxxiii

Radio
The trigger for a radio-controlled improvised explosive device (RCIED) is controlled by radio link. The device is constructed so that the receiver is connected to an electrical firing circuit and the transmitter operated by the perpetrator at a distance. A signal from the transmitter causes the receiver to trigger a firing pulse that operates the switch. Usually the switch fires an initiator; however, the output may also be used to remotely arm an explosive circuit. Often the transmitter and receiver operate on a matched coding system that prevents the RCIED from being initiated by spurious radio frequency signals. An RCIED can be triggered from any number of different mechanisms including car alarms, wireless door bells, cell phones, pagers and encrypted GMRS radios.xxxiv

Cell phone
A radio-controlled IED (RCIED) incorporating a cell phone that is modified and connected to an electrical firing circuit. Cell phones operate in the UHF band in line of sight with base transceiver (BTS) antennae sites. In the common scenario, receipt of a paging signal by phone is sufficient to initiate the IED firing circuit.xxxv

Victim-operated
Victim-operated improvised explosive devices (VOIED) are designed to function upon contact with a victim; also known as booby traps. VOIED switches are often well hidden from the victim or disguised as innocuous everyday objects. They are operated by means of movement. Switching methods include tripwire, pressure mats, spring-loaded release, push, pull or tilt. Common forms of VOIED include the under-vehicle IED (UVIED) and improvised landmines.xxxvi

Infrared
The British accused Iran and Hezbollah of teaching Iraqi fighters to use infrared light beams to trigger IEDs. As the occupation forces became more sophisticated in interrupting radio signals around their convoys, the insurgents adapted their triggering methods. In some cases, when a more advanced method was disrupted, the insurgents regressed to using interruptible means, such as hard wires from the IED to detonator; however, this method is much harder to effectively conceal. It later emerged however, that these so-called “advanced” IEDs were actually old IRA technology. The infrared beam method was perfected by the IRA in the early ’90s after it acquired the technology from a botched undercover British Army operation. Many of the IEDs being used against coalition forces in Iraq were originally developed by the British Army who unintentionally passed the information on to the IRA. The IRA taught their techniques to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the knowledge spread to Iraq.xxxvii

Latest Challenges
The case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, a British citizen of Nigerian descent, popularly referred to as the “Underwear Bomber”, indicates the challenges in detecting and countering IEDs. Abdul Mutallab confessed to and was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan on December 25, 2009.xxxviii Abdul Mutallab was alleged to have been trained by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, claiming to have organized the attack and that they supplied him with the bomb and coached him to execute the attack.

He was convicted of eight criminal counts, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 289 people. On February 16, 2012 he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a US Federal Court. The device recovered from his person consisted of a six-inch (15-cm) packet which was sewn into his underwear xxxix containing the explosive powder PETN, which became a plastic explosive when mixed with the high explosive triacetone triperoxide (TATP) (the same two explosives that were used by Richard Reid in 2001)xl, and a syringe containing liquid acid. Abdul Mutallab created the explosive by mixing PETN with TATP and other ingredients.

The story does not end there, on 7 May 2012; American officials claimed that they had thwarted another Al Qaeda plot that would have been carried out in a manner similar to the 2009 Christmas Day bombing effort.xli American officials stated that the attack would have involved a more sophisticated bomb, also planted in undergarments and used to attack a civilian aircraft, near the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

The latest al-Qaida plot originated in Yemen and used an upgrade over the bomb that failed to detonate on board an airplane over Detroit on Christmas 2009. Officials said this new bomb was meant to be concealed in a passenger’s underwear, contained no metal and used a chemical _ lead azide _ that was to be a detonator in a nearly successful 2010 plot to attack cargo planes. Working with an al-Qaida informant and foreign intelligence services, the CIA reportedly disrupted the latest plot before the would-be bomber even picked a target or bought his tickets, officials say. The FBI is still analyzing the sophisticated explosive. But, based on preliminary findings, security procedures at U.S. airports have been further tightened.

Before examining the case history of Afghanistan and Pakistan, let me offer a few words regarding countering the threat from IEDs.

Detection and disarmament of IEDs
Mainly because these devices are improvised, there were few or limited guidelines for explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) personnel to use to positively identify or categorize them. However, recognizing the threat from IEDs, scientists and organizations are working round the clock to prepare counter IED (C-IED) means. It needs to be understood that effective C-IED technology needs to be accurate, safe and able to be operated in a difficult environment with as little disruption to the flow of logistics as possible. In the summer of 2010, two British scientists were awarded the coveted Order of the British Empire (OBE) awards for their work in the field.xlii In addition, British service personnel are training the Afghan National Army in C-IED techniques, so that they can assist in combating these kinds of attack methods. Another important goal in C-IED efforts, as NATO has stressed, is to increase information sharing between countries—both about technological advances in IED detection and neutralization, and the distribution of intelligence regarding the networks that finance and place the IEDs. In this regard, NATO’s Consultation, Control and Command Agency (NC3A) merits mention, since it provides research, technology and expertise to missions, assisting in areas of capability planning, cyber defence, exercises and training, surveillance and technology procurement, among others. It assists with NATO’s C-IED needs and projects—for example, recently implementing vehicle and pedestrian scanners at the entrance to NATO’s Kandahar Air Base, in order to safely supply the base and detect any IEDs before they enter the compound.

The key to C-IED Safely rendering devices harmless depends on a number of factors, the most important of which is maintaining distance between an explosive and any people or essential amenities that might be affected by a blast. Present-day remote-control, robotic bomb disposal devices originate from the “Wheelbarrow”, designed by Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Miller in 1972 for use by bomb disposal teams in Northern Ireland.xliii

Modern variants of robotic bomb disposal devices can carry cameras, microphones and sensors to detect chemical, biological and nuclear material and relay the information to trained bomb disposal experts in order to determine the correct course of action. One of the newest additions is the “Tanglefoot”, adopted by coalition forces in March 2010 and attached to 8,000 robotic bomb disposal devices deployed in the field. The system is a trip-wire mitigation device that incorporates an interface kit, wire rake and mast in a simple, low-cost, universal tool to help safely dispose of IEDs and clear routes. Talon robots are one of the most widely-deployed counter-IED technologies in use today. The latest design is a robot soldier that has human-like dexterity and precision and high-fidelity control. It can cut wires, pull blasting caps, surgically defeat the explosive device and in the process save all of this forensic evidence that they use to ID the bomb-maker and the manufacturing method employed.

Water weapons are a recent development in deactivation tools incorporated into disposal robots to meet the nature of threats they must counteract. The water disruptor, which is particularly suited to deactivating modern IEDs has recently been introduced. It uses a carefully designed explosive charge to send a powerful shaped water jet inside the device in order to sever the detonation cord and render it safe. The two main varieties of the water disrupter are the ‘Boot Banger’, so called because its highly directional jet can eject a bomb through the roof of a vehicle, and the ‘Bottler’, which uses an omni directional jet to defeat circuits and expose the contents of a device for further investigation.

Laser technology has also been incorporated in solutions to deactivate IEDs from a distance without risking lives or equipment. The Zeus laser ordnance neutralization system (HLONS) is fitted to HMMWV vehicles and uses an industrial solid-state laser to disrupt devices from up to 300m away. The 10kw beam is aimed at the device causing the explosive filler to ignite and burn, resulting in a low-level explosion that is far less likely to cause damage.

Zeus has been deployed in Afghanistan since 2003 and has been used in Iraq since 2005. It can be fired up to 2,000 times a day, and can therefore be kept in theatre for longer than one-use devices or those that require reloading or resetting. Researchers at Michigan State University in the US have developed a highly sensitive laser that could detect improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from a safe distance. The new method uses a laser no more powerful than a presentation pointer that can identify bombs from up to 40ft (12m) away, with the potential to extend the range to 100 yards (91m). The system uses a method called the single-beam coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering technique, which was originally developed for use in microscopes.xliv

Technological countermeasures are only part of the solution in the effort to defeat IEDs; experience, training, and awareness remain key factors in combating them. For example, there are visual signs that may suggest the presence of an IED, such as recently turned-over soil or sand by a road, or an abandoned vehicle beside a road. Recognizing these telltale signs may be as valuable as having sophisticated detection equipment.

Afghanistan
The case of Afghanistan merits a more detailed examination. It is ironic that about six months before the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union on 27 December 1979, the Afghan Mujahideen were supplied with large quantities of military supplies from the United States.xlv Among those supplies were many types of anti-tank mines. The insurgents often removed the explosives from several foreign anti-tank mines, and combined the explosives in tin cooking-oil cans for a more powerful blast. By combining the explosives from several mines and placing them in tin cans, the insurgents made them more powerful, but sometimes also easier to detect by Soviet sappers using mine detectors. After an IED was detonated, the insurgents often used direct-fire weapons such as machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades to continue the attack.

Afghan insurgents operating far from the border with Pakistan did not have a ready supply of foreign anti-tank mines. They preferred to improvise IEDs from Soviet unexploded ordnance. The devices were rarely triggered by pressure fuses. They were almost always remotely detonated. 9/11 changed the scenario. Ever Since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have employed IEDS to target NATO and Afghan military and civilian vehicles. This has become the most common method of attack against NATO forces, causing damage as well as delaying convoys in time consuming IED clearance operations. The IED attacks increased consistently year on year as the expertise and access to explosive devices and trigger mechanism along with the sophistication in technology and know-how increased.

In January 2010, it was reported by military experts that Taliban fighters had developed a new generation IED that was supposed to be almost undetectable, because it had no metal or electronic parts. The expertise for this new generation came likely from foreign fighters and the devices were being mass produced clandestinely at an industrial level. Before this new development, IEDs would be mostly triggered by two hacksaw blades separated using a spacer. Stepping on or driving over these blades would close an electronic circuit that so detonated the explosive–-often an artillery shell. In the newer versions, the metal saw blades have been replaced with graphite blades and the artillery shells with ammonium nitrate. The damage then is caused by the power of the blast rather than by metal fragments, or shrapnel. A recently released report by Homeland Security Market Research in the USA, the number of IEDs used in Afghanistan had increased by 400 percent since 2007 and the number of troops killed by them by 400 percent, and those wounded by 700 percent. It has been reported that IEDs are the number one cause of death among NATO troops in Afghanistan.xlvi

Just as the technical know-how of the terror organizations is growing, efforts are at hand to counter the threat. Force commanders have been relying on sniffer dogs to detect IEDs.xlvii

The rising number of IED attacks raised the alarm among the allied forces operating in Afghanistan, when they hit a record high of more than 16,000 in the past year. The military leadership took cognizance of the fact that they are causing increasing harm to Afghan civilians. According to data compiled by the daily USA Today, the number of improvised explosive devices that were cleared or detonated rose to 16,554 from 15,225, an increase of 9%. In 2009, total IED “events,” as they are known, came to 9,304.xlviii

Insurgents in Afghanistan continued to rely on IEDs as their main weapon, causing a rise in concussions and severe wounds to allied forces operating on foot to root out Taliban fighters in remote areas. Civilians, on the other hand were increasingly becoming the main victims. The number of Afghans killed or wounded by IEDs jumped 10% in 2011, compared with 2010, according to figures released by the military command in Kabul. The bombs account for 60% of all civilian casualties, which totaled more than 4,000 killed or wounded in 2011. Insurgents caused more than 85% of those casualties.xlix

The International Stability Assistance Force (ISAF), which oversees coalition military operations, attributed the spike in civilian casualties to the increasing lack of control insurgent leaders have on their forces. According to Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, an ISAF spokesperson, despite orders from Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader, to quit harming civilians, there has been an increased use of IEDs harming Afghan adults and children. Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan, currently working for the think tank RAND Corporation, opines that the Taliban are likely to lose popularity amongst the local Afghans if they persist in harming civilians through IEDs.l
Meanwhile, serious thought has been given in the US and elsewhere to minimize the risk emanating from the persistent use of IEDs in Afghanistan.

According to a Washington Post report, US Military officials have concluded that an increase in attacks was expected, given the surge in US and NATO troops, as well as the intensified combat. Even so, the rise in IED attacks has occurred despite a fresh wave of war-zone countermeasures, including mine-clearing machines, fertilizer-sniffing dogs and blimps with sophisticated spy cameras. The daily reveals that the US military has struggled for years to find an antidote to the homemade explosives. IEDs—concocted primarily of fertilizer and lacking metal or electronic parts that would make them easier to detect—are the largest single cause of casualties for US troops, by a wide margin. On the contrary, US Army Lieutenant General Michael L. Oates, the director of a Pentagon agency dedicated to combating the bombs, has observed that the percentage of IED attacks that have inflicted casualties—on US, NATO and Afghan forces, as well as Afghan civilians—has actually declined in recent months, from 25 percent last summer to 16 percent in December, quoting US military statistics. Oates and other US military officials have emphasized figures showing that IEDs killed fewer troops in the NATO-led coalition last year than in 2009—a slight decline, from 447 to 430. Juggling with statistics is not the answer.

The Pentagon created Oates’s agency, the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), in 2006 to coordinate efforts among the armed services. With an annual budget of about $3.5 billion, it is supposed to speed the deployment of counter-IED programs to Iraq and Afghanistan. The program did not receive standing ovation as critics—including members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office and some military officers—have said that JIEDDO in the past moved too slowly and wasted money on unproved technologies.li Such concerns took on new urgency in December 2009, when President Obama announced an expansion of the Afghan war and deployed 30,000 additional troops.

Around the same time, then Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates created a separate high-level task force—led by Marine Lieutenant General John M. Paxton Jr. and Ashton B. Carter, the Pentagon’s chief weapons purchaser—to rush even more counter-IED equipment to Afghanistan to coincide with the troop increase.

One of the remedial measures adopted comprises the blanketing of the Afghan skies with blimps.lii The white helium-filled airships, also known as aerostats, are outfitted with spy cameras that can track movements as they hover 2,000 feet above ground. The US and Israeli militaries have used them for years, but only a handful was operating in Afghanistan, primarily over Kabul, when the troop surge began. Since then, the Pentagon has shipped 60 more to the war zone and expects to double that total this year. It also plans to equip the blimps with a new spy-camera technology, known as Wide-Area Airborne Surveillance, which is designed to focus multiple sensors on an entire village simultaneously. Cameras now on the blimps have a range of 20 miles and can zoom in on people and locations, day or night. Video is transmitted to operators on the ground who steer the airships with joysticks. The blimps also act as a deterrent, because they are easily visible to Afghans on the ground, who can never be sure whether they are being tracked.

Quoted from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012507204_2.html

Unfortunately ample data does not support the blimps’ effectiveness or otherwise but US defence claim that they have received anecdotal reports of the airships catching insurgents burying IEDs. Meanwhile, US Air Force Colonel Scott Murray, who served as the US military’s chief of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance operations in Afghanistan until recently, has commented that airborne spy cameras are more useful to detect patterns of movement that can provide information about how insurgent networks function. In addition to the blimps, he said, the military is relying on a range of surveillance technologies to gather intelligence about bomb builders. The equipment includes high-flying Global Hawk drones as well as cameras mounted on a stick, which foot patrols can use to peer into culverts and under bridges.liii

Afghanistan, which remains the main theatre of war in the region, continues to be in focus, but its conjoined twin Pakistan also remains on the international radar for a variety of reasons. The case of Pakistan necessitates examination, both for its being a target of IED attacks and also for finding a solution for reducing or eliminating this threat.

Pakistan
IEDs are wreaking double havoc in Pakistan. Firstly, their incessant use by miscreants is resulting in the loss of precious human lives and limbs. Secondly, Pakistan is being blamed for alleged complicity in the transportation of raw material (Ammonium Nitrate) used in the preparation of the IEDs. If that were not all, according to JIEDDO, Pakistan is the source for 80% of the fertilizer-based homemade bombs in Afghanistan. Seth Jones, an expert on Afghanistan at the Rand Corporation think tank claims that the bombs (IEDs) cause 90% of U.S. casualties. He opines that IEDs will continue to plague the coalition and civilians but simultaneously takes a swipe at Pakistan, stating: “This is likely due to the ability of insurgents to import IED materials, including triggering devices and ammonium nitrate, from Pakistan.”liv Reports such as this prompt US legislators to recommend punitive action against Pakistan. For example, Senator Robert Casey, a Democrat from Philadelphia has pushed Pakistani officials to stem the flow of bomb-making materials. He acknowledges that there has been progress, including the formation of counter-IED teams in Pakistan. But Casey says that he was “not satisfied” enough was being done to secure the border.lv

A number of international bodies and think tanks have conducted research but trust deficit between Pakistan and its erstwhile allies in the war on terror has led the studies into the subject to be colored by mistaken perceptions and accusations of Pakistan’s complicity in the heinous crime. One report by the “Perceptors Group”, which painstakingly conducted an in-depth study on the issue of human sufferings specifically due to IED attacks causing immense human loss in Pakistan and Afghanistan stands out for its objective observations. Some analysts, perhaps owing to their own biases or due to unreliable inputs, point fingers towards Pakistan’s alleged involvement or having lax control on IED material transportation.

Any study, which takes into account only perceptions, apropos facts, must be taken with a pinch of salt. The “Perceptors Group” claims that to ensure the credibility of its report, it collected secondary data from diversified sources ranging from reviews conducted by other credible groups, individual research of intellectuals and US and Pakistan government based facts and figures released from time to time and data compiled by international NGOs, think tanks working on both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The allegations against Pakistan cannot be brushed aside as mere pressurizing tactics or biased opinion. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Everything is not hunky dory in Pakistan since poor governance, corruption and lax control has benefitted the terrorist groups but since the world is combating a very dangerous enemy hence gaps if any in the system must be plugged without prejudice.

Aside from the critical comments presented earlier, additional analyses are presented here. Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, who in US Senate hearing on the issue of IEDs, has claimed that Pakistan remained the main source of the materials used for making the devices. During the same hearing, General James Mattis termed it an area of frustration and serious topic of dialogue with Pakistan. Simultaneously, US Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, who serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, opined in a column in Newsmax that Pakistan is the “Benedict Arnold” (a rebel General and traitor in the US Revolutionary War) to America in the war on terror.lvii

JIEDDO’s observation regarding the porous border is a harsh reality but unfortunately, Pakistan’s earlier recommendation of fencing the Durand Line and installing biometric identification systems at the crossing points was vehemently opposed by the Afghans and ignored by the US. That does not absolve Pakistan from maintaining vigilance. However, the perceptions of US legislators, think tanks and opinion builders must be taken into cognizance. Some facts, which can help negate false perceptions are that the IED attacks alone in Pakistan has taken lives of 2707 soldiers whereas 1188 NATO soldiers became prey of IEDs in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2012. As of 2010, Pakistani check posts on the Pakistan-Afghan border numbered 821 against 112 check posts set up by NATO-US-Afghan troops on their side. Total number of Pakistan’s troops operating on Pak-Afghan border is approximately 140,000 and NATO-ISAF is 130,386. The NATO and US forces comprising 41 countries may have a lower priority in curbing cross-border movement but the Pakistani troops patrolling the Durand Line should be maintaining greater vigil, not only for their good name but their own safety as they themselves are the primary targets of the IEDs.

Pakistan has undertaken major efforts to stop the free flow of Urea to Afghanistan including cutting dealership in northern region and changing the color of fertilizer to track it but still IEDs continue to be used against security forces deployed in FATA and Balochistan area and Afghanistan. Two wrongs do not make a right, but unfortunately, Pakistan is not the sole source for providing the fertilizer, which has more deadly alternate uses than it was originally manufactured for. According to a Telegraph report of 2009, “US Marines captured a vast cache of IEDs made from agricultural ammonium nitrate fertilizer in 25 kilogram bags indistinguishable from the thousands of tons of fertilizer supplied to Afghanistan under Western aid programs.”lviii

In December 2011, a US delegation visited a fertilizer industry in Multan to seek the cooperation to stop the flow of fertilizer. It was explained to them by the owners that targeting Pakistan as the sole supplier of the ammonium nitrate was unfair since huge quantities of this fertilizer are imported to Afghanistan from the US, Australia and China also, with smaller quantities from Tajikistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. The company involved in production of fertilizers in Pakistan has changed the identification of bags by using different colours, dying the fertilizer to distinguish it from harmless products and has cut down dealership in the northern region and reduced its supplies. Last year, executives with the US chemical manufacturer Honeywell traveled to Pakistan to pitch Pakarab, the major producer of fertilizer, on the merits of Sulf-N 26, a fertilizer that combines ammonium nitrate with ammonium sulfate, a fertilizer and fire retardant. Honeywell unveiled Sulf-N 26 in 2008 in response to security concerns after the Oklahoma City bombing, and bills it as safe as sand when mixed with fuel. However, tests carried out in the US showed it could still be used in the production of bombs and the project was shelved, according to Pakarab and Best, the expert at the JIEDDO. Honeywell, which said it had not been informed about the tests, disputed that conclusion.lix

Another aspect of this whole gory issue is that Pakistan is being pressurized to formalize legislation on the subject. Indeed it must. However, US legislators and decision makers should cut Pakistan some slack. After all, a civilized country like the US took 15 years after Oklahoma bombing, for completing the legislation process. Pakistan can expedite the process but it should be borne in mind that water starved Pakistan, whose economy as well as survival depends on agriculture will require the use of fertilizers. Alternate sources must be developed so that its own people do not die of starvation.

Conclusion and Recommendations
This study has brought out the lethality of IEDs, the massive destruction to human lives and property they can cause and the ease, with which they can be assembled and employed. The aim of presenting that data was not in any way to assist the perspective bomb maker, since this information is freely available online but highlight to decision makers and opinion builders the ease with which the ingredients are available at domestic points of purchase. The vigilance that has to be solicited, does not involve the law enforcing agencies alone but also the watchful eye of every lawful citizen. Pakistan, which has gained prominence and notoriety in the discussion on IEDs, has taken many steps to stop the menace of the deadly weapons and now requires more support rather than chastisement. Rather than cooperating with Pakistan, if the blame game continues and further sanctions are imposed, it will undermine the efforts and may result in creating a situation conducive to the hostile forces. General John Allen, Commander, International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, during his news briefing at the US Department of Defence on 26 March 2012, admitted the gravity of the threat to Pakistan through IED attacks. He stated that “we would always enjoy Pakistani military assistance across the border, but I will tell you that they’re deeply engaged across the border. In the last couple of years, they’ve suffered 30,000 dead and a couple of thousand wounded, and they have an IED problem from the Taliban on their side of the border that is substantial as well.”lx

It is imperative that in light of the “Perceptors’ Report”, Pakistan needs to present its case to the world. The fact is that Pakistan is the main victim of IEDs attack and its efforts have not received due coverage. Additionally, JIEDDO should expand its role by helping Pakistani authorities and security forces to check the rise in IED attacks. Sharing of Air Surveillance and on ground IEDs detection hardware (i.e. PTDS, PGSS, GPR, Goldie, devil pup etc.) can be helpful to neutralize the threat along Pak-Afghan borders.

NATO should endeavour to raise the number of check posts along Pak-Afghan border, relatively less security is favouring hostile forces to move freely on Afghan side and reorganize their strength to hit back at Pakistani law enforcing agencies and civilians. Whereas Pakistan needs to establish legislation to control the production as well as distribution of fertilizers, which have alternate uses in the preparation of IEDs, the international community should also express empathy towards Pakistan’s plight and appreciate that Pakistan is amongst the countries suffering from acute shortage of water.

NATO should endeavour to raise the number of check posts along Pak-Afghan border, relatively less security is favouring hostile forces to move freely on Afghan side and reorganize their strength to hit back at Pakistani law enforcing agencies and civilians. Whereas Pakistan needs to establish legislation to control the production as well as distribution of fertilizers, which have alternate uses in the preparation of IEDs, the international community should also express empathy towards Pakistan’s plight and appreciate that Pakistan is amongst the countries suffering from acute shortage of water.

Its per capita water availability ranks at the bottom of the list of 26 Asian countries, that is why fertilizer is a crucial requirement for agricultural sector. Viable solutions must be considered for Pakistan. The government of Pakistan should organize an international conference on Terrorism with special emphasis on the impact of IEDs on Pakistani society and economy. All regional stakeholders should be invited to discuss measures and share available technology to save human lives. Since Pakistan is not alone in suffering the bane of terrorism and mortal effects of IED attacks, successful measures developed by other nations if any, should be shared to make the world a safer place. This has to be a collective effort.

End Notes

1. iAn abridged version of the article has appeared in Quarterly Criterion, July-September 2012 issue
2. ii’Improvised Explosive Device’, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. iiiStockfish, David; Yariv Eldar, Daniella HarPaz Mechnikov (1970), Dokszyc-Parafianow Memorial Book—Belarus (Sefer Parafianov. Tel Aviv: Association of Former Residents of Dokszyce-Parafianow in Israel. p. 274.
4. ivMarolda, Edward J., Mine Warfare in South Vietnam,. Washington: Naval Historical Center, 1994.
5. vCasualties: OIF – Deaths by IED
6. viNews item: ’13 killed in blasts, arson in Sri Lanka’, Daily The Hindu , 13 April 2004, Chennai, India
7. viiNews item: “Three blasts in Mumbai, 18 dead, over 130 injured” Indian TV News Channel NDTV, 13 July 2011
8. viiihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device
9. ixRosenberg, Jennifer, ‘Oklahoma City Bombing’, at http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
10. xYardley, William, “Bomb Is Found in Backpack Before March Honoring King”, New York Times, 18 January 2011
11. xiNews item: ‘From Suburban Father to a Terrorism Suspect’ New York Times, 04 May 2010
12. xiihome.mytelus.com
13. xiiiRaja, Shumaila, ‘2,073 deaths in attacks on Pakistan’ article in daily Pakistan Observer, 14 May 2012, Islamabad
14. xivhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device
15. xv’Explosive Devices’ available at http://cryptome.org/ieds.pdf
16. xviIbid
17. xviiUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2007-05), “Backgrounder on Dirty Bombs”
18. xviiiLunev, Stanislav, Through the Eyes of the Enemy: The Autobiography of Stanislav Lunev. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0-89526-390-4.
19. xixHali, Sultan M., ‘Are Pakistan’s nukes next terror targets?’, http://facttruth.wordpress.com, 20 March 2010
20. xxOnline Etymology Dictionary: Molotov Cocktail, Douglas Harper, 2010. The name “Molotov cocktail” was coined by the Finns during the Winter War. The name is an insulting reference (not a tribute) to Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was responsible for the partition of Finland. Molotov himself highly disliked the name.
21. xxi”UK Iraq boat attack personnel named”. BBC News, 14 November 2006
22. xxii”Red Cross Warns Afghan Children Off Cluster Bombs”, Reuters, 29 June 2002
23. xxiiiThe Holy Qurān”, English translation of the meanings and commentary, published at King Fahd Holy Qurān Printing Complex, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah under the auspices of The Ministry of Hajj and Endowments, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
24. xx”Americas | ‘Horse bomb’ hits Colombia town”. BBC News, 9 November 2003
25. xxvImprovised Explosive Devices (IEDs)—Iraq GlobalSecurity.org
26. xxvi”AMERICAS | ‘Necklace’ bomb halts Colombia talks”, BBC News, 16 May 2000
27. xxviiCaniglia, John (July 11 2007). “”Brian Wells” Erie bombing ‘victim’ was in on bank robbery” available on Blog site: Plain Dealer, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/07/man_forced_to_rob_bank_with_a.html
28. xxviii”‘Bomb’ device attached to Mosman schoolgirl was a ‘very, very elaborate hoax'”. smh.com.au. 04 August 2011
29. xxixHali, Sultan, M., ‘The making of a suicide bomber’, quarterly Criterion, Volume 6, Number 1, January-March 2011
30. xxxhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-32/chap13b.html
31. xxxiMilitary.com article on the evolution of hand-held anti-tank technology
32. xxxiiBurns, Robert (12 July 2008). “AP: ‘Lob bombs’ biggest worry for US in Baghdad”, Fox News
33. xxxiiiHunter, Major Chris (2008). Eight Lives Down. London: Corgi Books. ISBN 978-0-552-15571-7
34. xxxivIbid
35. xxxvIbid
36. xxxviIbid
37. xxxvii Harkin, Greg; Elliott, Francis; Whitaker, Raymond, 16 October 2005, “Revealed: IRA bombs killed eight British soldiers in Iraq, ”This Britain”, UK — Independent.co.uk”, London
38. xxxviii’Indictment in U.S. v. Abdulmutallab’, 6 January 2010,CBS News
39. xxxixThe NEFA Foundation. The PETN Underwear Bomb
40. xlPaperny, Anna Mehler, ‘Foiled attack on U.S. plane leaves airport chaos in its wake’, 29 December 2009, The Globe (UK)
41. xliCushman, John H Jr., “US thwarted New Qaeda Plot to attack plane, Officials say”, The New York Times, 7 May 2012
42. xlii’Active in deactivating’, http://www.defencemanagement.com
43. xliii Baker, Berenice, editor Strategic Defence Intelligence, ‘IEDs: detection, disarmament & disposal’
44. xlivIbid
45. xlv’The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan’, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser by Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001
46. xlvi’Combating the No. 1 killer of troops in Afghanistan’, Afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com
47. xlviiJohnson, Andrew, “Taliban make ‘undetectable’ bombs out of wood”, Independent.co.uk., 01 October, 2010
48. xlviiiBrook, Tom Vanden, ‘IED attacks in Afghanistan set record’, USA Today, 26 January 2012
49. xlixIbid
50. lIbid
51. liCary, Peter, Youssef, “JIEDDO: The Manhattan Project that bombed, ‘Pentagon unit created to fight IEDs has spent billions, but casualties remain high’, I Watch News, 27 March, 2011
52. liiWhitlock, Craig, ‘IED casualties in Afghanistan spike’, Washington Post, 26 January 2011
53. liiiIbid
54. livBrook, Tom Vanden, ‘IED attacks in Afghanistan set new record’, USA Today, 26 January 2012
55. lvIbid
56. lvihttp://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/study-ied-sufferings-in-af-pak/
57. lviiJamil, Muhammad, Study- IED “Perceptors’ report vindicates Pakistan”, Pakistan Observer, 5 May 2012
58. lviiiBooker, Christopher, ‘How we help to arm the Taliban’, The Telegraph, 12 September 2009
59. lix’Pakistani fertilizer fuels Afghan bomb’, The Indian Express, 01 September 2011
60. lxU.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Transcript 26 March 2012