Explosive Breast Implants -- Not an April Fool's Joke

Is MI5 playing a joke on us?

Female homicide bombers are being fitted with exploding breast implants which are almost impossible to detect, British spies have reportedly discovered.

[...]

MI5 has also discovered that extremists are inserting the explosives into the buttocks of some male bombers.

"Women suicide bombers recruited by Al Qaeda are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery," Terrorist expert Joseph Farah claims.

They're "known to have" this? I doubt it. More likely, they could be:

Radical Islamist plastic surgeons could be carrying out the implant operations in lawless areas of Pakistan, security sources are said to warned.

They also could be having tea with their families. They could be building killer robots with lasers shooting out of their eyes.

I love the poor Photoshop job in this article from The Sun.

Perhaps we should just give up. When this sort of hysterical nonsense becomes an actual news story, the terrorists have won.

Posted on April 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM • 69 Comments

Comments

Petréa MitchellApril 1, 2010 1:45 PM

Given that the first article is in the approximate British equivalent to the National Enquirer, I'm not raising my threat alert too far.

JamesApril 1, 2010 2:00 PM

The bomber would likely die from some sort of infection well before they can attack the target if done by someone inexperienced or under bad conditions. And, lets face it, how much explosive they can pack in breast implants? I am thinking that somewhere in afghanistan people are going to be real happy to see some improvement in that woman's area :D
As for the buttocks, there's not much space there either. Just spot the guy that can't sit straight.

WearingacupApril 1, 2010 2:01 PM

Well, that certainly goes one better than the underwear bomber. Speaking of which, I'd bet that male terrorists are plotting to implant PETN-based neuticles. Seems more "natural" than butt implants.
http://www.neuticles.com/

HJohnApril 1, 2010 2:03 PM

I wonder what the detonators look like? Are they fuses or red buttons? (j/k)

Speaking of April fools, it's been a lot of fun today. Changed my facebook birthday to April 1, and I've been getting a constant stream of Happy Birthday emails, even from people who wished me a happy birthday on my actual bday 2 months ago. lol. Thought I'd share in case anyone else wants to try it.

Back on the April fools day topic of the post, and a serious comment, something can always been thought of that is a risk, but that doesn't mean it is likely. But we already know that. Unfortunately, many do not. I've been an auditor for well over a decade, so I have seen a lot of paranoia about risks, and this kind of thing is not as uncommon as it should be. I've heard other auditors ask in a BCP/DR audit "what happens if nuclear bombs go off near all of your sites simeultaneously?" The obvious answer is that after that no one would give a rip. I also hear many fighting for more security just for the sake of saying it is security without much thought given to cost and productivity. Too many want to be the genius that finds out the next big risk, withough seeing that the common and mundane everyday things are where the real risks are.

At least with the shoe bomber, they are concerned with something that actually happened, not some plot someone guessed. Not that they responded to that appropriately.

Here's a movie plot risk I wish they would address: flying, particularly in the age of terrorism, is stressful and people don't act rationally and may cause an incident if they aren't given free food, free entertainment on the flights, and most importantly complimentary drinks... all at no charge. There you have it, the failure to provide everything complimentary--especially drinks--is a risk and they need to work on it immediately. April fools.

DavidApril 1, 2010 2:03 PM

Does this mean that the TSA gets the authority to feel someone's breast? I think I have found a new career

BryanApril 1, 2010 2:04 PM

Well, let's think this through.

All the expensive back-scatter xray machines are ineffective at detecting these devices. So the TSA will institute new procedures... Can you guess?

I gonna want a job with the TSA under this new regime! I'll get to hand inspect evey passenger's bosom and butt.

AlanSApril 1, 2010 2:06 PM

"MI5 has also discovered that extremists are inserting the explosives into the buttocks of some male bombers."

I wonder if this will be detected by the "bumprint" techniques being developed by the UK Gov, as reported on the The Tech & Law Blog? ;)

http://blog.tech-and-law.com/2010/04/...

Nick PApril 1, 2010 2:14 PM

I think explosive ass implants gives one far more bang for the buck. Just have a skinny chick pose as a 250lb woman with the [explosive] weight in all the wrong places and the security guards will do what they can to avoid studying her. ;)

J.D.April 1, 2010 2:18 PM

"MI5 has also discovered that extremists are inserting the explosives into the buttocks of some male bombers."

Their source? Officer Crabtree from TV's Allo Allo, who was heard to say, "I jumped out of a British bumber, which was being chased by some German farters". Being clever clogs, MI5 put two and two together...and came up with nine.

frankieApril 1, 2010 2:35 PM

Are they also "known" to insert microswitches under the nipples in order to have the explosive detonate?

CApril 1, 2010 2:36 PM

Suicide female bomber? I'm no expert on the subject and I admit I don't follow every bit of news on it... but I've not heard of any female suicide bombers much less going so far as hiding explosives in a boob job. Just saying...

Yonatan ZungerApril 1, 2010 2:42 PM

I'm remembering the recent "ass bomber" attempt on the life of the Saudi interior minister. IIRC, it failed in no small part because the bomber's body absorbed a large amount of the explosive force -- which isn't too surprising if you imagine the dynamics of shock waves forming in such an, erm, enclosed space.

It seems to me that this would be a remarkably stupid way to set off a bomb. Really, if one wanted to blow up an aircraft, it would be far easier to transport the explosives in a body cavity, but then to remove them and place them against the hull of the aircraft before detonation. That seems rather challenging with surgically implanted explosives.

billswiftApril 1, 2010 2:49 PM

>I'll get to hand inspect evey passenger's bosom and butt.

They'll do it by seniority - new guys will only get to feel ugly male butts.

chrisApril 1, 2010 3:00 PM

>homicide bombers

i just can't take anyone seriously who uses this terminology. the whole reason that *suicide* bombers are a threat is that they die in the attack. the cost is the death of the suicide bomber; the benefit is careful and incognito placement of the explosives.

homicide, well, that just means killing people. it literally means killing people. all explosives that kill at least one person are "homicide bombings". suicide bombings are a small, unique, and special subset of homicide bombings.

"homicide bomber": it's a phrase you never want to use to describe a suicide bomber. unlearn it.

Robert AccetturaApril 1, 2010 3:06 PM

Rectal insertion of bombs is nothing new.

That makes me wonder... if your willing to kill yourself, would you really not be willing to undergo surgery in an attempt to hide a bomb?

IMHO stuffing some C4 in condoms and surgically implanting them in a fat person or breast implants isn't that unlikely. The trick is detonation, but perhaps that can be done either remotely, or via a minor operation in the restroom with an accomplice.

It's likely more effective to implant and then remove rather than detonate internally given the amount you can carry.

I'd be more concerned about someone flying with fresh scars than someone with large breasts.

mcbApril 1, 2010 3:17 PM

What a way to go! One second you're leering at the hottie in the exit row, the next you're explaining yourself at the pearly gates...

bobApril 1, 2010 4:01 PM

@ C at April 1, 2010 2:36 PM
"... I've not heard of any female suicide bombers ..."

Heard anything about the Moscow subway recently?

J.D.April 1, 2010 4:26 PM

@mvario:
"The terrorists won when Congress passed the "Patriot Act"."

Not true. They didn't win -- we lost. Ordinarily our losing would imply their winning, but it turns out this is one of those games where everyone can lose.

MailmanApril 1, 2010 4:45 PM

I imagine terrorists laughing together in a cave:

Terrorist #1: "We covered shoes, underwear and bottled water. What should we make Americans panic about now?"
Terrorist #2: "What about breast implants?"
Everybody (laughing): "Brilliant!"
Chief terrorist: "Breast implants it is. Let's scribble it in Arabic on a piece of paper so it looks like we're serious. Abdul, get FOX News on the line."

Sophia KattApril 1, 2010 4:50 PM

Why all the objections? This implant idea makes for a FABULOUS movie plot. Let's start casting for it. Pamela Anderson can play the lead.

... yeah, right!April 1, 2010 5:05 PM

So, these would be "kabazooms"?

As for the failed "ass bomber" ... maybe he should have aimed?

Freedom DefinedApril 1, 2010 6:18 PM

But I thought the body scanners were supposed to protect us!

Pretty soon we'll only be able to take 10 flights per year due to excessive xraying.

AntonApril 1, 2010 6:53 PM

@David,

"Does this mean that the TSA gets the authority to feel someone's breast? I think I have found a new career"

Doesn't work. Too many false positives.

PackagedBlueApril 1, 2010 8:58 PM

Thankfully Bruce has responsibly April fools news, funny, weird, and true, with EXPLICIT -- Not an April fools day joke notice.

Sorry, but I hate April fools day, I really would end it. A great day to attack the USA and cause mayhem.

spaceman spiffApril 1, 2010 9:52 PM

"Why all the objections? This implant idea makes for a FABULOUS movie plot. Let's start casting for it. Pamela Anderson can play the lead."

Actually, I vote for Dolly Parton! :-)

NobodyApril 2, 2010 12:13 AM

Remember this is an organisation which despite of a century of terrorist attacks hasn't proved a link between Sin Fein and the IRA - yet within days of the 9/11 attack announced they had details of 400 terrorist cells in the UK.

Still makes a change from taping royals phone calls

a.April 2, 2010 12:28 AM

So now they'll justify adding someone to feel the front of the women (and back of the men), as in those naked scanners aren't enough?
And perhaps as added precaution add everyone with bigger than F cups to the no-fly list?
Would this make a market for explosive neuticles too, or would the suicide bombers count on needing their original tools in paradise?

stubuApril 2, 2010 2:24 AM

hysterical != impossible

rather ask: does it correspond to the mindset of the potential perpetrators?

a problem I often see is that the west seems to be more inventive than real terrorists, and divulging such ideas might inspire them

A Nonny BunnyApril 2, 2010 2:43 AM

Would it be possible to hide the detonator as a pacemaker implant? It's a bit of an odd combination, having breast implants and a pacemaker, but neither should arouse suspicion on a body scan.

RonKApril 2, 2010 3:38 AM

The image doesn't look so much to me like it's been digitally manipulated. The resolution is too low to really be sure. To me, it looks more like someone (with the skillz of a 6-year-old) built a "bomb" from cheap colored paper (the "bomb" seems to actually deform the implant underneath it, but again, it's hard to be sure).

TuttleApril 2, 2010 6:40 AM

It's a logical next step. Full body scanners were not enough. Now they want to touch them, too. Those people are sick.

jacobApril 2, 2010 9:40 AM

Great now the NSA are going to be looking at profiles on myspace and others.
Instead of looking for 36-24-36 as usual, they will be looking for c4-24-36.
I rather dislike implants as a matter of principle, but this is funny!
Look out for the guy in the fat suit packed with explosives. It would be easier. I can't speak hebrew on airplanes now. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general population.

JoeApril 2, 2010 10:29 AM

Actually small explosive devices require shrapnel to do most of their damage. So the woman with the breast implants would need to wear a breastplate too.

On the other hand, bone can act as shrapnel too. The thicker the bone the more effective. So the real danger is using political hacks as suicide bombers. Their skulls are quite thick, and most of their brain can be removed without causing any dysfunction since they never use it leaving a lot of room for implanted explosives.

DurandalApril 2, 2010 10:48 AM

Wouldn't this end up like a human equivalent of a claymore mine? Rectal bombing has already proven itself to be pretty useless, as the human body is remarkably adept at absorbing explosive force.

Two things to check for: a FRONT TOWARD ENEMY tattoo, and wires coming out of the boobs. Although I suspect they would use a radio transmitter, so maybe wrapping all women with implants in tin foil would be a good preventive measure.

jgrecoApril 2, 2010 10:54 AM

"Female homicide bombers"

What the heck? Homicide should kind of be implied in any bombing incident, the unique part that should be explicitly noted is the bomber has no plans of living through their own attack.

Aside from demonstrating that they can't analyse the stories they post properly, it is totally weird to read an article that uses two separate and unequal terms to describe the same thing. Somebody needs to send whoever did this to a writing class.

The article at The Sun says "FEMALE suicide bombers are being fitted with exploding breast implants which are almost impossible to detect" but the article at Fox says, "Female homicide bombers are being fitted with exploding breast implants which are almost impossible to detect,". Appears to be a deliberate act of idiot-ification. Unfortunately the name of the editor is not given...

jacobApril 2, 2010 11:59 AM

@joe "Actually small explosive devices require shrapnel to do most of their damage. So the woman with the breast implants would need to wear a breastplate too."

That's a good point. I suppose that the underwear bomber should have been wearing a cod piece. If he had managed to set it off. He would have simply shot his Pe**ker into the seat cushions. A boy scout could have started a fire with two sticks. This guys is unable to perform//

houston we can not do this with the tools at hand. rather, TSA or terrorists can not.

KevinApril 2, 2010 12:11 PM

This is laughable, but let's consider "why", via Cost / Benefit:


COST
To pull this off (where "this" is taking down a large airliner full of, say, 300 passengers), you need:
1) a very compact but powerful explosive with a very sophisticated triggering mechanism.
2) A willing participant (cultural constraints may play a role - I bet a large fraction of already few-and-far-between women willing to die for Isalmic fundamental beliefs would have major issues with body enhancement surgery)
3) A well-trained extremist surgeon who is adept at handling explosives.
4) Facilities for the surgery.


I'd estimate the overall cost for the recruitment and training of the above parties, obtaining the facilities and explosives, would likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It would also require some level of involvement of at least 10 individuals (any of whom could be compromised); and would take at least 1 year to work from start to end. These latter points aren't directly monetary, but I'd think of them as the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars more in terms of cost. I feel fairly comfortable stating that the whole operation would need a budget of at least $1 million.


"BENEFIT" = the expected value of the operation in terms of Americans killed:
(# of people on a flight) *
(probability of plot working) *
(probability of explosives actually having enough "bang" to take a large airline down)
+
(# of people near the detonator) *
(probability of plot working) *
(probability of explosives actually having only enough "bang" kill proximate parties)

Bearing in mind the insanely large number of ways this plot could go awry (it's mind boggling, really), I'd put the expected value of the "kill benefit" at about:
300 * 5% * 10% + 20 * 5% * 70%
= 3

Which amounts to paying $300,000 per life taken. Compare this to getting ahold of a loaded hand-gun (I hear you can search ceiling panels of pbathroom stalls in urban areas for a free-bee, but let's assume you buy it on the black market for $1000. Carry it on a crowded bus. Go to the back. Wait until people are settled in, then just star shooting.

I think it's being conservative to state that you'd probably get a kill count of about 10, on average. = $10 per kill.

Frankly, I really, really wish we were up against an enemy who's math skills were so wanting.

mcbApril 2, 2010 12:56 PM

@ willmore

"I, for one, refuse to be terrorized by large breasted women!"

There's a nasty limerick in there somewhere...

MalvolioApril 2, 2010 2:28 PM

When you were talking about "movie plot threat", I thought you meant action movies. This would make a good plot for a porn movie. All we need now is a good title...

daughterofeveApril 2, 2010 4:34 PM

This implant nonsense is just ideal for the worst case scenarios card pack--special misogynist edition.

Clive RobinsonApril 2, 2010 6:11 PM

As some of you may know various adult entertainment movies with low costume budgets have been sort of renamed from more main stream films.

On such was named after the film of the Ian Flemming Childrens book "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" by replacing each Ch with a T.

It strikes me in passing that this "movie plot" of exploding breast implants would be aptly titled the same...

Clive RobinsonApril 2, 2010 6:45 PM

@ Kevin,

"To pull this off (where "this" is taking down a large airliner full of, say, 300 passengers)"

You have made the same mistake we all made a while ago with the "liquid bomb" plot. We assumed the point was to bring the aircraft down...

Sorry the point of these pointless bombers such as Capt. Underpants and Cpl Hotfoot is not to do any real damage let alone bring the aircraft down.

If they take out an aircraft then there is a very real chance (over water) it might be treated as an "air accident" not a "terrorist attack".

Thus the whole point is the attack should fail in a way which clearly gets identified as a terrorist attack.

Thus a woman leaping up in economy screaming "alla be praised" ripping her blouse open and having her breasts redecorate the inside of the plane would be about the best it's going to get as far as scare tactics go.

After all "red bloodied American males" are supposed to think about sex every 15 seconds (or whatever the latest research says ;). So this would be (almost) the ultimate "American Male Nightmare" personified...

Jill GatesApril 2, 2010 6:47 PM

Well, of course this calls for stringent breast screening in all airports.

Alternatively, a ban on all breasts.

BF SkinnerApril 3, 2010 4:52 PM

@Clive "this "movie plot" of exploding breast implants would be aptly titled the same..."

Ms Kiss Kiss boom boom?

AAAaronsenApril 3, 2010 8:21 PM

Sorry, in advance:

Boob bombs or just boo bombs? Is that the question?
Whether 'tis oglers who will find out terror
To sling their baggage with outrageous fortune,
Or take in our arms to then feel for bubbles
And, by exposing, end them? To try, to feel,
No, more! And by feeling say we end
The bomb blasts and the thousand cultural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a resolution
Devoutly to be wished : To die, to feel;
To feel: to chance the dream: Say, there's the rub;
For in that feel comes death to dreams so dumb
When we have triggered off this mortal coil,
That just blows up: where's the respect
That stops calamities to keep long life?
For who would bear the bombs' fuses' time,
The hard pressure's bang, the proud man's being sly,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and shoes taken,
When passengers see the unworthy takes
What he himself might his jollies make
With a bare bodkin? Who would farces bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary wife,
But that the dread of something causing death,
Undiscover'd by TSA, from whose bum
No traveller returns, fizzles the will
And makes us rather bear these ills we have
Than fly with others that we know not of?
Security makes cowards of us all;
Plus our native hue of revolution
Is stickled over by pale cast of rays,
As enterprise of great spirit in the moment
Regard these current acts turned awry,
And lose the call to action. - Soft, you now!
The fair will feel all, in thy derisions
Be all thy sins dismember'd.

AAAaronsen April 4, 2010 10:10 PM

A second-thought version 2.0 of FemLet

Boob Bombs or just Boo Bombs? Is that the question?

Whether 'tis oglers who will find out terror
Or sling our baggage to outrageous fortune,
Or take in our arms to then feel for bubbles
And, by exposing, end them? To try, to feel,
No, more! And by feeling say we end
The bomb blasts and the thousand cultural shocks
That flash is heir to? 'Tis a resolution
D.H.S. wants be wished : To die, to feel!

To feel: to chance the dream: Say, there's the rub!

For in that feel comes death to dreams so dumb
When we have triggered off this mortal coil,
That just blows up: where's the respect
That stops calamities to keep long life?

For who would bear the bombs' fuses' time,
The hard pressure's bang, the proud man's being sly,
The pangs that despise love, the law's delay,
The insolence of the search and shoes taken,
When passengers see those Unworthy take
When he himself left to his jollies make
With her bare bodkin? Who would farces bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something causing death,
Undiscover'd by T.S.A., from whose burn
No traveller returns, fizzles the will,
And makes us rather bear these ills to save
Than fly with others that we know not of?

Security makes cowards of us all;

Plus our native cue to revolution
Is stickled over by pale cast X-rays,
Thus enterprise of great expense in the moment
Plays at these current acts turned awry,
Pay loose the call to action. - Soft, you now!

The fair will feel all, in thy derisions
Be all thy sins - dismember'd.

GreenSquirrelApril 6, 2010 7:07 AM

Sadly I was offline when this was posted and all the good responses have already been taken, so I just wanted to say hi and *cough*IPostedTheLinkAgesAgoButNoOneReadsURLSinComments*cough* thanks to every one....

phred14April 7, 2010 7:26 PM

Let's pretend for a moment we were getting real about this...

Someone talked about conservative Muslim women not wanting "enhancement surgery" because of the vanity. Someone else argued about looking for sudden appearance changes in bust size. To begin, radical suicide bombers have already justified many things for the cause, this is just one more. To give at least a partial solution to both problems, begin with a radical mastectomy - appearance changes could be minimized, and you get more volume for explosive - more bang for the buck. Plus for a given amount of explosive, the bomber can remain more modest. Heck, pick suicide-bomber inclined breast cancer patients.

Along the line of exploiting the female form, there's a lot more room for explosives in a fake pregnancy than in a pair of fake breasts. Or go for both.

As if this whole idea need be dignified by any sort of practical considerations.

JRSApril 13, 2010 1:59 PM

"Terrorist #1: "We covered shoes, underwear and bottled water. What should we make Americans panic about now?""

"Well, of course this calls for stringent breast screening in all airports.
Alternatively, a ban on all breasts."

Or a ban on women travelling - maybe the aim of the whole plot is to make panicked American politicians bring women's rights back to the dark ages...

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..