U.S. and state
officials dismiss
Pearl terror plot

Reported schemes for a 9/11-style
hijacking are given no credence

---

By Sally Apgar
sapgar@starbulletin.com

State and federal officials scoffed yesterday at the credibility of the unidentified "single source" behind a published news report that al-Qaida was considering hijacking airliners from Honolulu Airport and crashing them into nuclear submarines or warships in Pearl Harbor.

At the same time, military officials also said yesterday that the state is at a "high-level readiness" for a terrorist act.

John Iannarelli, a special agent with the FBI in Washington, D.C., said, "According to people in our counterterrorism division, there is no information to indicate that this was a credible or viable threat." An account of the threat, based on a single anonymous source, was published yesterday in the Washington Times.

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye told the Star-Bulletin he was briefed two weeks ago on the alleged threat to Pearl Harbor.

"This is one of many (alleged threats) we have received throughout the year in regard to the whole country," said Inouye, ranking Democrat on a key Senate defense subcommittee.

"I suppose we can't take any information lightly and should always take this kind of information seriously. But I can assure you that the military has been alerted and that all of the necessary and appropriate steps have been taken to counter any sort of attack such as the one described by the Washington Times."

Maj. Charles Anthony, a spokesman for the Hawaii National Guard, agreed the threat was not real.

"We did not and do not think we have a credible threat," he said.

Anthony noted that on Feb. 7 the national threat assessment "went up one level to orange, and we here in Hawaii remained at guarded, or blue. If we felt we had a credible threat, we would have raised the threat assessment then."

On Feb. 10, higher security measures, including vehicle searches, were implemented at Honolulu Airport. Anthony and others said this was because the airport is secured by the federal Transportation Security Administration. Once the national code went to orange, the TSA was mandated to heighten security procedures. Anthony said the increased security had nothing to do with the hijack threat.

Last week, the state security level went down a notch to yellow.

At a state Capitol news conference yesterday, Gov. Linda Lingle dismissed the report as "gossip" that could harm the state's tourism industry.

"It is going to be tough enough to maintain our level of visitors without having these reports being thrown around," she said.

Lt. Cmdr. Jensin Summer, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Pacific Command, said, "Safety of our bases and personnel is a top priority, and we are at the appropriate level of security."

Richard Baker, a former American diplomat who now works at the East-West Center, said he is neither surprised nor panicked by the hijacking threat.

Baker said that after Sept. 11, 2001, "even the most outrageous events seem possible. And it would be irresponsible for the authorities not to check these things out. ... And in this case, the credibility of the source doesn't seem to be there."

Baker said he is relieved the United States is in the position of being able to uncover such potential threats and thwart them. "It's the possible attacks we don't hear about that could kill us," he said.

The Washington Times cited officials familiar with intelligence reports as saying al-Qaida was planning to take aim at Pearl Harbor because of its symbolic value. Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, which began U.S. involvement in World War II.

The newspaper said another reason al-Qaida considered targeting Pearl Harbor was because its military facilities are open from the air. The harbor is so close to Honolulu Airport that it is not possible to enforce the kind of no-fly zones that protect Washington, D.C., and other potential targets.

There are 18 nuclear-powered submarines and 12 ships based at Pearl Harbor, but many are currently deployed. The newspaper also said Hickam Air Force Base was also a possible target of a hijacked airliner.

Even though the threats appear baseless, they raise questions about what would happen if an airliner were crashed into a nuclear submarine. Several physicists said yesterday that it would not cause a nuclear explosion, but radioactive material from the sub's reactor core could escape into the air or the water.

"It would be a mess, but there wouldn't be a nuclear explosion," said Michael Jones, an associate physicist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Jones said, "It's out of the question for a submarine reactor to sustain the kind of nuclear chain reaction there is in a bomb."

But Jones said the strength of the submarine hull, which is designed to withstand great pressure, would be a factor in the spread of any radioactive contaminants from the reactor core. He said the intense steam from the reactor core could possibly split the hull. If the hull ruptures and the core is exposed and the vessel sinks, any radiation would be contained in the water. If the sub did not sink, gas could erupt into the air and carry with it some radioactive material.

"It could be like a miniature Chernobyl," said Jones.