Suppose we lost all our electrical power for an extended period, maybe years? Can’t happen? We hope not. But there keep popping up on the Internet posts on the dire consequences of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) striking the Earth from space. Many of them are inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s concern about the subject.

“An EMP,” advises The National Terror Alert Response Center,  ”is typically described as occurring when a nuclear weapon is detonated at a high altitude, resulting in a high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy caused by the rapid acceleration of charged particles. The second scenario involves massive explosions on the sun’s surface (“space weather”).” It’s said that an EMP could send the U.S. back to the 18th Century, just like that.

Don’t mean to spoil your weekend, but Eric Hannis has an article on EMPs in the “Defense Dossier” of the American Foreign Policy Council. As a security challenge, they’re well worth being mindful of, understatement though that might be.

So al-Qaeda has developed a new underwear bomb that will be difficult for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to detect at airports. So TSA might not be worth its upkeep?

Not at all, writes Jeffrey Sural on Security Debrief. Sniping at TSA, he argues, “…fails to recognize that the current passenger checkpoint screening and machinery have forced al-Qaeda to resort to desperate attempts at bomb concealment with far less explosive impact.”

“If we as the public are to accept a risk-based approach to airport securty,” Sural adds,  ”we have to recognize the mission is to reduce, but not eliminate, the threat. In real-world terms, this means that we accept that an attack will be successful in the future but that our current security system will have prevented a catastrophe and a complete shut-down of the aviation system.”

The same can be said of site security efforts and, indeed, security precautions in general. They’re not perfect; they may not prevent any and all intrusions. But they increase the odds against truly devastating events – and are well worth the precautions being taken.

The five individuals the FBI arrested this week for planning to blow up a Cleveland-area bridge had no connection to Islamist extremism; they are said to be, notes the Heritage Foundation’s Jessica Zuckerman, “self-proclaimed anarchists.” Yet, Ms. Zimmerman adds, they were caught in “the same manner as the majority of the 50 thwarted Islamist-inspired plots since 9/11: through the concerted efforts of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement.”

Hence the value of an “all-threats” approach to terrorism, like the “all hazards” approach used in the context of natural disasters. Al-Qaeda-related threats may be among the most worrisome, but others aren’t to be dismissed either, as the Cleveland incident showed.

The best defense, therefore, is to maintain cooperative planning and response among local law enforcement, security personnel and federal agencies, just as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) enlists a great deal of assistance in responding to natural disasters. Ms. Zuckerman gets more specific about preparedness against terrorist threats in her Heritage Foundation post.

A great security resource, Security Management magazine published by the American Society of Industrial Security (ASIS), is now available online. There are both interactive ASIS member editions and a public edition.

The digital version takes some getting used to, but not much. Basically, you use the forward and backward arrows at the top of the digital page display. Then Security Management’s contents are searchable and readable in a breeze.

You need, of course, an efficient broadband connection to accomplish all this. But once available, the digital edition of Security Management is a brisk, efficient way to keep up with the field. Valued articles or other information can be bookmarked, and the digital edition won’t pile up on an office stack.

“Future Works” is a once-digitalized trove of al Qaeda information that has come to light.  Its more than 100 documents include envisioned attacks on cruise ships and Mumbai-style forays in Europe.

We note the revelation of the documents via the National Terror Alert Response Center for security awareness at a time when al Qaeda seems diminished but remains as virulent as ever in its stance toward America and the West.

While it has little or nothing to do with earthbound security, the Space Shuttle’s retirement is a poignant moment for practitioners of technology, including us at PRO Barrier. The Shuttle’s missions lifted horizons and hearts, and they will be greatly missed.

It’s sad, in this Security Debrief post, to learn that  the Shuttle’s engineers were reduced to buying some of their parts of late from eBay.

Here’s the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s posting on its Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standard (CFATS), issued last month as an interim final rule. They’ve been in the works since 2006, if not earlier.

The rules cover chemical manufacturing facilities of all levels, including oil refineries, several of which are protected by PRO Barrier’s systems. Chemical facilities are required to develop Security Vulnerability Assessments, along with Site Security Plans.

This all represents an appropriate security emphasis on facilities that might otherwise be highly vulnerable to devastating harm.

Getting security procedures right – that is, with reliable results – can be tough. Witness the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) efforts to detect would-be air travelers with a terrorist bent.

Bruce Schneier notes that 3,000 TSA “behavior detection” officers questioned 50,000 air travelers in 2010, and arrested 300 of them, “none of whom turned out to be terrorists.”  Yet, reports the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “behavior detection teams apparently let at least 16 individuals allegedly involved in six subsequent terror plots slip through eight different airports.”

Schneier discounts the second assertion, saying that there haven’t been six terror plots between 2010 and today. Even so, TSA officers have a tough, often thankless, job. Indeed, that’s the lot of many security officers who keep trying to do their best. It’s a tough role.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been promoting its “Whole Community” approach to emergency management – a great concept as far as it goes. But it presumes that communities – whole-scale or corporate (we might add) – are equipped for effective, coordinated emergency response.

That’s not always the case, however, as Jessica Herrera-Flanigan notes in a Homeland Security Watch blog post. ”Sadly,” she writes, “some communities are more about struggle than success and a Whole Community approach means little if there is little to nothing to build upon. What do you do when there are few strengths on which to build?”

Answers to questions like this depend, first, upon being clear which sort of community you’re involved in – one that’s amply prepared and cooperative, or one that doesn’t quite get it. FEMA might still be helpful in terms of the latter situation, but you have to know the right questions to ask and answers to seek. So, as always, be clear about where you’re coming from in terms of community security and preparedness.

Hopefully, it won’t be for a while, if ever, that you’ll have to worry about this “Sand Flea” vehicle as a security threat. But imagine it’s potential for jumping fences! Or maybe you’d like to deal with a “Big Dog” approaching your gate, another fiendish prototype by Boston Dynamics.

Hopefully, neither  will ever enter your ken.