Volume 4, Issue 2 (2010)

The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 2010

Welcome to the second issue of volume 4 of the Journal of Physical Security (JPS). This is the first time that we have published two issues in the same year. This issue contains papers about securing houses of worship, estimating explosive blast damage, the differences between threats and vulnerabilities, and emerging new security paradigms.

As usual, the views expressed in the Journal of Physical Security are those of the respective authors and should not necessarily be ascribed to Argonne National Laboratory, UChicago LLC, or the United States Department of Energy.

There continues to be considerable enthusiasm for JPS on the part of the readership, but also a lot of trepidation among potential authors who are considering submitting manuscripts. (I know this because they often call me up with potential topics, worried about proceeding.) Authors who have published in JPS have found the process rewarding, have gained fresh insight into important security issues, and have educated a lot of readers on important security points. Please consider submitting a manuscript and encouraging colleagues and students to do likewise!

DOWNLOAD: PDF [57 pages, 2.7MB] - You may also download the articles separately (see below).

POSTED ON: Wed, Oct. 6, 2010 | UPDATED ON: Wed, Jul. 27, 2011

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), http://jps.anl.gov/

Editor’s Comments
Roger G. Johnston

Some rambling thoughts about physical security vs. cyber security, the importance of a stiff upper lip, patents and security, and how to spot Security Theater.

DOWNLOAD: PDF [8 pages, 121KB]

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), i-viii (2010), http://jps.anl.gov/

Paper 1 - Security Challenges for Houses of Worship
Brian M. Harrell

Violence in American Churches is on the rise; churches today are no longer safe havens from the violence of their communities and religious leaders face the unique challenge of providing an inviting and loving environment in the church without being mistaken for an easy target. Churches can no longer afford to ignore their security. The challenge for worship staff is preventing the potential victimization of worship members and visitors while asserting ones self as a “hard target” and maintaining the peaceful and welcoming milieu one expects at a house of worship. Unfortunately, the religious community is subject to many of the same hazards that secular organizations face. These include both external and internal threats which can come in the form of street criminals, white collar criminals, hate groups, terrorists, ideology groups, and others. Typically, congregations are not prepared at all or at best are prepared minimally for the risks these groups present. This paper addresses the specific security concern and suggests a simple plan for action.

DOWNLOAD: PDF [9 pages, 937KB]

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 1-9 (2010), http://jps.anl.gov/

Paper 2 - Probabilistic Estimates of Vulnerability to Explosive Overpressures and Impulses
David B. Chang and Carl S. Young

A probabilistic risk assessment procedure is followed to estimate the probability of protection at facilities from vehicle-borne explosions. Using truncated normal distributions for both the TNT equivalencies of the charge and the standoff distances, a probability for protection is calculated for a single degree of freedom (SDOF) blast protection design curve. Numerical examples are given for two representative design curves that give probabilities of protection of 80% and 91%.

DOWNLOAD: PDF [20 pages, 143KB]

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 10-29 (2010), http://jps.anl.gov/

Paper 3 - Viewpoint Paper: Being Vulnerable to the Threat of Confusing Threats with Vulnerabilities (*)
Roger G. Johnston

The following ideas are common, but I think quite wrong and thus myths: (1) A Threat without a mitigation is a Vulnerability. (2) A Threat Assessment (TA) is a Vulnerability Assessment (VA). (3) Threats are more important to understand than Vulnerabilities. (4) Many of the most common tools used for “Vulnerability Assessments” (whether true VAs or actually TAs) are good at finding Vulnerabilities...

(*) Editor’s Note: This paper was not peer reviewed.

DOWNLOAD: PDF [5 pages, 92KB]

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 30-34 (2010), http://jps.anl.gov/

Paper 4 - Viewpoint Paper: Changing Security Paradigms (**)
Roger G. Johnston

Any field is molded and constrained by its paradigms. A “paradigm” can be defined as: (1) a pattern, example, or model; (2) a mode of thought or practice; or (3) an overall concept or strategy accepted by most people in a given field. The field of security relies on a number of paradigms, both stated and unstated. Many of these are in the process of changing—or at least should change—in order to adapt to a rapidly changing world and to improve security effectiveness. This paper offers a brief, bulleted list of some security paradigms that I believe (perhaps currently more out of wishful thinking than empirical evidence) are in the process of changing. The new paradigms I identify here will, I believe, ultimately win out in the end over the old paradigms because they will result in better security. In my view, these emerging changes are worth monitoring and even carefully researching.

(**) Editor’s Note: This paper was not peer reviewed.

DOWNLOAD: PDF [13 pages, 126KB]

CITE as: The Journal of Physical Security 4(2), 35-47 (2010), http://jps.anl.gov/