The Perpetrators
The Oklahoma City Bombing is the 19 th day of April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building situated in Oklahoma City. After one of the largest investigations in American history at the time and perhaps in all history, four convictions were made on the perpetrators of the bombing. These investigations and convictions revealed the mastermind behind the attack to be Timothy James McVeigh (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . His accomplice was revealed as Terry Lynn Nichols. Two other minor parties to the conspiracy were Michael and Lori Fortier. McVeigh can be described as a fallen patriot. As a soldier in the US Army, he served with distinction and even applied for a position in the Special Forces. His disenchantment with America can be traced back to his failure to succeed in the said application. On his own admission, however, it was the Ruby Ridge standoff of 1992 and the 1993 Wako Siege that encouraged fundamentalist tendencies in McVeigh. The two incidences involved rights under the 2 nd Amendment, which McVeigh was a fanatic supporter of (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) .
McVeigh’s transformation from a patriot to a terrorist was gradual and the signs could have been noticed had someone been looking hard enough. He wrote letters to news desks and politicians which when pieced together provide a clear roadmap of his transformation. Further, it has been conclusively established that he did not have any international help from a foreign enemy of the US. This makes the incident one of purely domestic in nature. Nichols was a friend of McVeigh whom he met during his brief engagement with the US Army. It was Nichols who provided the technical support without which McVeigh might never have succeeded (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . The Fortiers did not play an active part in the bombing save for limited facilitation but were in a position to warn the government about it and failed to.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Validity of the Motivation
Guns and Tax laws were the main motivation for McVeigh. The 2 nd Amendment has been a contentious issue in America and McVeigh was averse to any limitation on gun ownership in America. Further, upon his discharge, McVeigh had a hard t ime retaining a job and always complained about the taxes (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . He had even hinted of civil war being necessary to curb runaway taxation by the government. It was, however, the guns issue that is mainly credited for turning McVeigh the patriot into a terrorist. Two gun-related incidences; the Ruby Ridge standoff of 1992 and the 1993 Wako Siege involved gun charges (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . They were also clearly mishandled by law enforcement, leading to the deaths of innocents, including children. This were incidences of the government, following an American to his home because of his gun ownership, which is a constitutional right, and eventually killing members of his family including women and children. These two incidents deeply offended McVeigh and it is on the second anniversary of the Waco siege that McVeigh undertook the terror attack. There is absolutely no justification for blowing up innocent people in their place of work, but there is definitely some legitimacy in McVeigh’s motivation.
Known Planning of the Attack
The FBI interviewed a total of over 28,000 witnesses, collected over 1 billion pieces of evidence totaling over 3.5 tons. They, therefore, got a very clear picture of each and every element of the bombing including the preparation thereof. Further, McVeigh was extremely outspoken about his plans during the rundown to his execution (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . The first aspect of the planning was picking a target. McVeigh wanted to hurt the government and, therefore, needed a building housing federal agents. He, however, also intended to minimize civilian casualties. The Murrah building was picked because it housed over 15 federal agencies and would also minimize civilian casualties due to its location vis-à-vis adjoining buildings. Preparing for the attack was made with military meticulous discipline and great tact. Explosive material included fertilizers, which were bought in two batches by McVeigh and Nichols at different times and places (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . Most of the ammunition were given and also stolen from Roger E. Moore. The truck was hired from Ryder System, Inc. using a fictitious name. The actual building of the bomb was done within days of the actual attack by both McVeigh and Nichols. The main explosive material used was ammonium nitrate fertilizer and nitromethane acquired on the pretext that it would be used for motorcycle racing. 160 kilos of Seismopac water-gel explosive was also used. So meticulous were the planners that they even prepared a small test-bomb and exploded it in the desert. As a redundancy plan, McVeigh was prepared to explode the bomb himself and shoot himself in the head before the main explosives went off (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . Finally, the explosives were arranged in the truck so that the bulk of the impact would go to the Murrah building, limiting damage to the other building in the vicinity. McVeigh also left a getaway car a few block away days before the explosion.
Would the Police Have Identified the Plan Earlier?
Had the Oklahoma bombing been done post-2001 , definitely law enforcement agents would have realized what had been going on in time to thwart the attack. The purchase of such a high amount of fertilizer by two individuals who do not have a reputation as farmers would have been flagged. Establishing a connection between the two would have resulted in an inquiry which would have thwarted the attack. However, this was in 1995 and the legal war between privacy and security was still being won by privacy battle after battle until 2001. It must, however, be noted that most of the terror-fighting tools available to law enforcement today are based on technology that was nascent in 1995. The proliferation of the internet was only beginning so was the use of mobile phones. Finally, the training and discipline that both McVeigh and Nichols got from military training made it difficult for them to make the kind of slip-ups necessary to get caught under the circumstances (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) .
Actual Attack and Level of Success
The actual attack took place on the 19 th day of April 1995 at 9 AM . The bulk of the work having been done during the preparation stage, McVeigh alone simply drove the truck at around 8:50 am under a daycare center inside the Murrah building. He then set a two minute delayed detonation device and simply walked away, dropped the keys to the track several meters away, got into the getaway vehicle and drove off (Gilbert & Hesterman, 2016) . At exactly 9:02 am , the 4,800 pound improvised explosive device within the bomb went off with an impact equivalent to 5,000 pounds of TNT. So massive was the explosion that the Seismometers at the Norman, sixteen miles away recorded a 3.0 Richter scale tremor. 168 people died from the blast with over 680 non-fatal injuries. Over 30% of the Murrah building was destroyed, which is a major feat and the building had been erected under federal building specifications (Gilbert & Hesterman, 2016) . The damage also spread to 324 other buildings with glass shattering in 258 building. Indeed, over 5% of the deaths were caused by shattering glass alone. The majority of the fatalities, however, were limited to the Murrah building. Pecuniary damage is estimated at over US$ 650 million. From the perspective of success, McVeigh as aforesaid intended to harm a federal building and kill federal officers so as to raise attention for his cause. He also intended to minimize civilian casualties. On the first count, the attack was a definite success but on the second count, it was not. The bombing hurt the innocent and hapless civilian populace around the site just as badly if not more, than it did the federal government (Gilbert & Hesterman, 2016) .
The Repercussions of the Attack
McVeigh believes that he succeeded bloodying the nose of the bully that was the US government and stopped its bullying activities. This statement is hard to dispute in the face of the fact that situations such as Waco have manifested after the bombing but have always been resolved without the inordinate use of force (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . The second impact was legislative in nature and involved the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This law provided one of the first victories in the war between security and fundamental rights. The laws of Habeas Corpus and kindred rules were lessened in a terror situation (Nasrallah, 2015) . Other legislations, rules, and regulations were passed to ensure the security of federal buildings. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in advancing security measures around federal buildings. This included the erection of security barriers around the buildings. Further, no traffic would be allowed within thirty meters of any building housing the FBI (Michel & Herbeck, 2015) . This made it extremely difficult for a terrorist to attack federal buildings in America.
Lessons from the Attack
When the attack took place, the immediate blame went to the traditional enemies of the USA, more so in the Muslim world. This was before research clearly showed it to be a domestic attack. The main lesson learned was avoidance of speculation before formal investigations have made headway. The second important lesson was that the government may be powerful, but not impregnable. A singular motivated individual can cause a lot of damage to the government with a little skill and good luck. The government must, therefore, be careful in its actions, to avoid giving legitimacy to the causes of its enemies.
References
Gilbert, P., & Hesterman, J. (2016). Terrorism: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. ED 601: Statutory, Legal, and Regulatory Basis of Defense Security Programs
Michel, L., & Herbeck, D. (2015). American terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing . BookBaby
Nasrallah, N. (2015). The Wall that AEDPA Built: Revisiting the Suspension Clause Challenge to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Case W. Res. L. Rev. , 66 , 1147
