The nature and tactics of explosive threats look to remain consistent in 2025. However, as everything in nature and life, the methods and technologies used to execute these threats are evolving.
Traditionally, terrorist explosive threats were assessed as occurring at ground or street level (e.g., explosive-laden cars, trucks, or boats). The Bomb Threat Standoff Cards issued by various federal agencies reflects this by depicting stand off circles indicating various zones in which injuries or damage could occur from a car bomb, vest, pipebomb or the like. However, operations at higher levels are now becoming more vulnerable.
Attacks on targets at higher elevations have long been an element of military conflicts where mortars, rocket-propelled munitions, and aerial bombs can easily access objectives above street level. However, the means of carrying out explosive attacks at these heights has become more readily available to non-military threat actors.
Drones now provide a method for executing precision attacks on elevated locations, allowing for smaller, more accurately targeted charges, as demonstrated by their use by Mexican cartels. Moreover, advancements in drone payload capacity have heightened the threat of deploying larger explosives. Spaces such as penthouse suites, executive offices, or business operations on upper floors are no longer beyond the reach of potential attackers.
In addition, the 2024 drone shows that wowed and awed us provide a potential glimpse of future threats, but perhaps not to the scale seen in these impressive shows. At least not yet.
Multiple smaller drone strikes, coordinated effectively, could pose significant structural challenges even to the most robust building or secured space. A fitting analogy would be that of hornets or bees: when provoked, they can swarm and overwhelm a would-be attacker.
I do not believe such an occurrence is likely to happen at scale in the United States in the near future due to the logistics challenge and footprint (i.e., obtaining the number of drones and explosives could be expensive and observable). Nonetheless, the threat is worth considering for longer-range operations that require enhanced security, especially abroad.
We cannot always be entirely prepared for all threats, and in some cases, we should not even try to be, as the risk is very low. However, we should remain vigilant. Making minor adjustments to our master plans, conducting security assessments, and examining critical nodes in our operations and facilities will go a long way in providing flexibility against future threats.
As always, understanding our weaknesses and making thoughtful considerations on when and where to accept risk is essential for strengthening our current and future resilience.