Vulnerability to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Terrorism
Introduction
A key issue in Homeland Security and Emergency Management today is the country 's vulnerability to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism. The increasing proliferation of CBRN weapons all over the world is a primary security challenge due to their indiscriminate and destructive nature. CBRN weapons inflict physical damage, provoke panic, and result in societal, as well as economic disruption. As such, this form of terrorism is a major source of concern for emergency response organizations and departments in the United States. Despite the relatively low rates of utilization by state and non-state actors today, the risk posed by CBRN weapons is too high for security organs to simply ignore. A principal incentive for CBRN terrorism across the world is its ability to disrupt entire state sectors and cause widespread contamination. As a result, it is important to study a nation 's vulnerability to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism.
Research Question
1. What is the relationship between the rate of proliferation of CBRN weapons and the country 's vulnerability to CBRN terrorism?
Research Hypotheses
1. The rate of proliferation of CBRN weapons has a direct impact on the country 's vulnerability to CBRN terrorism.
2. There is a correlation between the nature of terrorist groups and a country 's level of vulnerability to CBRN
The development of the technology and escalating of the threat in the Middle East, global
While hijacked airplanes on 9/11 caused the most fatalities of any single terrorist incident, the majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by conventional explosives and secondary devices. This is a broad category that includes incendiary devices, pressure bombs, car bombs, and any other explosive device. These weapons are low cost, low tech, and easy to construct. Out of the five CBRNE categories, explosives are by far the most likely hazard to be encountered (FEMA,
Since their desired effect is ‘shock and awe’, WMD would be an attractive option to a cowardly force, seeking to inflict the most psychological and physical effects. Not all attacks require ‘mass casualty’ status to garner attention. According to the National Counterterrorism Council (2008), 11,800 terrorist attacks resulted in 54,000 deaths, injuries, and kidnappings. Excluding the outcome of 9/11, al Qaeda employs close-range attacks and generally inflicts casualties to small numbers. Since overt forces are stronger in the Middle East, I would anticipate a CBRN attack within their homeland, as the indigenous framework of sympathizers and extremists can deliver a larger-scale and better-organized attack. In consideration of Yamin’s (2013) findings, countries with terrorist links, such as Syria and Pakistan have publicly declared they produce and stockpile CBW. If terrorists receive financial backing and political shelter from these countries, there is a possibility of these weapons coming into their
The Quadrennial Homeland Security review suggest six strategic challenges that will drive the overall risk to the nation over the next five years. These six risks include: the terrorist threat; growing cyber threats; biological concerns; nuclear terrorism; transnational criminal organizations; and natural hazards (DHS, 2014). The terrorists threat is, arguably, the most publicized and popular of the six risks the DHS lists. The particular risk is unique in the fact that although it can be planned for and mitigated against by state and local governments, it is primarily a federal responsibility, or at least perceived so by most entities. The DHS itself was established due to the events of September 11th 2001 and it has since been a consistent
With the events that happened on September 11, 2001, the American people and all government leadership realized that the U.S. was fight a whole new other type of war. The U.S. has dealt with foreign terrorist networks abroad and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. With the tragic event of 9/11, it became something of a nightmare because no American in history had the knowledge to deal with this kind of attack. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) wants nothing more than to destroy America and the threat of another attack is imminent but, when? Every year these FTO’s will evolve and want to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN).
Prevent terrorism and enhancing security: this is best accomplished by prevention of terror attacks and the acquisition of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) materials in addition to controlling our critical infrastructure vulnerability’s.
The fear of a Chemical or Biological attack has been a concern to many governments. These attacks, either by state agencies or individuals, have caused loss of life and the United States has not been spared in this forms of attacks.
The likelihood of terrorist groups using CBRN weaponry is high, furthermore the prospects of al Qaeda and/or other sub-state groups acquiring and using a CBRN in either a foreign country or the United States is likewise not just high, but merely a matter of time.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is a multifaceted organization, providing expertise to America and our allies in order to reduce the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction. This organization was developed to mitigate the potential threat, providing reach-back capabilities, eliminate, and reduce the usage of any chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosives. We will discuss the creation of the organization, the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization (JIDO), and the DTRA reach back capabilities.
For the reading this week it would seem clear that at a minimum terrorist groups are very interested and motivated to gain access to a CBRN weapons or Weapon of Mass Destruction. This new focus for terrorist groups is a focus that has comes with some very real concerns for the Homeland Defense and Homeland Security industries. As, Sinai, eludes too in his work, “The Evolving Terrorist Threat: The Convergence of Terrorism, Proliferation of WMD, and Enabling Conditions in Weak and Strong States”, terrorist have a criminal network they use for fundraising. This network often includes drug trafficking, which by nature has sophisticated smuggling operations. This same network could potentially be used to smuggle proliferated CRBN weapons or Weapons
Bioterrorism presents a very unique threat to the United States. A biological attack can be hard to immediately detect and poses many collection challenges to the Intelligence Community. A small vial of anthrax can go undetected in the pocket of an individual through an airport, government facility, or one of the many other areas that usually have significant security designed to prevent conventional terrorist attacks. A small amount of a biological agent can do a significant amount of damage. How can the Intelligence Community counter bioterrorism threats? This is the question this research paper aims to answer.
Terrorists today are more than unlikely to use WMD in the future as they fear retaliation from the target country, also states that supply and train. terrorist groups cannot completely control them and they have no guarantee that a terrorist group would not use WMD against them. This article analysis shows that there is a need for more research that will explain how events and situations will make an impact on a terrorist group's decisions about using WMD. Only then can we appropriately analyze the threat of the future use of WMD by terrorists. To continue to prepare for the future use of WMD, governments should boost the training of efficient response personnel and increase funds to proliferation, research and development programs such as
It is the fear that sticks in the back of many national security and policy planners minds: What is the potential devastation if a terrorist organization was able to get their hands on and detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil. For decades, experts and analysis have debated the possibility of these threats and the magnitude of their impacts. Brian Michael Jenkins' book, Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?, explores the fascinating history of nuclear terrorism and dives into the potential motives of nuclear inclined groups and details the probability of an actual terrorist nuclear attack. According to Jenkins, the concerns of those that foresee a nuclear terror attack on the US homeland are actually overblown. The history and analysis of terrorist attempts and ambitions to go nuclear reveal a complex yet clear picture of hype, fearmongering, and anxiety that illustrates the unnecessary fascination with anticipating a nuclear calamity that will not come.
Risk management is an essential task the United States federal government is responsible for. The governments role is to protect its citizens from domestic and foreign threats such as an WMD attack. One way to break down different WMD attacks is using the Impact/ Probability chart, this chart offers a helpful framework that assists what threats are attention worthy. Probability is the likelihood of something happening, while impact always is associated with a negative effect but the impact can vary depending on costs and impacts on infrastructure, human life, and health. This chart offers a way to rate possible risks on these two measurements. The different WMD attacks will be measured based on low impact/low probability, low impact/high
Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party