Should The United States Stop Chemical And Biological Terrorism?

“Bioterrorism remains a major threat for the United States despite more than $65 billion spent on protecting the country from myriad dangers, the Bipartisan WMD Terrorism Research Center said in its latest report Wednesday. The center's Bio-Response Report Card evaluated U.S. preparedness for countering threats from bioterrorism and found the country remains vulnerable to multiple threats and "largely unprepared for a large-scale bioterrorist attack."”(UPI.com, 2011). There have been over a dozen leading U.S. bio-defense experts that have taken part in figuring out where we are exactly as a county and what the effects of a terroristic attack

These biological agents could be viruses, toxins, bacteria, etc. Agents could be used in war or terrorist attacks. Also, they could be modified to cause extreme diseases and disorders, according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. It makes bioterrorism even more tempting to use as it is easy and inexpensive to produce, disseminate and can cause a more widespread panic than other acts of terrorism (1).

Welcome to week 4! This week we are discussing what consequences face the Nation if our chosen threat isn’t adequately addressed and whether we believe that it is being addressed adequately now. Of the six security challenges that are mentioned in the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, I have chosen to discuss biological threats. Biological terrorism is a scary prospect that should be a growing concern for the country. The reason for this is the ease at which a bio attack can be put into action. Depending on the level of intricacy of the attack, the effects could be isolated to one area or become a pandemic that spreads across the United States. Bioterrorism comes in many forms but as a general explanation biological

The chemical sector within the United States is a necessary element to the economy, security, and the well-being of personnel. The appeal of a chemical sector and the destruction it could create would be an ideal target for terrorists to strike. Facilities within the United States use, manufacture, store, transport, or deliver chemicals that encompass everything from petroleum, refineries, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and hardware stores (Department of Homeland Security, 2010). Multiple facilities that utilize chemicals could be exposed to a treat, which leaves the facility vulnerable to attacks. The consequences of the attack could be detrimental to both public health and safety; therefore, the goals for the chemical sector are to (Department of Homeland Security, 2010,

Chemical warfare, mastered by the Germans, was a savage form of fighting during World War I. This weaponry was effective in mass carnage, causing countries affected by Germany’s initial chemical attacks to begin formulating their own chemical weapons even though it went against their beliefs. Chemical warfare was revolutionary but was not an ideal weapon due to the lack of consistency and immoral brutality of the death that ensued.

The 1995 Sarin subway attack in Tokyo and the Anthrax letters scare along with multiple attempts by terrorists both at home and abroad have illustrated the fact that terrorists are not objected to using chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Sadam Hussein used Sarin and Mustard gas against his own Kurdish people and during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s (Laub, 2014, para. 23). Aum Shinrikyo carried out an attack using Sarin in 1995 (Fletcher, 2012, para. 1). Sarin was used on the Syrian people in an attack in 2013 (BBC.Com, 2013). Just this month, in the past two weeks, ISIS has become a suspect for carrying out a chemical attack against Kurdish forces (Wagner, 2015, para. 3).

After events such as 9/11, terrorism still instills fear into America’s population. Why? Simply because it is the one danger the American people cannot control. Biological terrorism is not always feared or worried about, but it is a genuine possibility and a lethal surprise that causes devastation. If not prepared, these deadly pathogens could easily kill large amounts of people. With tensions on the rise, what will the government or citizens do to defend themselves? If something happens, how will Americans be able to care for themselves and families? Bioterrorism is becoming a serious threat that needs to be eradicated to gain biosecurity and to ensure the safety of Americans.

Chemical Warfare is not the same as nuclear warfare, or the same as biological warfare. Chemical warfare involves using the deadly properties of chemical substances as weapons.Most weapons used in chemical warfare are considered to be“weapons of mass destruction” or, WMDs, and are not considered to be conventional weapons. Chemical warfare does not depend upon explosive force to neutralize targets; it depends on the chemical properties of a chemical agent weaponized. Defoliants are an example.They are used to kill off vegetation and deny its use of cover by the enemy. “Defoliants can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation but with protective equipment, and decontamination measures, the effects of

Throughout history different terrorist groups have used a variety of methods to attack innocent civilians and infrastructures. Groups such as Aum Shinirikyo, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other domestic terrorists have been known to attack innocent communities by using IEDs, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. Attacks, such as the Sarin Attack in Tokyo in 1995, is a prime example in which a terrorist group, Aum Shinirikyo, used a chemical nerve agent to attack citizens in Japanese subway. These chemical attacks as well as other WMDs pose unique threats for first responders. It is important to consider these threats as well as the time, location, number of anticipated causalities, and the type of chemical agent used when responding to a chemical attack. It is the responsibility of officials on a local, state, and federal level to facilitate not only the initial response in a chemical attack but also the recovery and cleanup efforts weeks after.

Experts believe that terrorist use of chemical agents is an event with low probability, but potentially high consequences. While terrorist groups may or may not have an increased interest in chemical agent acquisition and use, the domestic vulnerability of the United States to chemical attack remains an issue. Both the United States and Russia have signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and are reducing, and eventually eliminating, their chemical weapon stockpiles.1 The possibility that terrorist groups might obtain insecure chemical weapons led to increased scrutiny of declared Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles following the fall of the Qadhafi regime. Experts have expressed similar concerns regarding the

Chemical attacks conducted by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995 and the Iraqi government against the Kurdish people in the late 1980s have not had a significant impact on counterterrorism preparedness against chemical weapons in the United States. Even though Aum Shinrikyo had a level of expertise with chemical agents and the ability to produce them, it was proven that attacks of this nature are easy to carry out but difficult to gain the desired effect from. Initially, Aum thought their attack would kill thousands if not more however the generally poor quality of the sarin gas coupled with the inadequate dispersal devices degraded the attack’s effectiveness significantly (A case study on the Aum Shinrikyo, 1995, Sect 5, Para 3). Since this was the most effective chemical attack conducted by a non-state actor, one can readily see the difficulties involved in effectively dispersing gas, even in a relatively enclosed area. It is exactly these difficulties experienced by the Japanese terrorists that have led America into a relative calm over a threat of chemical terrorism as it would likely prove relatively ineffective in the absence of direct assistance from another nation.

The purpose of this essay is to deal with the fact that chemical warfare should be brought back to modern warfare strategies. As Warren Rudman said, “And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.” Rudman’s words are true in what they say and that we should do everything to counter-act his statement. Biological weapons are a key to outstanding success in war and therefore, I strongly suggest that chemical warfare is an effective and producible weapon tactic that can be used on today’s battlefield.

     Laqueur sheds enlightenment into a new arena for terrorism: Arms of Mass Destruction. The chemical and biological weapons of yesterday are available and relatively cheap on today’s open market. Mr. Laqueur goes into depth on previous usages by terrorist organizations using these types of weapons as well as the

Chemical weapons are deadly, in-humane, not safe, and overkill. They are consider WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and have been on the rise since the early 1900s. These weapons are past and present proof that chemistry can crossover into technology. And have a huge impact on society for decades.