The Power Of Terrorism: Weapons Of Mass Destruction

The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were the direct result of the failure of US agencies, ranging from the White House to airport security, to recognize vulnerabilities present in the various symptoms. The reason why these vulnerabilities were not acknowledged and repaired is that these various agencies were trapped in a cognitive dissonance cycle of thinking. After the Cold War, terrorism was seen as a regional problem (9/11 Commission, 92). The majority of terrorist groups were either groups sponsored by governments or militants trying to create governments (i.e. Palestine Liberation Organization). As a result, the tactics used for fighting terrorism were centralized mostly in the Middle East and were restricted to

The 9/11 terrorist attacks transformed America’s outlook on foreign policy. The attacks redirected the policy from containment of the Soviets during the Cold War about a decade prior, to one against terrorism, a so-called “war on terrorism.” The U.S. government attacked and overthrew the Talib government in return, destroying Al Qaeda’s Afghan bases. They turned their attention to Iraq and invaded it to remove any threat of weapons of mass destruction in spite of opposition from France, Germany, and Russia. The supporters and opposers of the war created new strains within the members of the NATO alliance.

On august 6th 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and 3 days later, they dropped another on the city of Nagasaki. The new weapons completely decimated the cities, and killed tens of thousands of people. Japan announced they would surrender to the allies a few days later on august 15. The United States justified their using of the bombs as a means to end the war without an invasion of Japan that would have resulted in thousands of more deaths on each side. While the Japanese did surrender shortly after the bombings, there is ample evidence to suggest that their surrender was imminent, and the use of the atomic bomb only accelerated peace. Through this essay, I will critically analyze justifications on the usage of the bombings, and potential results on this devastating new weapon.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 by international terrorist that destroyed the twin towers brought a new American culture of policy change on international terrorism. At first there was a unilateral war on terror and hardening of the United States national borders. The drastic measures ranged from tightening airport security to creating a new governmental Department of Homeland Security with an almost limitless money basis (Anderson, 2003). International cooperation on the war on terror as President Bush adopted a unilateral approach to strike and invade Iraq (United States Code 22 Section 2656F(d) 2013). The assumption of a global terrorism ring brought in a shift around the world to the risk of being attacked. The United States bore the

The government’s response to the September 11, 2001 events was quick and decisive. Government officials attributed responsibility for the attack to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. One result was an announced policy shift from deterrence to preemption, generally referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” (National Security Strategy, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html].) Given the potential consequences of terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction, government decision makers felt that the nation could not afford to sit back, wait for attacks to occur, and then respond. The nation was mobilized; combating terrorism and crippling Al Qaeda became top national priorities. The use of military force against different terrorist groups and infrastructure gained increasing acceptance in Government policy circles. In addition, a February 14, 2003, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030214-7.html] gave more emphasis to the role of international cooperation, law enforcement and economic development in countering terrorism.

The attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 were the direct result of the failure of US agencies, ranging from the White House to airport security, to recognize vulnerabilities present in the various symptoms. The reason why these vulnerabilities were not acknowledged and repaired is that these various agencies were trapped in a cognitive dissonance cycle of thinking. After the Cold War, terrorism was seen as a regional problem (9/11 Commission, 92). The majority of terrorist groups were either groups sponsored by governments or militants trying to create governments (i.e. Palestine Liberation Organization). As a result, the tactics used for fighting terrorism were centralized mostly in the Middle East and were restricted to

Until the mid seventies, the term nuclear terror was used predominately to describe the threat of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Since then, however, it has taken on a whole new meaning which many security experts feel poses a more serious threat to national security. In the past few decades, formal terrorist organizations have exploded planes out of the sky, bombed US military and diplomatic facilities abroad, and with the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombing incidents, they have even launched attacks on American soil.

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).

In 1945, the United States of America utilized breakthrough physics research to construct nuclear bombs which were then dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; this event was the beginning of weaponizing modern technologies for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Since the bombing of Japan during World War I, the use of bombs as the main means of terrorism has been the corner-stone in anti-terrorism preparedness and response. However, the use of commercial jetliners in the September 11th attacks in the United States ushered in an era of counter-terrorism where conventional WMDs were not the only resources that could be utilized in an attack. The use of modern technology for weapons of mass destruction has prompted the creation of

When the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred the United States responded in a manner which was seen as a traditional reaction to such an attack; it used its overwhelming superior military to invade the nation of Afghanistan. As Afghanistan was the operating base of the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, Al Qaeda, the invasion all but destroyed the group's operating capacity. But in response to the United States' apparent victory the terrorists have re-organized themselves into a looser confederation and turned to alternative methods of finance and operation. One could say that the success of the American military's answer to the September 11th attacks have created a new environment in which terrorists currently operate. This includes the use of the internet, unconventional alliances with international criminal organizations, as well the inception of the "lone wolf" terrorist. Faced with these new type of threats, the United States and its allies must find a way to identify and deal with them.

There are three major types of weapons of mass destruction and those are nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, and chemical warfare agents. These weapons share their potential for large-scale destruction and the indiscriminate nature of their effects, notably against civilians. WMD’s challenges our peace and security here in the United States. There is a strategy for dealing with weapons of mass destructions, and it is the three pillars, which are counter proliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management. The United States has tried to stop other countries; however, it has gotten to a point that if the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons, then the U.S. will use WMD as a response to the attack. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction in the possession of hostile countries and even terrorists, it is one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. The first strategy to combat WMD is counter proliferation to combat WMD use, counter proliferations are fully integrated into the basic doctrines, in trainings, and even equipping of all forces, since it is important for the U.S military and appropriate agencies to be prepared to deter and defend against any possible WMD event. With strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, in order to prevent states from acquiring WMD and missiles, we must enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral agreements, threat reduction assistance, and export controls. That is to slow and make it more costly to access sensitive technologies, materials, and expertise.

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

Weapons of mass destruction had been one of the fundamental arguments about the conflict. It was argued through the U.S and the British regimes that Iraq was in possession of weapons that were an extremely big risk to the security of western international locations and the security of the international locations within the area. They argued that intervention was to forcibly disarm a state that was no longer complying with the policies of the global community and which they argued became a massive danger. another goal of the battle of Iraq turned into to increment the security of america by abstracting a regime that posed a threat through contempt for the global network(Clark

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.

Terrorism poses a serious threat to the security of every nation; a worldwide problem that doesn’t recognize borders, nationality, or religion. These Non State Actors (NSA’s), entities engaging in international operations without the authority of an established nation are always looking for a better way to further their agenda. One of these ways is through the pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Most isotopes that can be utilized to create an operational device are easily tracked due to their radioactive signature, and the technology is rare making it difficult to acquire a feasible nuclear program. The next best thing is to instill fear and panic, is chemical and Biological weapons. The only way to deter these actions is to actively monitor precursor, sources, and the organizations and groups which have expressed interest in creating a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) program.