Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Terrorism has become popular among extremists who are employing different dynamic strategies to thrive in their agenda. Understanding the terror groups is fundamental principle to overcome them or counter the sects. Modern terrorism has additionally advanced. Today 's assaults are less incessant, however all the more savage. Terrorists beforehand acted like renegades trying to connect with the foe (Miller, 2013. This was trailed by a period of kidnappings and plane hijackings. States create first class counter-terrorist strengths, extraordinarily prepared at prisoner transaction and salvage. Like the youngster 's amusement - paper-scissors-stone the following phase of advancement was the appropriation of bombings as the favored strategy (Roberts, 2014). Bombs can be delivered from basic materials, put and exploded remotely, with generally okay to the planes and little open door for counter-terrorist strengths to catch them. Terror groups like the IRA, Al-Qaida, ISIS and Boko

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

Since 9/11 attacks, the counter terrorism and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become the top national security priorities. The Obama administration has exercised prodigious efforts to fight with terrorism, stooping Iran Nuclear programme and drawing red-line for Syrian use of chemical weapons. To safeguard the security of US citizens, it is most important

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

1. There are three defined intelligence approaches to WMD/Terrorism. These are the Strict Constructionist approach, the Unilateralist Approach, and the Reasonable Necessity approach. Those who believe in the Constructionist approach believe in “...non-violent methods of conflict resolution” and they are “...skeptic of military force and intervention...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 483). People that are into the Unilateralist approach are completely different from those in the Constructionist approach, in which that they believe that “...states have a right to use self-defensive force against some states that have, or will soon have, WMD capabilities-even absent identifiable plants for imminent attack...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 485).

However, in the months following this Resolution, evidence to suggest Iraq’s non-compliance concerning the removal or destruction of Weapons of Mass Destruction could not be verified through the United Nations. Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei were still investigating when the United States declared war, however, prior to the declaration, they reported no evidence of non-compliance. Colin Powell’s plea to the UN to sanction the use of armed force was not obliged, in response to this in March 2003, the United States claimed diplomacy had failed, thus the only rational course of action was toppling Saddam’s regime. The United States had attempted to acquire a UN-sanctioned invasion but failed to do so. This begs the question; why did the United States use an argument that cited UNSCRs, yet themselves, fail to comply with United Nations demands?

Ever since World War two we have feared destruction and what could be the aftermath of nuclear bombs. We had a whole era in history to dedicate being terrified of weapons of mass destruction. We had bomb drills, duck and cover drills. The United States had TV drills if an attack were to happen on United States soil. For many Americans this was not hysteria, but a reality that could happen.

Dr. Pillar argues bad leadership led to the Iraq war not bad intelligence, asserting that the intelligence community (IC) advised against the use of force. The 2001 IC statement on world threats did not mention the possibility of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Thus, former Secretary of State Powell misguided the international community when he affirmed before the United Nations in February 2003 that his argument was “based on solid intelligence.” The administration’s officials, including the president and his national security advisor, also barely read the 2002 intelligence estimates on Iraqi WMD programs. The IC concluded that the Iraqi regime was unlikely to use WMDs against the U.S or hand them to terrorists, did not believe

The role of the public health community will play a vital role in a radiological threat to a major metropolitan area. Therefore, the public health community would be responsible for providing a shelter in place or evacuation decisions, identifying exposed populations, decontamination processes, safety requirements of the responders and the physical care of exposed patients (Katz, n.d.). However, the local public health community would be overwhelmed, short staffed and undertrained for an event of this magnitude and would require a multi-agency response from the federal and state government. Communications and coordination are an essential to the response of a radiological weapon or any other type of Weapon of Mass Destruction

To understand the threat that is posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), what defines a WMD must first be understood. The definition and use of WMD is covered by 18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction. The term “weapon of mass destruction” is defined as any destructive device that is further defined under section 921. Under section 921, a destructive device is anything that has explosive, incendiary, or poison gas properties. 18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction expands further by defining a WMD as any type of weapon that is designed to cause death or serious injury by release, dissemination, or impact by nuclear, biological, or chemical means. The legal code also covers weapons that release dangerous levels of radiation. Under FBI guidelines, the term WMD is used to describe a collection of modalities that include: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive and is over referred to as CBRNE.

Access to nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological weapons is becoming more and more available. There is sufficient evidence that many terrorist organizations are now concentrating their efforts to develop, acquire, and deploy different types of WMD’s. If these organizations were to be successful in acquiring the technology and supplies needed, it is almost certain that an attack against the United States would be forthcoming. Terrorist organizations may also look to underground smuggling networks and international criminal organizations for aid in acquiring or developing nuclear

Today, the threat of weapons mass destruction (WMD) has become one of the most dangerous threats effecting all nations security over the world, the national security of the superpower such as united states, as well as human life all over the world. Especially with the development of modern technology and the ease of access to information, more deadly weapons could be manufactured and used by countries against another or may be by terrorist groups.

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.

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

This world is filled with constant warfare and the threat of safety. Nations all over the world are in constant conflict to protect their country and their rights. Weapons of mass destruction are at the epicenter of this constant threat against peace and life. The presence of weapons of mass destruction is a serious threat to the world and daily life, requires much concern, and needs to be addressed because of the imminent threat of massive destruction.