Which Choice Will a Terrorist Make? Chemical or Biological Weapons

“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

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 US right now is taking military and counterterrorism actions, but it is not enough to stop them. Bioterrorism is harder to stop because you won't know whether it is a deliberate outbreak by terrorist group or a natural outbreak of disease (Okoth 2). Bio Attacks are not only deadly to people but also the environment according to Naftali Okoth “dual threats of emerging infections and bioterrorism would pose a major conceptual and technical challenges for a regions intelligence

A bioterrorism attack is the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs (agents) used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants. Bioterrorism agents can be separated into three categories, depending on how easily they can be spread and the severity of illness or death they cause. Category A agents are considered the highest risk and Category C agents are those that are considered emerging threats for disease. Bioterrorism is an issue and has been an issue for many years. This being the case every citizen and health care professional needs to be prepared for an attack. However most people are not fully prepared for a bioterrorism attack to occur. For one citizens are not educated on illnesses that could be used and they are now choosing not use countermeasures like vaccinations against the agents that would be used for a bioterrorism attack. The next issue we run into is that health care workers are not fully trained on what to do if a

America’s paranoia is misplaced. Since the onset of the Cold War, Americans have feared and prepared for a nuclear attack. However, less attention has been paid to relatively more feasible threats: biological and chemical weapons. It is without a doubt nuclear weapons, if ever used could inflict an unparalleled level of damage. However, the likelihood of a biological or chemical attack on US citizens is greater. The mutual deterrence of the United State’s second-strike capability makes a nuclear attack against Americans unlikely. Meanwhile Chemical and biological are widespread and accessible to sub national actors who are not deterred from attacking by American nuclear and conventional forces. Both chemical and biological weapons present are

Imagine this: you wake up hours before your alarm sounds to find your entire neighborhood in chaos; people running, robbing banks and stores, and bodies are littering the once calm streets. Over the night, a government-run biological experiment dealing with germ weapons had been released, infecting, destroying, and causing panic across the globe. As a single, globalized society, we need to heighten our security against biological weapons and biological terror to prevent the endangerment of mankind. It would be most beneficial to our species if we did not try to use or experiment with biological weapons, seeing as they are engineered specifically to create social, economic, governmental, military, and general fear and disruption. Bioterror

Bioterrorism is directly focused on the livestock and crops, which are valuable sources of food. The agroterrorism attack in the U.S. has started an economic warfare, which can turn fatal to most Americans. Economic warfare has calculated of being damaging to the

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

, and lone actors inspired by terror propaganda. Unconventional threats, although difficult to obtain and employ, potentially provide a large payoff to any terror organization when utilized and thus are attractive to those seeking to instill fear, degrade an economy, or attempt to influence policy. A subset of the terrorism threat is the realm of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) hazards. Within this particular subset, there are innumerable methods a terror cell may use to accomplish their goals and a careful analysis of available materials, capabilities, desired effects, and costs versus benefits helps narrow the most likely forms

In the post 9/11 era of America, terrorism has become an unfortunate part of life. Since that day, America has seen six different attacks that have been aspired by Islamic extremism. From the anthrax attack in late 2001 to the San Bernardino attack in 2015 the increased violence has only become more frequent and more difficult to predict (Ilich, 2016). This includes the most recent example or Islamic extremism that occurred in Orland, FL at Pule night club when 29 year old Omar Mateen opened fire on unsuspecting victim claiming the lives of 49 and wounding an additional 53 (Ilich, 2016). The Boston bombing was the first time since the anthrax attacks that terrorism involved more than just a firearm (Ilich, 2016). The evolution of attacks makes since to move on from simple weapons to chemical attacks. The threat of chlorine attacks has to be considered with the ever growing use of it in Iraq and Syria. This discussion will look at the history of chlorine as a weapon. Then review current uses of chlorine as a weapon by Islamic extremist. Afterwards, theoretically look at how a chlorine weapon should be used in the United States, specifically Las Vegas. Then finish with how to prevent that attack.

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.

In this day and age, it is surprisingly easy to obtain or create a bomb. On the black market alone, nuclear smuggling is a 100 billion dollar industry (havocscope). Of course, bombs are deadly and nations must always be diligent in guarding against nuclear terrorist attacks, but what about smaller, more undetectable threats to our lives? There are trillions of bacteria and fungi in the world, and possibly just as many viruses. Currently the CDC lists approximately 29 potentially weaponizable biological agents, ranging from Ebola to the Nipah virus. They are rather easy to come by in nature and some of them are easily synthesized in a laboratory, such as influenza, which has the

One researcher determined that a hand full of biologists and $10,000 could be used to produce biological weapon agents. This stands in starch opposition to the amount of funding, expertise, and obstacles that terrorist would need to overcome to develop their own nuclear programs (Levi, 2007, p.1). Some states have attempted to create their own nuclear weapons; this takes years and hundreds of millions of dollars to accomplish. The materials needed are hard to acquire and special equipment is needed to make the process work. Biological agents on the other hand are, as demonstrated by the researchers assessment, are cheap and relatively easy.

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.

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.