Why Do Terrorists Use WMD?

The War on Terror can readily be compared to WWI.  The following analysis will compare and contrast these two important historical occurrences.  It will also examine just a few of the many consequences of both.

The development of the technology and escalating of the threat in the Middle East, global

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

Based on this week’s readings, I believe both rogue and established terrorist organizations possess the capability to unleash CBRN weapons in international and domestic attacks. The ability of sub and non-state actors to disperse CBRN weapons will be limited due to the fact they have limited resources. Small terrorist activities will not have a military or strategic capability to execute a high-altitude airburst, which would have the most widespread effect. According to Sinai (2007), terrorist

With the emergence of the 21st century the necessity for a broader understanding of security have said present. The world has experienced a variety of new security challenges that have put at stake human safety and have made policymakers all around the world rethink their approach and strategies when it comes to the decision making process. The rise of terrorist organizations in the international arena as well as the development of extremist groups has offered extreme significance to the quest for power and the search for peace, while requiring us to look back and examine our achievements and failures in the analysis of terrorism, extremist groups and our counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. It is essential for all Americans to understand

The issues regarding the arms trade discussed in Sowing Weapons of War include the free market in arms, moral responsibility, policies for curbing the trade, and the banning of landmines. Regarding the free market in arms, the Unites States’ activity in the trade has increased dramatically since the Cold War and this increase has led to an increase in lives lost in third world countries due to violence. As a supplier of war weapons, the United States has a moral responsibility to ensure that they follow the process for a legitimate trade. The trade is legitimate if it promotes legitimate defense or follows the principle of sufficiency. However, even though there are instances where the trade can be justified, measures should be taken to curb the trade. Strict controls in the United States as well as internationally can curb the trade; as well as finding nonmilitary ways to protect jobs. Landmines claim the lives of civilians every week; measures need to be take internationally to reduce the number of landmines hidden across the world. In conclusion, weapons of war take the lives of several people everyday, but it does not have to remain this way as there are many steps that the country and the world can take to put an end to the illegitimate

The United States has used weapons and mass destruction (WMD) to combat the war on terror. WMD’s are weapons that can either be chemical or mechanical that’s used to kill a large population. In one article by Scott J. Glick, a Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, says “a violent extremist group may wish to use a WMD, including: (a) the psychological impact that such a weapon would have on the American public; (b) the economic, political, and social instability that would reasonably be expected to follow the use of a WMD; (c) the physical destruction that could be caused to critical infrastructure, loss of life, and contamination to vital areas;...”(Glick 27). In another article the author John D. Negroponte is the Senior Research Fellow in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in International Affairs at Yale. The other author, Edward M. Wittenstein, is the assistant to the President of Yale and used to work as the executive assistant to the director of National Intelligence (2006-2008). The article goes into saying “and the decision to invade Iraq without adequately questioning the widespread assumption that it possessed WMD…” (Negroponte Wittenstein 6-9). The use of WMDs in any country causes international intelligence to examine those countries. They do this to see where they are, if a country is going to launch, and who is responsible for this. Intelligence doesn’t have an accurate data to say that there definitely is a WMD in an area. This has happened in the past with the Soviet Union and today with North Korea. International Intelligence has spread into different branches and has given those branches certain jobs to watch for both terrorist attacks and

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.

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

Traditionally, the military is used for defense, whether it is to defend the country or the country’s interests. However, sometimes the threat which to defend against is harder to discern than when in open warfare. In the modern age, a large threat to America and countries everywhere is terrorism. From September 11, 2001 to the Florida shootings, terrorism, domestic and abroad, has been a true threat

Micheal P. (2013), 5 Weapons of Mass Destruction the U.S. Military Uses Every Day, Forbes Cover Story

Although the article was written a long time ago, it help me gained a better understanding about the historical perspective of the regulatory issues that are associated with a WMD attack response. I was able to compare and contrast the WMD response strategies that were used during the time that article was written against the current WMD response strategies that I learned throughout this course. Finally, I was able to learn about some of the laws and polices that were created to improve WMD response

There are a couple of sayings about terrorism: the first is that terrorism is a “weapon of the weak” and that “terrorist want a lot of people watching, not dead”. If these saying are true, then the threat or risks of terrorist using a WMD would be fairly low. And with the consequences of a WMD attack being far reaching, one must remain alert for changes that may signify a WMD attack. In 1999,

Ever since the tragic events that took place on 9/11, the looming fear of terrorist organization opting to use a Weapon of Mass Destruction has manifested itself into the biggest concern for our nation’s Homeland Security. To prevent such destructive weaponry from ever falling into the possession of a hostile extremist group, the United States government must continue to be active and remain persistent in their counterterrorism efforts. Several major terrorist organizations throughout the middle-east, are vigorously attempting to obtain and even develop these weapons so they can be used against their enemies. Even the very thought of a terrorist group, such as ISIS, successfully obtaining or developing a Weapon of Mass Destruction alone, is

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