Countermeasures and Neutralization 'Literature Review' chapter

Excerpt from 'Literature Review' chapter :

Countermeasures and Neutralization

In past ten years, the accessibility to information and capabilities has increased; thus, the technology of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has increased drastically. The defence department of many countries need to take actions in order to prevent the chances of any attack (Graham, 2004).

During Cold war, the usage of nuclear weapons cause massive destruction that was faced by the innocent people of the countries, this is why weapons of mass destruction are taken as great threats. For the security of the people and the environment, the massive growth of destructive weapons should be slowed otherwise soon the individuals would get the opportunity to harm the entire nation. Such destructive powers reside with nation states, which are politically, economically, industrially and socially very strong (Graham, 2004).

Terrorists on the other hand have few assets but they are usually ready to give away everything for the achievement of their goals. These people also do great damage. Even the deterrence measures with respect to terrorists are also vague till now. In order to tackle with this problem, a full spectrum of capable resources needs to be brought about, this would include preventing, interdicting, mitigating and recovering measures. This study also focuses on this full spectrum (Ishmael, 2010).

Whether it is nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological, the discussion about WMD is taking place in single modality. The ongoing dialogues and activities that are taking place with regards to WMD are stressing on limited aspects of single modality. Such an approach is known as segmented approach, and such an approach forbids responses from being generated form an integrated system (Ishmael, 2010).

At last, a fresh approach with regards to WMD was adopted by Defence Science Board. Such an approach handles the problems sideways and aims in maintaining a balance in between the allocation of resources and the requirements. The strategy that is adopted by this study is as follows (Ishmael, 2010):

1. Take every possible step to stop the wrong people from acquiring the damaging weapons.

2. The urgency of efforts should be increased to lessen the after effects of the attacks and even recovery phase should be speedy.

3. The perpetrators and their fellows should be identified and proper planning should be done to give a response to the attacks.

However, in the end it was concluded by the researchers that one single approach is not the solution of this problem. All the efforts do contribute but with limitations along with them. A few actions are recommended by the researchers in six different areas in order to bring the countries in better positions. The recommended actions are as follows (Ishmael, 2010):

• Bringing intelligence improvement

• Weapon acquisition denial

• Make retaliation policies

• Recovery capabilities and mitigation measures at national level to be improved

• Develop response plans for catastrophes and even establish DOD pilot programs

• For management of the enterprise readiness metrics should be brought into use (Ishmael, 2010).

Improve Intelligence

Intelligence improvement is necessary for bringing about reduction in the vulnerability of WMD. This is such a big challenge that one country or one organization alone cannot deal with it. But still, DOD can assist in creating an integrated WMD intelligence community which would completely focus on improving strategic knowledge. This could be achieved by bringing in innovative collections, carrying out refreshed analysis and by keeping in a war room like mentality so that the problems can be tackled easily (Jonathan, 2007).

A number of researchers believe that the recommendations of the 9/11 and WMD Commissions in the following areas should be implemented by the Under Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence (Jonathan, 2007):

• All financial transactions and transport means and nodes of key individuals and entities with WMD expertise who have links with radical groups and nations should be monitored, both within and across the national frontier.

• Alongside seeking technical enhancements and upgraded communication and data processing mechanisms, measures should be adopted for increasing fielding of deep penetration intelligence programs.

• Recommendations from the prior Defense Science Board regarding reliable funding for the upgrading of surveillance facilities such as tagging, tracking and locating capabilities should be implemented.

• Collection of information is carried out by analysts and users of intelligence and assisted by expert target development.

• Federated databases linking information across both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies regarding key individuals and their activities should be established.

• An understanding of the objectives, motives and values of potential adversaries who might use WMD should be developed through creating broadly-based ongoing mechanisms and relationships.

• A mission manager who integrates and co-ordinates domestic law enforcement with the intelligence community's efforts in regard to terrorists pursuing WMD should be appointed (Jonathan, 2007).

Deny Weapon Acquisition

To prevent an attack is the foremost duty of every nation. The international community should seek to implement broad measures that make the adversary's job difficult and impracticable, as the well being of all nations depend on it. Both the cases of WMD, nuclear as well as biological are used by terrorist from the proliferators of nation. Therefore, to get good results stocks of weapons must be reduced and should be highly secured (Michael, 2007).

There are different forms of WMD like biological, chemical and radiological but the terrorist are mostly involved in the exploitation of weapons' materials in many countries. However, this exploitation is easy in the developed countries because they already possess highly advanced scientific infrastructure which is easily available (Michael, 2007).

The task force recommends that the U.S. government

In order to strengthen and promote non-proliferation, united efforts are made by making the treaties like Nunn-Lugar, Proliferation Security Initiatives. These efforts should be expanded in other countries to promote expertise and biological weapons.

Easy accessibility of these WMD materials specially chemical and radiological weapons should be banned. Thus, security must be made stronger around the weapons production sites. These sites must be made far from the residential areas and human population and should use less toxic chemicals and other materials as substitutes (Michael, 2007).

Develop Credible Retaliation Policies

In the legislatures of developed countries, strict laws are present to punish those people who use these WMD against the counties' interest within or outside the borderline. Researchers also highly recommend these security policies (Charles, 2004; DSB, 2007).

A highly technological system has been made in developed countries with the coordination of intelligence department and technical forensics in order to make these policies followed properly. Continuous efforts should be made to enhance the technical accuracy and speed in this context (Charles, 2004; DSB, 2007).

To make the policies of preventions more effective options must be taken to develop responses. These response actions include all those military, economic and diplomatic measures taken by the government prior to any expected attack (Matthew and Harrell, 2012).

The effective way to prevent the disasters is to take adequate comprehensive measures before the attack rather than relying on the ad hoc responses during the chaos (Matthew and Harrell, 2012).

According to researchers, in order to deal with the foreign or internal attacks following steps must be taken prior to the worst situations (Matthew and Harrell, 2012):

• Make clear and effective retaliation policies on regular basis.

• To improve the attribution, forensic capabilities must be enhanced.

• In order to prevent and punish the attackers along with their supporters and helpers well planned retaliation options must be adopted on priority basis (Matthew and Harrell, 2012).

An advanced WMD retaliation procedure should be made to enhance the military options on national level by utilizing all state powers. This advance planning should include gaming exercises, simulation, red teaming and also publicize the retaliation process (Matthew and Harrell, 2012).

Improve National Mitigation and Recovery Capabilities

The national responsibilities also include recovery and mitigation which involves local, federal and state organizations. However, many effective measures have been taken by the countries but still they are not very strongly prepared to recover from the WMD attacks. This is observed because of uncertain distribution of responsibilities among federal, local and regional agencies, lack of urgency demands understanding, weak planning to deal with physical as well as psychological impacts of such attacks (John, 2008).

A complete and inclusive methodology is needed for controlling the weaknesses of nation to the WMD, which ranges from the prevention and intelligence to the recovery, response and mitigation. A clear method must be adopted to minimise the difficulties face in the harmonization between various layers of responsibilities of government and private sector. Moreover, with a higher collaboration and cooperation is needed to involve private sector along with the recognition of public understanding and support as essential part (John, 2008).

The researcher's recommendation regarding national recovery and mitigation are as under (John, 2008):

Highest payoff mitigation and recovery efforts should be focused, whereas other important factors are:

- Communication, exercise, control, command, and executable planning (C3), along with a complete inter-operable information and communication system (John, 2008).

- An increase in the training…

Cite This 'Literature Review' chapter:

"Countermeasures And Neutralization" (2013, February 17) Retrieved January 18, 2018, from

"Countermeasures And Neutralization" 17 February 2013. Web.18 January. 2018. <>

"Countermeasures And Neutralization", 17 February 2013, Accessed.18 January. 2018,