Therefore, one of the central premises, that foreign countries can be deterred from assisting terrorists, is extremely weak.
The author's third premise is that the terrorists lack the method to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. This is actually the author's best supported premise. In order to support the idea, the author discusses the problems in delivering all three types of weapons. The author again points to the Tokyo subway attack to show the difficulty in distributing chemical weapons. However, the author relies on more unqualified premises to support this portion of the argument, such as the idea that germs are "hard to spread satisfactorily" ("The Terror Next Time"). Without any support for this statement, the audience is unable to determine whether or not it is true. The author does a better job with dismissing concerns about radiological weapons. First, the author discusses how "dirty bombs" are ineffective as nuclear devices. Second, the author talks about how difficult it is to deliver a nuclear weapon by stating that those countries known to aid terrorists are not known to have fully developed nuclear weapons. Again, the author seems to rely upon his initial assumption, which supports the idea that if terrorists had the ability to use nuclear weapons, they would have already used them. However, like his other arguments, this argument ignores the idea that the terrorists have engaged in extensive planning prior to launching terrorist attacks.
One of the most interesting elements in the article is the fact that it is based largely upon an assumption. The assumption is stated; however, there does not appear to be any evidentiary support for the assumption. That assumption is that "were terrorists with...
If one removes that assumption, then there is much less of a reason to determine whether or not terrorists possess weapons of mass destruction and much more of a reason to determine whether or not terrorists would be willing to use those weapons.
A disagree with the author's
conclusion that the terrorists do not currently possess weapons of mass destruction. One of the reasons that I disagree with that conclusion is that I disagree with the author's assumption that the terrorists would use those weapons if they had them. The evidence does not seem to support that conclusion, as the attacks by
Al Qaeda, both in the United States and abroad, have all shown evidence of significant planning. Furthermore, I do not believe that the author has adequately dealt with the other premises in his argument. While the author discusses the difficulty in obtaining supplies for weapons of mass destruction, he mainly concentrates on the difficulty of obtaining nuclear devices. However, in his article, the author acknowledges that it is relatively easy to obtain the supplies to develop chemical and biological weapons. Furthermore, the author relies on the unsuccessful subway attack to discuss the difficulties in distribution of weapons of mass destruction. However, the use of chemicals as weapons of mass destruction has been popular since
World War II and those distribution methods are well-known. Therefore, I disagree with the author's conclusion that the terrorists do currently possess the ability to effectively use weapons of mass destruction.
References
The Terror Next Time." Economist.com. 2001. The Economist. 23 Apr. 2005 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=806202.
