Terrorist attacks and counterterrorism strategies

Terrorist Attacks

An assessment of how a terrorist attack might be conducted using Weapons of Mass Destruction

The danger of a terrorist attack on American soil has been extensively reported and commented on in the media, especially after the events of 9/11. Many experts are of the opinion that a terrorist attack is "inevitable" at some stage in the future. This view is supported by the recent proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially after the fall of Communist Russia and there have been many reports of the sales of arms and even nuclear components on the black market.

However, commentators also point out that the construction and implementation of a fully - fledged nuclear device is still extremely difficult and the importation of components into a country like the Unites States with its stringent security regulation after 9/11, is a difficult task for the terrorists. As this paper will discuss, the most likely scenario for a major terrorist attack on this country would be to use a weapon of mass destruction that would be easy to create or assemble and that would go undetected by the security authorities. This requirement would suggest a "dirty bomb" or a readymade chemical or radiological device would be the most effective way for a terrorist or terrorist group to attack the United States, or any other large developed country. This discussion will also attempt to assess the various most likely targets and to look at alternative targets, other than those that are conventionally seen as the aim of the terrorist.

2. Possible scenarios

There are a number of possible scenarios that need to be considered in order to determine the most likely and feasible form of terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction. The most common scenario, which is dealt with extensively in film and popular literature, is the attack by nuclear bomb. The threat of nuclear radiation in a city or residential area would be devastating. However this scenario, while possible, is presently highly unlikely due to the technical knowledge required and the problem of smuggling in components without being detected. Far more likely would be the use of a chemical or radiological bomb, commonly referred to as a "dirty nuke." This type of weapon would be less destructive, but in some circumstances could still inflict high casualties or contaminate areas, with psychological effects greater than the material damage.

Another possibly that should be borne in mind in assessing the various possibilities is that," Although a terrorist attack using a nuclear weapon cannot be ruled out, the most likely nuclear agent is radioactive dust dispersed to create maximum contamination of personnel and facilities."

An important aspect to consider is that while the common perception that a terrorist attack would come from outside the country, it should be remembered that a country like the United States has a long and dangerous history of domestic terrorism. As one study points out, "...Americans were responsible for about three-quarters of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that the FBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism. "

An infamous example of domestic terror was the attack in 1995 on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The building in Oklahoma City was bombed and 168 people died with more than 500 injured. The terrorist who perpetrated this crime was not from the Middle East but was an American citizen, Timothy McVeigh. The point that is being made is that there is a realistic threat of homegrown terrorism, and this in turn suggests that the weapons that such a terrorist would use would not necessarily be imported from outside the country but could be constructed in our own back yard - possibly from industrial materials that are freely available to the ordinary citizen.

While some claim that right - wing terrorism in the United States has decreased, yet others state that it still a relevant threat. Some commentators are of the opinion that domestic terror groups are in fact learning from and even emulating terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. "Experts say domestic terrorism is becoming more dangerous as groups adopt looser organizational structures similar to that of the al-Qaeda network, plan larger attacks, and consider turning to weapons of mass destruction."

For example, in 20003 a homemade hydrogen cyanide device, "...a green metal military ammo box containing 800 grams of pure sodium cyanide and two glass vials of hydrochloric acid" was sound in a small Texas Town. Joseph Krar was found to be in possession of sufficient sodium cyanide and hydrochloric acid to produce large quantities of hydrogen cyanide, which could have resulted in the death of thousands of people.

These incidents point to the fact that the materials used and the targets designated are often planned and instigated by terrorists already within the country. This in turn would suggest that components, chemicals and substances that are domestically available are more likely to be used the construction of a WMD rather than brought in from outside the country.

2.1. Weapons and materials

The type of weapons that could be used a potential terrorist will depend on the availability of the materials, their undetectably and the knowledge required to use them. As the above section points out, there are many possibilities and possible weapons that need to be considered in the question of a potential terrorist threat with WMD. The ideal weapon for the terrorist would be one is on that is small enough and easy to assemble and which will produce the desired effect - which is pain, destruction, loss of life, disruption of services and social life and the all - important psychological impact that a weapon of mass destruction can have. In other words, the weapon need not be as devastating as a full-scale nuclear explosion to achieve the terrorists' aims. The main aim of the terrorist is to sow panic and inflict psychological harm and facilitate a reduction of morale in the country. Therefore the choice of material used in the attack will to a large extent determine the target and the method of delivering the attack.

As suggested, the most likely scenario is the use of a homemade "dirty bomb." This refers to a radiological dispersion device or RDD. Many commentators are of the opinion that this is possibly the most likely weapon that would be used in an attack. In essence an RDD is a "....combination of conventional explosives and radioactive material designed to scatter dangerous and sub-lethal amounts of radioactive material over a general area."

The general public is not well aware of the difference between the conventional nuclear device and the "dirty nuke." In essence these low - grade radiological and nuclear devices are extremely dangerous in that they have not only the capability of killing people and disrupting communications and society, but can also distribute harmful radiation, which can contaminate large areas and decimate highly populated areas. What makes this device the most likely candidate as a weapon of mass destruction is its accessibility and the relative ease of use in which they can be made.

One scenario in which this type of bomb could be used is in a densely populated area like New York, where it could be detonated in a busy area like Grand Central. One estimate of such an attack is that approximately 500,000 people are killed and the U.S. suffers $1- trillion in direct economic damage. In another scenario a homemade nuclear bomb is detonated in a truck in a tunnel in Manhattan.

The blast would crater portions of the New York skyline, barbecue thousands of people instantly, condemn thousands more to a horrible death from radiation sickness and -- by virtue of being underground -- would vaporize many tons of concrete and dirt and river water into an enduring cloud of lethal fallout.

One of the central aspects that many experts mention is the comparative ease with which the material for such a bomb could be obtained. This material can be obtained from industry and chemical manufacturing. "Literally millions of radioactive sources are employed worldwide in medicine, industry and agriculture and many of them could be used to fabricate a dirty bomb." Another report on the "dirty bomb" states that while the initial explosion will not create the same devastation as a large-scale nuclear bomb, yet the effect will be long - lasting.

At first there will not be much of a wasteland, as the "hottest" area might be generating 50 mrem an hour, while at the fringes of the hot zone, it is one mrem an hour or less. Now you don't want to live in an area that is giving you an extra one mrem an hour. Even if you just work there, that's an extra 2,000 or so mrem a year. You have to clean the place up.... Where the terrorists win big time is when the public health people have a hard time convincing a terrified public that an additional.001 mrem an hour is "acceptable"

3. The attack: targets and implementation.

From the above discussion we can assume for the purposes of this paper that a hypothetical attack on the United States would take the form of the use of "dirty nukes" or radiographic explosive devices that would not only destroy relatively large areas of a city or residential area, but would disperse radiation and create psychological havoc and panic. Taking the nature of this weapon into account the general assumption is that the target of a bomb of this nature would possible be a large city, congested transport or residential area. However this is common assumption and possibly not the only targets that terrorists might consider.

From the point-of-view of the terrorist it may be more appropriate to choose a target which would be less secure and would maximize the damage that could be caused to the infrastructure of a country. This target could be an important energy or communications system that would affect large parts of the country. The choice of such a target would also have the effect of maximizing damage and striking a blow at the psychological morale of the country as a whole.

There are also other advantages to a choice of target that is not a city or large residential area. The first is that highly populated areas would be more secure and highly monitored and therefore less accessible to the terrorist. Secondly, by reducing the number of civilian deaths, but yet striking a severe blow to the country, the terrorist might gain some moral high ground and this could in turn attract recruits to their cause who might otherwise be dissuaded from joining on human and ethical grounds.

Taking these factors into account a perfect target for a terrorist with a smaller nuclear device would be a power or energy source such as a dam or system of dams. A hydroelectric plant would possibly be the ideal target in this scenario; for example, the Conowingo Dam and Hydroelectric Power Plant. It should be noted that this is only an example and merely intended to show the type of target that may be seen to be feasible from the point-of-view of the terrorist.

This target would be ideal for a number or reasons. In the first instance it is in close relationship to the Peach Blossom Nuclear Plant. "In addition to serving Exelon's Conowingo Hydroelectric Project, the pool is also a source of water for Exelon's Muddy Run Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Lancaster County, Pa. And Exelon's Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant, York County, Pa." As can be seen from this reference, the dam also serves and is related to many other parts of the complex power creation and distribution network; making it a relevant and important target for the terrorist.

Another important factor is that the dam is also a recreational resort, which would also serve the terrorists ends in terms of civilian casualties. Furthermore, the dam is an important ecological area and the fallout or radiation from the "dirty bomb" would have a devastating effect on the ecological system of the region; which would have a knock - on effect for the future of the regions, not only in terms of the power supply but also on agriculture, tourisms and other factors.

Essentially in a scenario like this the main objective would be to destroy or impair the power supply, with the main aim of creating chaos. It would also be seen as an attack on one of the symbols of prestige and achievement of the nation - which would also serve the terrorist from a propaganda point-of-view.

In the final analysis, the effect of such an attack on the electricity supply would be devastating. The following citation is quoted at length as it clearly outlines the consequences of an attack on a target of this nature.

The electric power industry is one of the most crucial national infrastructure sectors. It encompasses sensitive potential targets and underlies the smooth operation of all other infrastructures. Despite widespread backup and continuity of operations resources and procedures, if the electric power sector were to suffer sustained outages, communication systems could be seriously disrupted, trains could stop running, planes could be grounded, and the economy could grind to a halt. Unlike other energy sources, electricity cannot be stockpiled, so power disruptions would have almost immediate effects.

Furthermore, due to the ease of access to online information about the area and the hydroelectric plant, including technical details, the terrorist could plan and strategize according to information that is obtainable on the Web. For example, there are many public Websites that provide extensive details about the dam and divulge the fact that Conowingo is one of the largest national dams; which would be an enticing bit of news for any terrorist interested in causing havoc on the infrastructure of the country.

Another aspect that would make this or other hydroelectric plants a feasible target is the fact that the water in the area would possibly be poisoned by the radiation from the bomb. The results of such an attack would on the surface be comparatively slight and less outwardly dramatic, in comparison to an attack with a WMD on a major city. However, the effect of an attack on a power supply or hydroelectric plant would have consequences that would have a real and long-term affect on the economy and the psyche of the country.

As stated, the security that surrounds dams and other sources of energy sources is often not as stringent as those that exist in mains centers. In the light of this it would be a relatively easy, or a least less difficult, for a terrorist to find a way to plant and detonate a bomb in this area. The bomb need only be powerful enough to destroy the computer system and the control of the hydroelectric plant and the dissemination of radiation would add to the devastation.

However, it must also be noted that since the events of 9/11 areas like these where important power sources reside have been subject to more strict security. The realization of the vulnerability of these power sources have been seen as a "soft" areas in the security system. The following is from a report on the water infrastructure by U.S. Rep. Don Young, Chairman:

On September 11, 2001, our concept of what constitutes a credible threat to the security of our nation's critical infrastructure changed. Threats that previously had been considered low-risk are now being examined and incorporated into emergency plans and procedures. Ongoing efforts to upgrade infrastructure security have taken on a far greater importance and urgency.