Terrorism if a Significant Terrorist

Terrorism

If a significant terrorist attack was to occur within the United States of America, it would involve the use of weapons of mass destruction. Although the term weapons of mass destruction has become somewhat of a national catchphrase and is most often associated with chemical and biological weapons, it also includes the use of nuclear weapons. Despite the attention given to the potential of an attack involving chemical and biochemical weapons, the real threat facing the United States today is a full-scale terrorist attack involving the use of nuclear weapons.

The reason that nuclear weapons pose the biggest threat to the security of the nation is that, first and foremost, the underground market for the weapons is large and unregulated. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many of the former satellite states, who once held many of the U.S.S.R.'s nuclear cache, now see these nuclear weapons as a means of income. In other words, these nations or internal factions can make significant money by selling them due to the high demand for the weapon. The typical buyer are both rogue nations and terrorist organizations or militias.

Unlike chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons are easier to use at a far distance, can create significant destruction, both directly and indirectly, and are relatively easy to smuggle across borders. More so, like chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapon-based attack will have long lasting effects due to the fact that it too contains (and therefore disperses) radiation, a chemical that can continue to harm a population for generations into the future.

A clandestine nuclear attack involves the conducting of a nuclear or radiological attack by anyone, for any purpose, against either the United States or one of its military operations, delivered by means other than military missiles or aircraft. One of the most significant factors contributing to this threat is the large subset of smuggling of nuclear weapons, devices and materials currently occurring for the specific purpose of using them against the United States and/or its interests.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the United States has been under the threat of a potential nuclear attack. Although this threat dates back to the Cold War and its arms proliferation, little has actually been done to protect the country against such an attack. The reason for this inactivity is that during the Cold War the focus was on the arms race, with its theory of protection by equal might. However, this theory is no longer applicable in the new threat of terrorist nuclear attacks. Instead, in order to protect the country from this new threat, new defense strategies must be implemented.

Under the current state of world affairs, it is generally accepted by the leading defense analysis teams that it would be relatively easy for a terrorist organization to both introduce and detonate a nuclear explosive within the borders of the United States of America. Further, it is agreed that such an attack would most likely occur in or near a major metropolitan area. In such a situation, the effects would be devastating as the explosion would kill many people and destroy the infrastructure, politics, culture and economy of the nation. Further, these repercussions, including a counter attack that could possibly also involve the use of nuclear weapons, would affect the history of the world in potentially catastrophic manners.

Knowing that this general threat exists, the United States most take steps in developing a defense strategy. As with any time of war, the central component is the competition between offense and defense. In today's post-September 11 world, the number of threats (or offensive players) are both many and diverse, therefore creating a greater importance and need for defense. One of the core areas of possible defensive strategy is the use of a national missile defense system.

By taking these steps now, the result would be to essentially take the use of a nuclear attack away from the terrorist, essentially preventing its emergence as a form of warfare. However, because of the diversity in the nuclear threat, the nation cannot rely on one single form of defense. Instead, the national government needs to work with the international community in order to create and implement an effective, multi-element, layered, international complex of systems that spreads between both the military and the civilian factions and thus capable of reducing the likelihood of any form of successful nuclear attack.

The Threat

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made it clear that the terrorists had the intent, and capabilities, of inflicting massive damage to the United States homeland. Further, nuclear proliferation has escalated at alarming speed, with such rogue nations as Iran and North Korea reaching nuclear weapon capability and other nations moving there quickly.

The available methods and propensities for covert and clandestine operations at creating massive destruction are spreading. More so, the availability of nuclear weapons, once a weapon confined to only a handful of industrialized nations, are now, to say the least, "oozing out of control" and spreading into the hands of undeveloped countries, militias and terrorist organizations. Further, these areas are often hostile or potentially hostile to the United States, often getting the weapons for this sole purpose. Finally, these regions in which the existence of nuclear weapons is spreading have little to no control as to provide effective information and information on location and loss. However, somewhat surprisingly, despite this change in international threat, little has changed in the way the United States reacts to the threat.

Clearly, any terrorist attack on the United States that utilized weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear or not, would have extensive effects beyond the devastating and immense immediate casualties. The reason a nuclear attack on the homeland of the United States would be such a devastating act is that, at its center, it would cause a fundamental change on how Americans live, perhaps extending as far as actually changing the nature of the nation's, and the world's, democratic institutions.

The nuclear attack itself would be the first event in a long line of events, acting as the touching spark to set off a chain of events that would threaten to destabilize the global nuclear weapons regime, leading to fundamental and irreversible alterations to the global security system. Take as example the fact that a nuclear attack coming from a terrorist organization would leave immense casualties in its wake and be almost impossible to determine who was responsible, thus leveraging third-party provocation in the crisis to an unprecedented extent.

Because none of these aforementioned events have ever happened and the catastrophe it would cause never seen, this risk must be viewed in a unique framework separate from the framework used to evaluate and plan for past nuclear and general threats of weapons of mass destruction. Further, because the likelihood of such an attack, along with the likelihood of the attack's consequences are indeterminate, the general risk of a terrorist nuclear attack must be managed on the basis of the consequences. With the consequences in mind, a response must involve the coordinated planning of both defense strategies and diplomatic and political strategies. However, these individual efforts alone cannot be expected to successfully defend against the threat.

In light of the information provided on the threat that currently predominates the American psyche, it is clear that the world is in the middle of a dramatic change in the definition and way of conducting warfare. At the center of this change in the way war is waged exist the threat of a clandestine nuclear attack and the need, and ability, to successfully prevent, defend, and, in the worse case scenario, respond to it.

The Response

Now that the reader has a fundamental understanding of what the current threat is and how this threat of a significant terrorist attack utilizing weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons has evolved within the past ten years, the next step is to assess the United States' current ability to adequately defend against such an attack. The new defense method must, at its most basic, be much larger and more complex than any defense strategy conceived.

Because the current threat is larger and greater than any other threat the United States has faced in its history, the strategic defense thinking must use an approach large enough in scope to effectively deal with a difficult and complex threat. Further, it has to be understood that when tackling the issue of responding to this threat, the nation is essentially starting from scratch as, even just as much as several years ago, this threat was not viewed as being unlikely enough that it did not warrant the necessary research and resources to develop a proper defense strategy and that it was viewed as being to difficult to create an effective defense that would work against it (thus the focus was placed on diplomacy).

In order to effectively build a defense strategy capable of defending against the very-real threat of a nuclear-based terrorist attack on the homeland of the United States of America, a multi-elemental, layered and cross-departmental approach must be taken. Such a strategy, if fully developed, would successfully reduce the risk of a successful terrorist nuclear attack because the system itself would have nuclear-specific elements that could be coordinated with an assortment of other prevention and protection measures. More so, this system would work with the international community to develop similar multi-elemental, layered and cross-departmental approaches there and then coordinate the United States' measures with these international efforts, thus creating a global defense strategy capable of fully defending a way of life against the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

This new approach to defense would focus on coordinating improved capabilities of monitoring and controlling both nuclear weapons and nuclear material, thus being able to better evaluate where the risk is and what kind of risk it is. Further, such an internationally coordinated monitoring system would dissuade those in the planning stages of a nuclear attack could defeat any attacks that do actually occur. Because the frequency of nuclear attacks will always be low, creating an initial line of defense that simply monitors the risk areas is half the battle.

An essential component of any monitoring system is to have the technology that creates the ability to monitor all nuclear movement and activity throughout the world. One suggested method of accomplishing this is a Department of Defense program to deploy, both throughout the United States and throughout the world, several hundred thousand sensors capable of providing radiation detection. As a follow-up to this strategy is the development of special operations forces focused on such areas as counter-nuclear military operations involving several thousand highly trained military personnel capable of carrying out a covert operation in an area where sensors detect the unauthorized presence of nuclear radiation.

The best way to conceive of this multi-leveled defense system is as a defense architecture involving numerous floors, each serving a particular purpose in the soundness of the building. Part of this defense architecture is a global and geographically layered system of sensors and covert response capabilities. When working functionally together, the layered global civil and military defense and prevention system will successfully: 1) Secure and protect material and weapons at its sources; 2) Detect and prevent materials and weapons from leaving a source nation, such as Russia; 3) Detect and prevent materials and weapons from exiting from ports and airports; 4) Create a maritime interdiction system; 5) Detect and prevent material and weapons from entering into the United States through ports, airports and border crossings; 6) Detect and prevent movement of materials and weapons within the borders of the United States; 7) Detect and prevent the materials and weapons at the perimeters of such targets as metropolitan centers and military bases; and 8) Detect and prevent the movement and/or deployment of materials and weapons within the target area.

Clearly, a detection system capable of providing accurate and constant radioactivity detection at all of these levels is both costly and lofty. According to the Department of Defense, to successfully implement this defense strategy, an estimated 100,000 to 400,000 detectors will be required, costing several billion to tens of billions of dollars. On top of this expense would be the additional expenses of operations, management and maintenance.

Although a central focus on prevention is essential in any effective defense strategy, it is not enough. However, even with a thorough detection and prevention strategy, an attack could still occur, perhaps even before the prevention strategy is operational. Thus, no defense strategy is complete without also looking at the worse case scenario, or asking the question of what will happen after an explosion?

At this level of the defense strategy, improvements need to be implemented in both being able to mitigate the consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack and in attributing the attack to the appropriate perpetrators. It should be noted here that having the capability to efficiently identify the perpetrators of an attack, and this capability is communicated to the potential perpetrators, namely the terrorist organizations, is a form of deterrence in and of itself.

The main role the government must plan for is, following a devastating nuclear attack, they must have the ability to move quickly and, more importantly, be seen moving quickly so as to prevent a follow-up second nuclear terrorist attack. If a second nuclear attack can occur in close succession with the first one, the consequences will be even more devastating than that caused by the first attack. After an initial attack, the nation will face a variety of fiscal, economic, legal and political constraints that will limit its ability to protect itself and defend itself from further attacks. Thus, it is essential that careful procedures and plans are made that will allow for an effective surge of defense to occur following an attack.

Ideally, the United States' defense strategy would include a full spectrum counter-nuclear operations and capabilities. As part of this defense strategy, the military would be able to provide foundational protection against an initial nuclear strike against the nation's military forces and bases. The strategy would likewise include the capability to create a nuclear quarantine around the terrorist organizations perimeter of operations and a national system that can assess the nuclear situation and subsequently alert all necessary parties of this assessment. The defense strategy must also be able to identify, locate and react to a terrorist organizations possession of nuclear weapons, devices, materials or the facilities needed to gain nuclear power. The reaction must be capable of including both a standoff, strike and, when needed, a preventive attack. Finally, the defense strategy must also incorporate such diplomatic measures as institutionalizing internationally enforced consequences for nuclear management and mismanagement, along with effect abilities to enter into attribution and arbitration agreements and procedures.