Graduate Level Case Study and Journal

MHS 5201, Weapons of Mass Destruction 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

3. Discuss the threat posed by radiological, chemical, and biological devices. 3.1 Examine the likelihood of a terrorist chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield

explosives (CBRNE) attack in the U.S.

6. Consider the political, philosophical, and religious perspectives of the various actors in the War on Terror. 6.1 Explain the political, philosophical, and religious biases of various actors in the war on terror

and how they affect their perceptions of risk.

8. Evaluate how future technologies will impact the United States and its allies. 8.1 Identify new technologies that may cause major casualties and may fall outside of current

nonproliferation treaties and agreements.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

3.1 Lesson, Chapter 5, Reflection Paper

6.1 Lesson, Chapter 5, Reflection Paper

8.1 Lesson, Chapter 5, Reflection Paper

Reading Assignment Chapter 5.1: Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism, pp. 705-719 Chapter 5.2: Threat Convergence: A Framework for Analyzing the Potential for WMD Terrorism, pp. 725-734 Chapter 5.3: Emerging WMD Technologies, pp. 739-748 Chapter 5.4: Conclusion: Appreciating the Past and Present, Anticipating the Future, pp. 753-763

Unit Lesson Since the beginning of the course, we have looked at weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of their use from nearly every conceivable angle. We have discussed in detail the efforts that terrorist groups and rogue nations have gone to in order to obtain these weapons and the international coalition of effort that has been put in place at great expense to prevent their proliferation. It is with this background that the case studies in this lesson should provoke some uncomfortable thought in each of our minds. In the first of our readings, “Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism,” Gregory Koblentz describes three different schools of thought that exist today on the potential for a terrorist weapon of mass destruction (WMD) attack: optimism, pessimism, and pragmatism. Optimists discount the likelihood of a terrorist WMD attack and think that the efforts and resources spent to prevent an attack are in large part wasted. They doubt that terrorists have the will to carry out such an attack and point to the difficulties that must be surmounted to field a weaponized WMD and carry out an effective attack (Koblentz, as cited in Howard & Forest, 2013).

UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE

Future Trends Concerning Terrorist Events

MHS 5201, Weapons of Mass Destruction 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Pessimists, on the other hand, believe it is not a matter of if there will be a terrorist attack with a WMD but when. They see such an attack as imminent and believe that, every day, terrorist groups are working harder and getting closer to being able to field a devastating attack. They point to the manuals and plans that have been captured from al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) covert labs and the terrorist rhetoric that compels such groups to seek these weapons and use them. Additionally, they point to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the A. Q. Kahn smuggling network, and they suggest that short of developing the technology, terrorist groups can obtain what they need from the apparently robust black market (Koblentz, as cited in Howard & Forest, 2013). Pragmatists sit in the middle and believe the potential of a terrorist group mounting a decimating attack is real but difficult to accomplish. They further believe in efforts to keep up with the changing state of play in technology advancements, terrorist group technical sophistication and will to use a WMD, and availability of the raw materials to ensure that we are not caught unaware. The author then digs deeper into why these three schools of thought have emerged over time and what causes such diverse thinking based on the same available information. He points to heuristics and biases based on the experience and background of the people that line up in these different schools. He posits that a layperson might very well come to a different conclusion with the same information than an expert that has studied the same research and primary data for many years based upon these heuristics and biases (Koblentz, as cited in Howard & Forest, 2013). To help the reader understand this line of thinking, the author points to the “like-thinking” of the intelligence community, across multiple Western nations. It developed regarding the existence of WMD and proximity to a nuclear weapon of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, which played a major role in the decision to conduct a preemptive attack. Certainly Hussein overplayed his hand with his rhetoric, but the compounding of like thinkers and their observations had a significant impact on that decision (Howard & Forest, 2013). Although not yet studied, a similar effect may have occurred in the surprise presidential election of Donald Trump. Due to the like-thinking heuristics and bias of the media, moderators and pundits, and pollsters, the utter shock of President Trump’s win still reverberates. The author also shows how heuristics and biases can even adulterate quantitative analysis, rendering it inaccurate. In attempting to use quantitative risk assessment techniques to evaluate the likelihood of a terrorist attack with a WMD, there are very few actual attacks over a large number of years. Most of the “factual data” comes, in fact, from subjective studies of so-called “precursors.” Koblentz shows how a quantitative risk assessment of little factual (primarily subjective) data can lead to flawed quantitative analysis (Koblentz, as cited in Howard & Forest, 2013). Again, a parallel can be drawn to the Trump election. Exit poll statistics from the 2016 election confirmed the expected outcome: that Hillary Clinton would be elected. However, those statistics were biased by the selection process used by the pollsters in selecting the people they asked at the exit polls, leading to flawed results. In summary, a rather clear case has been presented that there is no real method of detecting whether or not a terrorist organization will use a WMD, and risk assessments have shown that there is no forgone conclusion in dealing with such an event. However, the risk of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) attack risk is still considered high—even with organizations and assessments devoted to prevention. Over $60 billion has been allocated by the federal government to defend against biological terrorism alone since 2001, including equipment, training, and exercises. In spite of these limitations on our investigative and analytical methods, a thorough analysis is needed in an effort to determine the threat of use of WMD devices, along with consideration of always changing terrorist group dynamics. Most contemporary approaches focus on the effects that a WMD would have in the United States, but many do not consider a global perspective regarding multiple terrorist groups using different types of WMD. Few, if any, terrorist groups could obtain all that they need to construct a WMD device without having to go beyond the host nation’s borders.

MHS 5201, Weapons of Mass Destruction 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Therefore, a global approach is a necessary strategy when planning to protect the population against WMD. At each point of possible detection, there is a finite chance that the terrorist intent will be uncovered and stopped. When multiplied together, it becomes clear that the more potential points of detection there are, the less likely it will be for a terrorist group to successfully bridge each hurdle and the higher the probability of being able to stop the plot. For example, if the possibility of detection at a given point is 50% (.5), and there are 5 potential detection points, then the probability of getting through is .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 = less than 2%. Far from the common misconception that our security forces must guess right every time and the terrorist adversary only has to be right once, it quickly becomes obvious that with many points of possible detection, a terrorist adversary has to avoid being detected every time to be able to get to a point where a WMD attack can be mounted. Nonetheless, the possibility of a terrorist WMD attack is not zero, and the consequences would be unacceptable. Updated and more comprehensive approaches will be needed in an effort to develop better preparation practices in the event of such an attack. Effective counterterrorism measures will require research for not only the use of WMD but the political, socioeconomic, religious, and cultural root causes that impact the number of terrorist states and the reasons for wanting to develop such weaponry. Counterterrorism agencies will need to remain vigilant in their pursuits of dealing with terrorist organizations’ continual development of such weapons. However, it is more important for humanitarian agencies to work alongside other governments in detecting, minimizing, and protecting human life at all levels. Even in some of the areas that appear to be ungoverned, there should be a concerted effort to deal with the issues surrounding the possibility of developing WMD and the terrorist abilities to use such weapons on a global scale. An additional issue that is starting to manifest itself is the potential for the development of new weapons that have similar capabilities to WMD but are not captured under current multilateral nonproliferation agreements. Many of the treaties that cover radiological, biological, chemical, and other WMD are outdated and do not include microwave experimentation, the exportation of high explosives, ultra-high incendiary devices, or nuclear isomers, for example. Further complicating this issue, the United States is not aggressively pursuing these new types of weapons and risks losing its position as the world leader. The U.S. currently has competition in the four technology fields of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and advanced energy sources. China, France, Japan, and Russia have a lead in technological advancement and nanotechnologies, but the United States has grown more independent in the development of advanced energy sources. Researchers caution, however, that the United States appears to be falling behind in all four technology areas while other nations exceed their programs and scientific efforts. One growing fear among researchers and scientists is the development of a microwave energy weapon or device that could be used for destructive purposes. Experiments with the use of microwave energy for crowd control and nonlethal defense may lead to the development of a more powerful, deadly weapon that may not be detected until it is too late. Nuclear isomers would also not likely fall under the category of the Nuclear Weapons Treaty since they do not fall into the categories of nuclear fission or fusion. The future risk of terrorist employment of WMD has both positive and negative indicators. There are more people in the world that are willing to work diligently at preventing WMD attacks than there are those with ill intentions. Disrupting scientific experiments and the transportation of chemicals needed to construct weapons and punishing those who want to construct/traffic WMD are positive actions that can be taken in an effort to have a peaceful world. More importantly, it is more and more difficult to form a WMD terrorist group due to the lack of supplies, the lack of knowledge, sanctions, and other policies that are set in place to prevent it from happening. Most of the terrorist groups appear to be focusing on other, more feasible methods of constructing an attack rather than the use of WMD. Terrorists are slowly realizing that the ability to acquire such a weapon will be difficult and are searching for other methods to create a psychological impact on their designated targets. On the other hand, although there are international policies in place, as the case of the A.Q. Khan network indicates, the trafficking of goods across international waters and boundaries continues.

MHS 5201, Weapons of Mass Destruction 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Reference

Howard, R. D., & Forest, J. (2013). Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Suggested Reading In order to access the following resource, click the link below. The lesson discusses WMD threat convergence. Here is an article to further exemplify the information. You are encouraged to review it. Sinai, J. (2016). Threat convergence: A new and more lethal category of terrorist warfare. Journal Of

Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, 22(3), 20-27. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?auth=CAS&url=https://libraryresources.columbia southern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tsh&AN=120006424 &site=ehost-live&scope=site