Analysis of Why Terrorists Should Not Have Weapons of Mass Destruction
In 1945, the United States put a final and definitive end to World War II when it used two atomic bombs on Japan, forcing their surrender. At that time the entire world learned of the terrible potential of weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, as the major nations have backed away from weapons of mass destruction (WWD), terrorist organizations have sought to acquire them. Worse, technological advances have made it possible for to be constructed on a small enough scale that they could feasibly be smuggled anywhere in the world. We have seen isolated use of such weapons. Terrorists released the nerve gas Sarin into a Tokyo subway some years ago, anthrax was used in the United States with the Postal Service as the delivery method, and al-Qaeda killed thousands in 2001 by flying fuel-laden passenger planes into buildings (Quillen, 2002). The last event in particular demonstrated that some groups want to leave a large mark from their terrorist activities, making the threat of WWD in their hands a real threat. One of the greatest concerns of those charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks is that of nuclear and radiological devices. The word "nuclear" immediately puts fear in people because what we know of nuclear weap
ons is the kind of wide-scale obliteration that occurred in Nagasaki and Hiroshima at the end of World War II. However, there are two kinds of nuclear weapons terrorists might use. One threat is more realistic than the other. The next question of concern to those attempting to prevent terrorist attacks is whether terrorists would use WMD's and RDD's. We already know the answer regarding WMD's. Al-Qaeda used airplanes loaded with passengers as well as fuel in 2001 as WMD's. They also demonstrated that they viewed collateral damage, or death and injury to civilians as well as destruction of non-military targets, differently than most governments do. Al-Qaeda viewed the Twin Towers in New York City as well as those in the buildings at the time as legitimate targets because they were economic targets, and al-Qaeda views American economics as a world problem. The reality is that terrorist organizations cannot produce plutonium or enriched uranium, both necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons. However, they may have acquired these materials on the black market, and may be able to continue to do so in the future unless the countries in possession of these materials take strong action to keep them secure. Without those basic materials, nuclear weapons cannot be constructed (Bunn, 2005). While the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a step in the right direction, some countries, because of political changes noted earlier, have somewhat diminished ability to completely control their stocks of nuclear materials. One expert recommends a four-stage approach. First, the number of countries with nuclear materials that could be used to make bombs should be limited. Second, all such materials must be stored in a highly secure way that would make it difficult for them to be traded either openly or on the black market. The homeland security system must ensure that there are no gaps in the methods used to secure the
Some common words found in the essay are:
War II, York City, Non-Proliferation Treaty, Postal Service, Middle East, West Bank, WMD's Al-Qaeda, nuclear weapons, Sarin Tokyo, , terrorist organizations, nuclear materials, Israel Israel's, bunn 2005, black market, laqueur 2004, world war ii, rocket launchers, weapons terrorists, mass destruction, enriched uranium, materials black market, construction nuclear weapons, weapons mass destruction,
Approximate Word count = 1298
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|