Fluent Essays

From your readings offer your own definition of Consequence Management. Discuss who is responsible for Consequence Management in the context of the management of the effects of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) on US soil and define what Essential Support Functions (ESF) are and how they might apply.  Response must be 250 words or more, APA format with References.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Source #3 - https://www.fema.gov/txt/nims/nims_ics_position_paper.txt 1 wHat is terrorism? Concern over terrorism has become a part of life in the twenty-first century. Although terrorism is not new, the events of 9/11/2001 in the United States, the Madrid train bombings in 2004, the London transport bombings in 2005, continuing suicide attacks in Iraq and Israel/Palestine, and terrorist violence in many other places has focused attention on these types of events. Terrorism, of course, has occurred in many countries and in many contexts. It is not new phenomenon even though events such as these have made terrorism a more prominent concern in many countries. As a result, it is very important to have a better understanding of what terrorism is – why it occurs, who is responsible, what the terrorists hope to accomplish, and what the future holds for terrorism. These questions and others are basic to the topic of this book. Although many people have a good idea of what terrorism is, it is useful from the outset to have a working definition as to what can be considered terrorism (and what cannot be considered terrorism). It has frequently been stated that: “One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist.” Basically this statement says that terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. People have a tendency to brand those who use violence for purposes that they disagree with as terrorists while they regard those using the same kinds of violence in a “just cause” as freedom fighters. It is essential to have a definition that will apply to violent activities regardless of who is opposing or supporting the individuals involved or who the targets are. The fact that terrorism includes all kinds of groups should not blind us to the fact that what might be defined as terrorism by virtually everyone, could be acceptable to others in some circumstances. If Jews in Europe facing Hitler’s efforts to Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics2 exterminate them had resorted to terrorism in self-defense, such actions would clearly have been justifiable. DefInITIon of TeRRoRIsm There are many definitions of terrorism that have been used. Oftentimes the definitions are created to identify certain groups as falling within the definition since the term terrorist has a very negative association. If a group is labeled as a terrorist group, then it is easier to mobilize public opinion against it. If supporters of the group are considered to be freedom fighters or a national liberation front, the likelihood that they will be able to generate more sympathy is increased. Other definitions attempt to be more neutral, but it is important to recognize that any definition will include groups that some individuals would exclude because they agree with the goals of the organizations. In other cases, the definition might exclude groups that others think should be considered as terrorists. The best approach, of course, is to first specify a definition and then to determine whether or not a particular group fits the definition. Even with the arguments over the definitions, there are some common elements used by scholars, governments, and journalists. There are a number of basic components necessary in order for a group to be considered as a terrorist organization. The following characteristics combine to provide a useful and usable definition of terrorism. Terrorism involves political aims and motives. It is violent or threatens violence. It is designed to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence is conducted by an identifiable organization. The violence involves a non-state actor or actors as either the perpetrator, the victim of the violence, or both. finally, the acts of violence are designed to create power in situations in which power previously had been lacking (i.e. the violence attempts to enhance the power base of the organization undertaking the actions). The key elements of the definition will be discussed in the sections to follow. The importance of the various characteristics will Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . WhaT is Terrorism? 3 be obvious in many of the other chapters as well. This definition will underlay much of the discussion in the following chapters and will demonstrate why it is important and why it combines in a useful way to describe the phenomenon that we know as terrorism. PolITIcAl oBjecTIves The first key element of this definition is that the violence is primarily undertaken for political reasons. The fact that the actions are initiated to achieve political ends is a key element that separates terrorist acts from other forms of violence. The political objectives separate terrorism from violence that is launched for financial reasons or because of personal issues. Kidnappings of prominent political leaders or corporate executives to make political statements are different from those kidnappings that serve as criminal ventures to raise money for the abductors. The use of fear to extort money from businesses (the protection rackets of American gangster fame) is criminal, not political. Sometimes, of course, opposition groups have used kidnapping or bank robberies to finance their organizations, and they have been known to use violence or the threat of violence to levy “revolutionary taxes” on groups that could be forced to pay. In these cases, the goals are still generally political because the money received is used to fund subsequent political activities, including possibly more violence, rather than leading to gains in personal wealth. While political objectives are a key for defining terrorism, the goals that are sought by terrorists can fall into a number of categories. The terrorists may be seeking to have a change in policies, or a change in leadership, or even a change in boundaries. The attainment of these objectives may be ones that are seen by the terrorists to be immediately possible or they may see them as being the end points of a long struggle. Some groups have indeed geared themselves for a long struggle to achieve these goals while others may believe that a show of violence is all that is necessary to topple the government in power or bring about the other changes that they desire. Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics4 vIolence The second element of a terrorist action is that the activity involves violence or the threat of violence. Requests for changes, demonstrations, and petitions are not terrorism, no matter how disconcerting they may be to a government. Although massive demonstrations may make a government apprehensive about the future, there is no direct threat of violence. Actual violence is fairly obvious when it occurs. Terrorism can also involve the credible threat of violence. One situation in which the threat of violence might be present would be one in which a group issues an ultimatum requiring action; if the appropriate action does not occur, violence will result. The threat of violence is only likely to be effective as a technique, however, with a group that has already demonstrated that it is able and willing to use violence. A political organization that has never undertaken any type of political violence is unlikely to be credible in its threats. Once violence has been used, however, the threat of additional violence may generate the necessary fear that the dissident group desires and lead the government to give in to the specific demands of the group. Hoaxes can, as a consequence, be part of a terrorist campaign, especially when they follow upon actual earlier violent actions. TARGeT AuDIence For violence, and even political violence, to qualify as terrorism, it must include a target audience beyond the immediate victims. The violence is intended to influence the target audience or audiences as part of the attempt to gain the political objectives of the organization. If a political leader is assassinated with the goal of removing that individual in order to permit the next in line to move up, the death is political violence, but it has no target audience and it is not terrorism. It is a practical effort to put someone else in power. For an assassination to be a terrorist action, it must involve parties beyond the assassin or assassins and the immediate victim. If a political leader is assassinated in order to send a message to other members of the political elite that they need to change policies or make concessions in order to avoid a similar fate, then that assassination is a terrorist act. Bombings Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . WhaT is Terrorism? 5 of buildings (with or without casualties) or car bombs in crowded areas are often intended to show the general public that they are vulnerable. The resulting fear may lead the public to put pressure on the government to change policies or weaken public support for the leaders in power who clearly are unable to protect the citizens from dissidents. Frequently the victims of terrorist actions are members of the target audience since that is the easiest way to send a message to all the other members of the target audience. One of the primary goals of the violence is to create fear in the target audience. Thus, the immediate victims are usually not chosen specifically, but are simply convenient targets. The target audience, not the immediate victims of a terrorist act, is the key group that terrorist organizations are attempting to influence, and the goal is to generate fear in the target audience. The need to reach a target audience is one reason why terrorist groups seek publicity. If no one knows of a terrorist act, the goals have not been achieved. If the deaths of government personnel are ascribed to a plane crash rather than a bomb on the aircraft, the target audience will draw the wrong conclusion about threats to the state or to the safety of individuals. The need for publicity is a key reason why some terrorist organizations have established pre-set code words with the media so that they can authenticate the claims of the organization when they provide a warning that a bomb is about to detonate. Of course, it will not be necessary in all cases for particular organizations to claim credit for particular terrorist actions. If a terrorist group has been active in the past, violence against the government or its supporters will be ascribed to the group without any need for a pronouncement from the terrorist group. The local situation and the target will often make it clear that the cause of a particular group of dissidents is behind the activity. If swastikas are painted on a Jewish synagogue, the anti-Semitic message is obvious. If a car bomb goes off at the headquarters of the ruling party, the general population is likely to know whether it is a local minority group or whether it is the political opposition that is behind the attack. Even if the source of the violence is obvious, it will still be necessary for information about the action to reach the target audience. Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics6 oRGAnIzATIon For political violence to be terrorism there must be an identifiable organization. A lone individual is unlikely to be able to carry out the actions, reach the target audience, and present the political demands for the changes that are necessary to end the violence. An effective campaign to create change also requires enough actions to be credible, an effort beyond a single individual over time. A political assassination to change a leader can be very effective even if the assassin is killed if the change in leadership results in a desired change in the government. If the leader is simply replaced by another person with the same program and policies, then nothing has been accomplished and the solitary individual who was seeking the change is likely to be killed or captured. Terrorist actions almost inevitably lead to casualties or arrests among the dissidents; thus, a single individual is very likely to be captured or killed. Large organizations do not have to be as concerned about casualties among the members, while smaller organizations have to conserve scarce resources (members). Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber in the United States, is a classic example of the limitations inherent with campaigns by one individual. Kaczynski sent package bombs to a variety of individuals. He was essentially upset over the pace of modernization and damaging changes that were occurring in the environment. His bombings over the years inspired fear, but the target audience was unclear, and it was not obvious what actions the target audience was expected to take. The FBI and other police agencies knew that the bombings were related due to forensic analyses, but they were unable to establish the linkages between the victims, and were they were unable to identify the political agenda of the person behind them. Until Kaczynski had a rambling manifesto published, his goals were unclear. Once they were published, he was identified by his writing and arrested. His activities demonstrate the need for a broader organization and the need for publicity (as well as the dangers that may come with greater publicity). Organizational structures have changed in recent times with improved communications and transportation that have resulted in Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . WhaT is Terrorism? 7 a smaller world. Organizations, such as Al Qaeda, can maintain linkages with each other and even support or cooperate with groups that are not a formal part of the organization. Al Qaeda, for example, has supported actions by other groups that were not part of the organization. It provided funding and technical support for a number of attacks when it agreed with the goals and when it thought there was a chance of successful actions. With mobile phones, the internet, and other forms of communication, such improvised or informal cooperative arrangements can extend the reach of a formal organization and make it much more dangerous. Basically terrorist groups set up a network operation. The network does increase the dangers and at the same time often makes it more difficult for the authorities to infiltrate informers or breakup the groups involved. Another form of organization that is present in the modern world is what has come to be called leaderless resistance. Leaderless resistance involves individuals or small groups that identify with some larger cause acting to achieve the goals of a larger group. There may be an organization that provides some direction to those wishing to undertake such “lone wolf” attacks by indicating appropriate targets or disseminating information on how to make bombs or use other types of violence. The individuals who were responsible for the London transport bombings in 2005 were not formal members of Al Qaeda or any other formal group. They did identify, however, with the goals of Al Qaeda and similar groups, and they saw their action as part of the broader struggle of militant Islam against activities of the West with which they disagreed. These individual attacks do add to the strength of a group, and there is an element of implied organization present. There has to be some group that provides a central reference for the identification and perhaps even to provide information on targets and techniques. The individuals agree with the broader goals, and they clearly seek to link themselves with the broader cause and to influence a target audience. This kind of loosely coordinated activity thus exists in addition to the more conventionally organized groups; they do not replace them completely. The anarchists were a group that operated in the late 1800s and the early 1900s seeking to change political systems to provide Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics8 greater benefits for average citizens and the working class. The anarchists first attempted to bring about political change through education efforts designed to convince the political elite to extend greater rights and freedom to the general population. When these efforts failed, the anarchists decided to use violence in their attempts to bring about change. The anarchists attacked political leaders in many countries. The targets included reigning monarchs and elected political leaders. Some were members of organized groups, but in some cases individual anarchists would attempt to assassinate prominent leaders as part of this broader struggle. The anarchists thus provide one of the earlier examples of a form of leaderless resistance. AcToRs oTheR ThAn sTATes InvolveD The actions of countries directed against other countries are excluded in this definition of terrorism. Countries involved in wars have always attempted to inspire terror in their enemies, but these kinds of activities are part of international relations. Similarly, in situations of tension between countries, their intelligence agencies may engage in activities designed to spread fear or undermine their opponents. The CIA (American Central Intelligence Agency) and allies like Secret Intelligence Service (United Kingdom) as well as the KGB (former Soviet intelligence service) engaged in many kinds of activities designed to weaken the Soviet Union and its allies or the United States and its allies respectively during the Cold War between these countries. At least, at times, the activities of these agencies were successful. The exclusion of activities between states is not intended to dismiss the importance of their actions, nor is it intended to deny that sometimes these activities can be horrific and cause devastation. During World War II, for example, both sides bombed cities in an effort to destroy the morale of the civilian populations. The bombings culminated with the destruction of Dresden and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which resulted in the deaths of large numbers of people. Massacres of civilians and similar types of activities undertaken by government forces during wartime are clearly evil as well. Actions such as these are not being dismissed and definitely Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . WhaT is Terrorism? 9 not accepted. They are simply part of another area of study and analysis for political science and international relations. There are three situations in which terrorism can occur within this definition: first, dissidents may target a government or governments; second, governments may target a group of their own citizens or support groups that target a group of their own citizens; or third, groups may target each other with such violence independent of government. By far the most frequent form that terrorism has taken is violence by dissident groups against their own government or foreign governments. The groups involved are using the violence as part of an effort to get the government to change policies or to bring about other changes in a political system. Governments may also tolerate situations in which local groups use violence in an effort to create terror in some portion of its own population that it fears or distrusts. Since governments have police, security, and military forces to deal with what are perceived to be domestic threats, this form of terrorism is less likely to occur. If the targets of the violence are groups opposed to the government, there may even be active support from the authorities. Finally, groups may battle among themselves in efforts to end the political activities of the opposing group or drive out another group. In Turkey in the 1970s left-wing groups and right-wing groups targeted each other with violence and terrorism as they competed to bring about different types of changes. When India and Pakistan were being formed out of the former British India in 1947, Hindus and Muslims attacked each other, and Muslim refugees from India and Hindu refugees from the new state of Pakistan fled in fear. WeAPon of The WeAk The last part of the definition depends on the fact that terrorist actions are used to improve the power situation of the organization that is using this form of political violence. While the specific agendas of groups using terrorism are quite different, they all share this characteristic. They are attempting to improve their power situation – to increase their probability of being able to influence political decisions. Terrorist campaigns are frequently mounted by organizations that have failed to bring about their desired changes Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics10 by other means, i.e. they are politically weak. The groups have failed in democratic elections to gain enough power to bring about change. Governments have ignored peaceful protests and appeals, or they have been met by government repression that prevents further efforts at peaceful change. A group that can influence the military to undertake a coup in their country to take over the government to bring about the changes that are desired will not have to rely on terrorism. Groups in the past that could organize a rebellion and mobilize sufficient troops to march on the capital and attempt to defeat the government did not have to rely on terrorism since they have more powerful sources. When civil wars break out, both sides have sufficient forces to engage in such a conflict. While one or both sides in a civil war may rely on terror techniques much as countries do during wartime, these activities are not central to the conflict. Terrorism remains a tool to be used by groups that lack the possibility of these kinds of peaceful or violent protests against a current government. Since they are relatively powerless in the conventional political setting of their own society due to limited electoral appeal or limited support in the face of government repression, they resort to unconventional means (terrorism) in an effort to improve their power base. When governments turn to supporting terrorist groups against their own citizens it is because they cannot be sure that they will be successful in relying on conventional police techniques or forms of repression. Thus, their reliance on terrorism is also a reflection of weakness. ATTAckInG cIvIlIAns Some definitions of terrorism include the specification that the targets of terrorist violence are civilians. The insurgent attacks on military personnel in Iraq, for example, are not normally considered terrorist attacks. Civilians are often the targets for terrorism because the target population consists mainly of civilians and terrorists usually attack members of the target audience. Adding this component to a definition of terrorism, however, adds complexity. Are off-duty police, reserve military personnel, or civilians acceptable targets? What about civilian employees working on military bases? When attacks result in the deaths of both civilians and military Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . WhaT is Terrorism? 11 personnel, are the civilians considered the targets or acceptable collateral damage? To include this component in the definition also may require knowledge of the intentions of those launching the attacks. As a consequence, it does not seem necessary to include the targeting of civilians as a key component of the definition, but it is useful to recognize that civilian populations are often the intended targets of terrorist attacks, if for no other reason than to increase the resulting fear among a target population as noted. TeRRoRIsm As PsycholoGIcAl WARfARe Terrorism is ultimately a form of psychological warfare. The goal of the terrorist group is to spread fear in the target population in order to bring about some kind of change. The goals of the terrorists have been met when the greatest amount of fear has been caused by the terrorist attack. The most effective terrorist actions are those that reach the largest number of people. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 in the United States generated immense amounts of fear because of the death toll and the symbolism involved. The 2005 transport bombings in London did not kill as many people but indicated to many in the United Kingdom that they could be at risk. The anthrax scare in the United States coming so soon after the attacks of 9/11 in October of 2001 generated a great deal of fear while resulting in the deaths of less than a dozen people. The hope of the terrorists is that the attacks will undermine confidence in the public or the elite and lead to the desired changes or to the weakening of a state, which in turn makes it more vulnerable to continued terrorism or other forms of violence. One of the things that can heighten the fear that occurs with terrorism is the idea that the violence is random. In actuality, terrorism is seldom random by intent; in fact, it has to be distinctly Fear in a target audience is one of the key goals of campaigns of terrorism. Terrorism is ultimately a form of psychological warfare that is directed against this target audience. (Wilkinson 1975: 81) Lutz, James, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism: the Basics : The Basics, Taylor & Francis Group, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=668578. Created from apus on 2021-09-09 02:14:59. C o p yr ig h t © 2 0 1 1 . T a yl o r & F ra n ci s G ro u p . A ll ri g h ts r e se rv e d . Terrorism: The Basics12 non-random in order to be successful. The targets of terrorist attacks, whether they are people or objects, are chosen from among a similar group of targets. One member of the group is interchangeable with another. The randomness occurs in the sense that any individual member of a group can become the target for the violence to send the message to others. While the victims of a lethal attack are likely to be random in the sense of being victims, they become victims because they are members of a specific group. The appearance of complete randomness in the choice of targets, however, can … 1 CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR (CBRN) TERRORISM IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 (9/11) came as a complete surprise, but should not have been unanticipated. Throughout the 1990s terrorism analysts from both inside and outside government had been arguing that it was only a matter of time before the first act of mass destruction terrorism. Yet threat assessments had increasingly focused on acts of mass destruction terrorism involving CBRN weapons. This raises questions about why attention was focused on CBRN weapons when there was a greater potential threat from other forms of attack. The starting point in searching for the answer to that question is the history of CBRN terrorism, coupled with the nature of the public and political debates that have surrounded it. This historical narrative shows that some terrorist groups in the latter part of the twentieth century have always been interested in CBRN weapons, with the first decade of significant terrorist interest in CBRN terrorism being the 1970s. CBRN Terrorism in the 1970s Terrorism in the 1970s was dominated by ethno-nationalist separatist or independence groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Irish Republic Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland. It was also the decade when radical left- and right-wing political groups in Western Europe such as the Red Army Faction (RAF) also known as the Baader-Meinhof C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 1 . I . B . T a u r i s . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w . EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AN: 355536 ; Benjamin Cole.; The Changing Face of Terrorism : How Real Is the Threat From Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons? Account: s7348467.main.ehost 6 The Changing Face of Terrorism gang, and the Red Brigades were operating at their peak. Despite the high levels of terrorist violence, particularly in the Middle East, security debates in the West were dominated by the Cold War. Concerns about terrorism and ethno-nationalist guerrilla movements assumed significance primarily because of concerns that the Soviet Union was using them as proxies to de-stabilize democratic regimes and spread communism. Against this background of heightened terrorist activity, there was significant, albeit limited, interest among some terrorists groups in using CBRN weapons. These incidents can be divided into three broad groups: those where there was a threat to use CBRN weapons but no evidence that the group involved actually possessed them; incidents where a group possessed a CBRN weapon but it was never used; and incidents in which a CBRN weapon was actually used. In the majority of reported incidents in the 1970s there was no evidence that the group concerned actually possessed a CBRN weapon. Yet there were a small number of incidents in which a terrorist group acquired a CBRN weapon and apparently intended to use it. A number of groups, such as the revolutionary left-wing group Weather Underground, attempted, but failed, to acquire CBRN weapons.1 But a number of groups and individuals did succeed in developing or otherwise acquiring CBW. These included left-wing groups, right-wing groups, an unspecified Arab group, and various individuals whose political affiliations are unknown. Perhaps the most significant of these incidents occurred in 1972 when members of the Order of the Rising Sun, a neo-Nazi group in the USA, were arrested in possession of 30–40kg of Typhoid bacillus and charged with conspiring to contaminate the water supplies of large cities in the USA.2 This case indicated that some terrorist groups had the technological capability to develop biological agents, and were interested in using them to indiscriminately kill large numbers of civilians. There was also one other alleged plot to indiscriminately kill civilians by poisoning water supplies, but in all of the other cases the targets were discriminate, these included President Gerald Ford, the Supreme Court and the Capitol Building in Washington.3 The threat from this small number of groups and individuals was neutralized by the success of the security forces in apprehending the culprits before they executed their attacks. There were only three terrorist incidents involving the use of CBRN weapons in the 1970s. In November 1973 members of the left-wing revolutionary group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) killed California school superintendent Dr Marcus Foster and wounded Deputy Superintendent Robert Blackburn with cyanide-tipped bullets.4 In 1979 the Arab Revolutionary Army Palestinian Commandos injected Israeli oranges EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use CBRN Terrorism in Historical Context 7 that were being exported to Western Europe with mercury. More than a dozen people were poisoned by the oranges, and a number of children were killed. The following year, the same terrorist group threatened to poison other Israeli agricultural exports to Europe,5 whilst in Italy, the Red Brigades allegedly tried seven times to poison reservoirs, but were unsuccessful because the toxins were quickly diluted.6 This last incident was particularly worrying because of the intent to cause indiscriminate mass casualties. A number of observations can be made from these incidents. The number of incidents involving the use of a CBRN weapon or in which the terrorist group acquired a CBRN agent but did not use it, was far outweighed by the number of unsubstantiated allegations, threats and hoaxes. The ‘weapons’ involved were crude, with the terrorists being restricted to using chemical or biological agents for individual assassinations or as contaminants. The nature of the plots raised a number of significant questions that remained unanswered. Foremost amongst them was whether terrorist use of these weapons was restricted by technical considerations, or whether some groups might have been deterred from using them for a range of moral, tactical, political or religious reasons. These incidents fostered a small but well-informed debate on CBRN terrorism in the academic and policy communities. Writing in 1977, David Rosenbaum argued that individuals with the necessary skills to develop nuclear weapons are easily found, and that ‘most revolutionaries now however seem to consider indiscriminate slaughter a primary tactic and one of which they are proud’.7 Yet the debate was reasonably balanced, with analysts such as Brian Jenkins questioning terrorists’ ability and motivations to procure CBRN weapons: ‘nuclear terrorism is neither imminent nor inevitable … simply killing a lot of people is not an objective of terrorism’.8 It was argued that serious obstacles to CBRN terrorism existed, and that the political and strategic disincentives to perpetrating WMD attacks would be high. Studies assumed that terrorists needed political and material support, and aimed to raise awareness of their cause in order to build popular support for it. The view of many observers was that the use of CBRN weapons and particularly WMD, would stiffen the resolve of governments not to accede to the terrorists’ demands, and would alienate the potential supporters of terrorist groups. As a result of the small number of attacks, and their limited impact, the debate on CBRN terrorism in the 1970s was not driven by events. CBRN terrorism was not a significant feature of mainstream terrorist activity and neither was it a major threat to the national security of any state. For governments, it remained marginal to other more immediate national EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 8 The Changing Face of Terrorism security concerns. Thinking about nuclear terrorism was merely an adjunct to broader debates about nuclear non-proliferation following India’s test of a nuclear weapon and the signature of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1974. As a consequence, the issue was lost sight of alongside the more immediate concerns of policy makers to contain proliferation and manage the Cold War. As a consequence, the issue failed to galvanize any significant response from governments. Overall, events in the 1970s served notice of emerging risks and challenges, but the spectre of WMD terrorism involving CBRN weapons still seemed to be a long way off. CBRN Terrorism in the 1980s Terrorist activity in the 1980s was similar to that in the previous decade. It was dominated by ethno-nationalist groups such as the PLO, the IRA, the Basque separatist group Euzkadi Ta As Katasuna (ETA), and the Ellalan Force of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (the Tamil Tigers) in Sri Lanka. However, some of the political groups in Western Europe such as the RAF and Red Brigades were in decline by the end of the decade. The strategies and targets of many of these groups evolved as government counter-terrorism measures began to have an impact, but many of these groups still displayed an interest in perpetrating indiscriminate attacks against civilian targets. The arguments about terrorist use of CBRN weapons that emerged in the 1970s continued to permeate the public debate in the 1980s. Grant Wardlow argued that, ‘The capability of killing on a grand scale must be balanced against the fear of widespread revulsion and alienating perceived constituents [supporters], of provoking a massive, publicly approved government crackdown’,9 whilst Konrad Kellen argued that because terrorists believe that their struggle is intended to better the human condition, mass killing is not likely to be attractive to most of them.10 At the beginning of the 1980s the main focus of governments and the policy community was on nuclear terrorism, which culminated in the convening of the International Task Force On the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism, in 1985. The task force brought together experts from different fields to consider nuclear terrorism from the point of view of arms control, security, intelligence, civil nuclear programmes, crisis prevention and international law. Its seminal report was published in 1987.11 Chemical and biological terrorism was a much lower concern at that time, despite the fact that chemical weapons (CW) are easier to develop than nuclear weapons and most of the incidents in the 1970s involved CW. The threat of biological EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use CBRN Terrorism in Historical Context 9 terrorism was downplayed because the use of biological weapons (BW) was considered to be so morally repugnant that: no one would consider using them; the technology was too difficult for all but the most sophisticated laboratories to master; and the potential destructiveness of these weapons was simply too great for terrorists to consider using them.12 There was a slight increase in the number of actual attacks involving CBRN weapons during the 1980s, including a small number of serious incidents. Arguably the most important was the first case of BW terrorism. In September 1984, followers of the Rajneeshpuram Cult in the USA, infected the salad bars of restaurants in the town of The Dalles in Oregon with salmonella, causing serious food poisoning to 751 people. This attack had been preceded by a number of other failed attacks. In August, cult members had given water laced with Salmonella typhimurium to two local government officials and the bacteria was also used to contaminate produce at a local grocery store, and was smeared onto door and urinal handles in the county courthouse. On another occasion a cult member was instructed to contaminate the food in schools and nursing homes. Cult members then made two attempts to contaminate the water supply of The Dalles. It appears that they did not have enough Salmonella typhimurium and so probably used sewage mixed with dead rats instead. None of this contamination appears to have caused any illness. There are also reports that the group attempted to aerosolize HIV-contaminated blood, and also considered using hepatitis and giardia.13 The next incident occurred in 1985 in Israel, when the nerve agent carbamate was added to the coffee at an Israeli military dining hall, but there were no reports of casualties.14 This was followed in 1987 by the killing of 19 police recruits in the Philippines in what officials believed could have been a mass poisoning by either the communist New Peoples’ Army, or one of the Muslim separatist groups operating on the island of Mindanao.15 Following the successful contamination of Israeli oranges in 1979 there was also a large increase in the number of threats by different insurgent groups to contaminate the export products of a number of states. These threats were primarily intended to damage the national economies of those states and publicize the causes of the relevant insurgent groups. Examples include Uganda (coffee and tea), Sri Lanka (tea), South Africa (wine and fruit), the Philippines (pineapples), Israel (citrus fruits), Chile (grapes), and the USA (the pain killer Tylenol).16 An equally significant development was an increased number of incidents in which groups and individuals managed to develop a CBRN agent but did not actually use it. This provided a clear indication of an increasing interest EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 10 The Changing Face of Terrorism in CBRN weapons amongst terrorist groups. In 1981, a number of neo- Nazi arms caches uncovered by West German police were reported to have contained ‘various poisons including arsenic, strychnine and cyanide’.17 In 1982, it was claimed that Israel had captured a PLO representative in Lebanon, who was in possession of a CW. In 1983, the FBI seized 28g of ricin from two brothers in Springfield, Massachusetts, but it is not known why they had acquired it.18 There were also reports that in the early 1980s, French police raided a safe house in Paris belonging to a cell of the left- wing RAF (Baader-Meinhof gang), where they discovered a laboratory containing cultured Clostridium botulinum (which produces botulinum toxin), and notes about bacteria induced diseases.19 There were also a number of other incidents that served as indicators of a potential worsening of the situation in the 1990s. The first group of incidents involved the burgeoning extreme right-wing movement in the USA. This movement is comprised of a diverse mix of racist, Christian, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and anti-government groups. In 1983 a plot was hatched at a meeting of white supremacists from the USA and Canada at the Headquarters of the Aryan Nations, in Idaho, which included the ‘polluting of municipal water supplies’. Four years later, this resulted in 14 individuals being indicted for plotting to engage in indiscriminate mass murder by poisoning the water supplies of two major US cities.20 In 1985, police in the USA raided the compound of The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of Lord, a Christian, millenarian, neo-Nazi group, where they discovered 30 gallons of potassium cyanide that the group was intending to use to poison the water supplies of several cities.21 In 1988, members of a racist group called the Confederate Hammerskins were convicted of attacking the Jewish Temple Shalom and the Mosque of Richardson in Dallas, Texas. Former members testified that the group had planned to pump cyanide into Temple Shalom, through its air conditioning system. 22 The final CBRN terrorist incident of the 1980s passed almost unnoticed in 1989. In Japan, members of the Aum Shinrikyo religious cult murdered a lawyer and his family in the city of Yokohama, by injecting them with potassium chloride.23 It was a portent of a wave of CBRN attacks by Aum Shinrikyo in the early 1990s. As was the case in the 1970s, a diversity of different types of terrorist groups threatened or attempted to acquire CBRN weapons in the 1980s. But again, no group managed to develop a WMD or even to effectively weaponize a CBW agent that it had acquired. This restricted them to using chemical and biological agents as contaminants. Security forces were the target of some of these attacks, but the majority of the attacks and planned attacks, were aimed against civilians, and there was an increase in the number EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use CBRN Terrorism in Historical Context 11 of plots that could potentially have resulted in mass casualties. Unfortunately, these incidents provided no further clarity to the uncertainties about the threat that had been identified in the 1970s. The relative influence of the various moral, technical, political, religious, tactical, and strategic factors that might impact on terrorists’ decision making on whether to acquire and use CBRN remained unknown. It was apparent that some groups with an intent to cause indiscriminate mass casualties lacked the technical expertise to weaponize CBRN agents, whilst others which might have had the technological capability seemed to lack interest. It also remains unknown whether those groups that actually had a CBW but were arrested before using it would ever have actually gone through with an attack. CBRN Terrorism in the 1990s The defining feature of the security environment in the 1990s was the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. These events fostered radical changes in international relations and changed the nature of security debates as a wave of nationalism and other ideologies and causes rose to prominence in a number of strategically significant regions of the world. The result was that the primary threats to international security were perceived to come from a greater number of smaller, more amorphous sources, such as regional states in pursuit of regional political ambitions, inter-ethnic civil wars, and transnational threats from non-state actors particularly terrorism, narcotics, and crime. To an extent these problems were interlinked, with many radical regimes in the developing world being profoundly anti-American, and actively seeking to limit the influence of the USA in their regions. This prompted allegations that these regimes were sponsoring terrorism as a means of pursuing their foreign policy goals. In particular, a significant increase in terrorist activity from groups with an Islamic fundamentalist or Islamist ideology seemed to confirm assessments that Iran was attempting to export its revolution throughout the Gulf region and the Middle East, threatening US strategic interests such as the security of Israel and oil supplies. These threats had always existed but had previously been dominated by Cold War issues. Now they rose to assume the primacy that the superpower confrontation had once held. It was at this time that al-Qaeda rose to prominence as a major facilitator of global jihad, with a number of high profile attacks on US targets. In conjunction with these changes in the international political system, the debate on CBRN and WMD terrorism gained heightened political prominence. This was due to a combination of increased levels of EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 12 The Changing Face of Terrorism terrorism and the continued proliferation of CBRN weapons and WMD, particularly by states that were alleged to sponsor terrorism. The 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent exposure of Iraq’s WMD programme provided conclusive evidence that the clandestine production of WMD is possible despite the existence of international arms control treaties. Concerns about Libya’s intentions were also raised after the identification of an alleged CW production facility at Tarhuna. These developments were linked into a broader set of concerns about the increasing ease with which terrorist groups could potentially acquire the technological expertise to develop CBRN weapons. There was particular concern that some scientists who had previously been employed in the WMD programmes of the former Soviet Union (FSU) might hire their services out to the highest bidder. But in general terms, it was also a time of rapid advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering, and of increasingly easy access to dual-use technology and scientific expertise. In 1996, former Director of the CIA John Deutch, summed up the situation by claiming that the ‘proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and their potential use by states or terrorists is the most urgent challenge facing the national security, and therefore the intelligence community in the post-Cold War world’.24 Terrorism in the 1990s was dominated by two underlying trends. The first was the increasing lethality of terrorist violence.25 On average, individual terrorist incidents were becoming more lethal. During the 1980s the number of international terrorist incidents was approximately 50 per cent greater than in the 1970s, and twice as many people were killed.26 During the 1990s the number of international terrorist incidents began to fall. A record 484 incidents occurred in 1991, which fell to 343 in 1992, then to 360 in 1993, to 353 in 1994 and finally to 278 in 1995. Yet as the figures fell, a greater percentage of these incidents resulted in fatalities.27 The evidence in respect of domestic terrorism is more problematic. In Algeria and Sri Lanka there were a significant number of attacks against civilian targets, whilst there was no significant increase in the number of casualties from attacks by groups such as the IRA and ETA. Hidden within these statistics however, was a more dramatic trend that lies at the heart of the contention that the trend towards increasing levels of lethality in terrorist attacks will result in the increasing use of CBRN weapons. Writing in 1990, Professor Paul Wilkinson identified a trend that originated from 1982, of increasingly indiscriminate and lethal attacks in which civilians were targeted. He pondered: EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use CBRN Terrorism in Historical Context 13 How does one explain this increase in indiscriminateness? In part it results from the terrorists’ ever more desperate desire for publicity. With the media and the public satiated with reports of violence around the world, terrorist leaders have concluded that they must commit greater atrocities to capture the headlines. Another key factor is the growing attraction of soft targets to terrorists, increasingly aware of the greater risks that face them if they seek to attack high prestige targets … Some experienced observers have suggested that another major element may be a shift inside terrorist organizations away from the more pragmatic ‘politically minded’ terrorist leaders to fanatical hard men, obsessed with vengeance and violence.28 But despite these trends, terrorist attacks which sought to kill large numbers of people were actually quite rare.29 Between 1925 and 2000 there were only 16 terrorist incidents that resulted in more than 100 casualties.30 Nine of these attacks occurred in the 1980s, and only four in the 1990s. So statistically, attacks at the higher end of the casualty spectrum reached a high point in the 1980s and then declined in number. This shows that the generally increasing lethality of terrorist attacks does not automatically result in an increase in the number of the most lethal attacks. However, these figures do not include failed attacks, and attacks where there was an intention to kill large numbers but which failed to achieve that goal, such as the bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993. The other main feature of these attacks is that many of the targets were discriminate in nature, such as the 1984 bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. But of the four attacks that occurred in the 1990s, half of them – the series of 10 bombs detonated in Bombay in 1993, and the destruction of a Moscow apartment block in 1999, were indiscriminate in nature. Therefore, even when terrorists seek to kill large numbers of people, they will not necessarily choose an indiscriminate civilian target, although there did seem to be a shift towards attacking such targets in the 1990s. This raises questions about the extent to which many terrorist groups are interested in perpetrating attacks that would cause indiscriminate mass casualties. These figures in themselves do not prove that terrorists will attempt to procure CBRN weapons in order to perpetrate indiscriminate attacks resulting in mass casualties. What 9/11 proved is that it is possible to kill large numbers of people with conventional weapons, and in the 1990s, terrorists had not yet reached the full potential for mass killing using conventional weapons. This suggested that if greater numbers of terror groups are moving towards attacks intended to cause mass casualties, it EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use 14 The Changing Face of Terrorism should initially have been manifest in a greater number of attacks involving conventional weapons. And this is exactly what happened, when an Islamist terrorist cell attempted to destroy the World Trade Centre in 1993 by detonating a massive bomb in its basement. The bomb exploded but failed in its intention to topple one of the towers into the other. It was a portent of things to come and provided clear evidence of some terrorists’ interest in perpetrating indiscriminate mass casualty attacks. The increasing lethality of terrorist violence was perceived to be driven by the other main trend in terrorist violence in the 1990s: the growth of ‘religious’ terrorism. Many secular terrorist groups such as the IRA and the PLO are ‘religious’ to the extent that their members are drawn almost exclusively from one particular faith, but their ideologies and goals are political in nature. For a new generation of terrorists that first emerged in the late 1980s, their ideologies and objectives are a blend of politics and religion. This involves all of the world’s major religions, from extreme right-wing Christian groups, radical Jews, militant Sikhs, and Islamic fundamentalists or Islamists. These ‘religious’ terrorist groups operate all around the world, including Europe, North America, South Asia, and the Middle East. When the first of these modern ‘religious’ terrorist groups emerged in 1980, they comprised only two of the 64 active terrorist groups. By 1992 that number had risen to 11, comprising a quarter of all the terrorist groups that carried out attacks in that year. By 1994, the trend had accelerated, and 16 (or one- third) of the 49 identifiable groups could be classified as being religious in character or motivation. In 1995 that number had risen again to 25 out of 58 known active terrorist groups, or 42 per cent. These figures indicated that politico-religious ideologies were fast becoming one of the primary drivers of terrorism.31 But among these new ‘religious’ terrorists there are differences over the extent to which they are driven by theological imperatives. Many have clear political objectives such as the liberation of their homelands from occupation, or the establishment of a theocratic regime. In contrast, others have much less comprehensible nationalist or ideological motivations, embracing far more amorphous religious and millenarian aims, which in their eyes are divinely sanctioned. In some instances their aims go far beyond the establishment of some theocracy amenable to their particular deity, to embrace mystical, almost transcendental and divinely inspired imperatives, or a vehemently anti-government form of populism, reflecting far-fetched conspiracy notions, based on a volatile mixture of seditious, racial, and religious dictums.32 EBSCOhost - printed on 9/8/2021 10:11 PM via AMERICAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use CBRN Terrorism in Historical Context 15 The linkage between the growth of ‘religious’ terrorism and the trend towards increasing lethality in terrorist attacks is evident from the fact that although ‘religious’ terrorists committed only 25 per cent …