The destructive power of terrorism is on the rise as we unfortunately were shown by the acts of September 11th 2001 in the United States. The terrorists of today are armed with new weapons and experimenting and purchasing more. Terrorists of today are willing to use these weapons much more indiscriminately than in the past. Modern terrorism is also changed in a way as far as motivation from ideologically motivated to ethnically motivated. Terrorism is no longer a militant’s only strategy; they have political and military wings. State driven terrorism is also a sort of new facet to the whole terrorism realm. When investigating terrorism and looking for reasons and motivations certain questions must be examined, who is the actor behind the terrorism? Who are the victims or target and what are the motives for this violence. Terrorism has long existed in our world. Terrorist’s acts are actually considered to be on a decline in the past 10 years by reports. The difference is the type of terrorism and the quickness to use weapons of mass destruction and the simplicity of obtaining these weapons. The targets have changed from specific political leaders to a use of mass killings. Walter Lacquer examines the concept of port modern terrorism and the chance of WMD’s being used while weighing the reasons it is unlikely. Richard Betts acknowledges the possibilities of the aftermath of such an attack and points to the US to prepare civilly for these attacks.
Terrorism is a complex and difficult threat to truly and properly judge. Different types of terrorism have emerged. Modern terrorism is based more on ethnic inspirations than ideological ideas of the past. Ethnic terrorism definitely has more long term staying power. They can attract more people and influence others more efficiently. They are larger groups often. State sponsored terrorism still exists. States actually admittance on the support or sanctions however is less as common due to past events in countries such as Iran. Nation states affected by state sponsored terrorists are much more likely to respond to the country harboring or helping terrorists. Walter Lacquer argues that since terrorist activity has begun it has never been a success and has often even ended in the exact opposite of the result intended. Lacquer however does question the future slightly in terms of chemical and biological weapons and the availability of them to terrorists. However he remains confident that for the most part these types of weapons will not be used for a number of reasons. One reason he points towards is the difficulty of production, storage and delivery of these weapons. Also because terrorism has become more of an ethnical tradition, he feels that terrorists view there actions as heroic, whether it be suicide type bombings, or even just getting caught and dealing with the consequences. The terrorists won’t be seen as heroic Lacquer feels if they release biological weapons into the air or leave a chemical agent for people to inhale or ingest. Also the possibility of chemical type weapons of hurting people of the same background or biological weapons starting an all out epidemic is seen as another area to make them think twice.
Richard K. Betts feels that Threats of weapons of mass destruction is a very important and real issue and more things should be focused at domestic ways of dealing with these threats. Betts recognizes the new simplicity of terrorist groups to obtain these weapons and feels that they are very willing to use them. Betts does not feel the United States is doing enough to deal with possible mass destruction at home. He recognizes that the pentagon has made attempts in combating attacks on soldiers in foreign countries but feels that strikes would be much more likely to happen inside our country. He feels that biological weapons are the most worrisome. He points toward the ease of acquisition and the high casualties that they bring. Nuclear weapons are his second as far as rating WMDs threats to the US. He points to their large casualty capability but they are very hard to obtain. Chemical weapons are easier to obtain but you need a large quantity to have a large number of casualties and it makes it not worth the efforts. Betts does acknowledge within his fears that past history has shown that terrorists have not been into mass destruction overall, mostly killing a few hundred people. However these weapons especially biological weapons have now entered the hands of terrorists and are now considered the weapons of the weak or low class militarily.
Both Betts and Laqueaur raise some very strong points on use of weapons of destruction by terrorist groups and how the US should deal with these threats. Each article was written pre September eleventh however. Betts seems to represent more of the feeling people have now about working to design plans in case of attacks. He feels that attacks of this type are evident and that limiting deaths will be an important issue, he acknowledges it may be tough to do but a plan needs to be attempted to be put in order. Lacquer makes some very strong points on why we should not worry as much about these attacks. Chemical weapons are not extremely deadly and hard to transport. Biological weapons are very sensitive and complex, once they leave the lab temperature or any mistakes in handling can destroy the virus. Nuclear weapons are also tough to transport and detonate; they are very expensive and very scarce.
Laqueur points to a type of new age non violent terrorism called info terrorism. Info terrorism involves such things as hackers, use of mail, and basically creating chaos that will in turn result in large information or money losses. Laquear feels that if or when terrorists resort to this type of terrorism the powers will be much greater than any in the past. A target such as the federal reserves headquarters would be an obvious target and could be hacked into by a capable hacker. Terrorist’s targets will be different than in the past. Rather than assassinating a leader they will dismantle an economy. He points to terrorists of this type being smaller groups which will be a lot harder to target.
The thought of chemical and biological terrorist attacks is a complicated issue in the present day world. The threat of biological and chemical weapons is very real and well documented. Such weapons are very hard to defend against and have become a lot more attainable to terrorists. I agree with both Betts and Lacquear, I feel that we should have some sort of plan in case these types of terrorist attacks are played out. I also agree that the likelihood that these types of attacks will become a common or preferred way of terrorists is minimal. Chemical weapons are very hard to transport especially post September 11th. I personally was pulled over in Boston while driving an empty Uhaul truck home from helping a friend move into school and the truck was checked after the entire road was blocked off by state police. This is just a small example of post September 11th awareness and the risks of transporting chemical weapons. The risks of this type of attack outweigh the gains. Biological weapons are a lot easier to manufacture and the results of this type of attack would be much more devastating, however biological weapons are very sensitive as far as temperature and other factors. Another factor minimizing the likelihood of a biological attack is the fact that members of a certain terrorist group could be affected, and the aftermath is unpredictable. Most of all present day terrorists such as Al Qaeda seem to want the victims to know that they committed these acts. I see these types of attacks as a last resort or a last stand in the face of defeat rather than a new means of terrorism. Still the threat strongly exists and terrorist targets should have some sort of plan in case of this type of attack. Info terrorism is a very real and scary possibility, but does not fit the profile of present day terrorist groups.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com