Transcript Slide 1

Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Terrorism
James J.F. Forest, Ph.D.
UMass Lowell and Joint Special Operations University
Suggested Reading Material
Published 2012 by James
Forest and Brigadier General
(retired) Russell Howard
Foreword by Michael
Sheehan, DASD for SO/LIC
Preview materials available at
http://www.WMDTerror.net
Defining WMD
Weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on
people, property, and/or infrastructure.
WMD are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title
(i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or
serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or
impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as
those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or
radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.
CBRN weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
1) Chemical Weapons
Chemical Weapons use the toxic properties of chemical substances to
cause physical or psychological harm to an enemy
• Choking and blood agents (like chlorine, phosgene, fentanyl gas)
cause respiratory damage and asphyxiation
• Blistering agents (like mustard gas and lewisite) cause painful
burns requiring immediate medical attention
• Nerve gases (like sarin, tabun, VX) degrade the functioning of the
nervous system, causing a loss of muscle control, respiratory
failure, and eventually death
– a few droplets absorbed through the skin can kill in minutes.
• Others: Incapacitants (disorient, hallucinations); Binary
Can be delivered through bombs, rockets, artillery shells, spray tanks,
missile warheads, open containers, train/truck wreck . . .
Lots of industrial uses for chemicals – most widely available form of WMD
2) Biological Weapons
Disseminate agents of infectious diseases to harm or kill others
• Bacteria (like Anthrax, Brucellosis, Tularemia, Plague)
• Viruses (Smallpox, Marburg, Yellow Fever)
• Rickettsia (Typhus fever, Spotted fever)
• Fungi (the molds that cause stem rust of wheat and rye)
• Toxins (like Ricin, Botulinum and Saxitoxin) aka “midspectrum”
Key attributes include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Infectivity - the ability of a pathogen to establish an infection
Virulence/Pathogenicity - the ability of that infection to produce a disease
Toxicity - the damage to humans or agriculture that can be caused by the disease
The incubation period between infection and symptoms of the disease
Transmissibility – how easily it can be transmitted from person to person
The lethality or killing power of that disease
The stability and resilience of the pathogen
Relatively cost-effective and can be hundreds to thousands of times more potent
than chemical agents by weight
Variety of Threat Scenarios
Biological agents can be distributed through
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
• Pressurized sprayers mounted on trucks, airplanes, UAVs
• Food/water contamination
• Envelopes/packages
• Infected blankets or clothing
• Explosive munitions
Humans can be a means for delivery/dissemination as well as the victims
Strikes against the agricultural sector
• Potential use of infectious agents as bio-weapons
• Potential to trigger large-scale socio-economic impact
• Attack could take form of toxins/bacteria directly introduced
into the food chain, or a viral strike targeting the cattle industry
3) Radiological Weapons
• RDD: any means used to
disperse radioactive material.
• Can use conventional
explosives, an aerial sprayer,
or other means
•
•
•
•
•
• RED: highly radioactive
materials placed somewhere
while unshielded
• Locations where many
people would be exposed
(subways, airports, office
buildings, indoor stadiums)
Radioactivity: When certain atoms decay, they release excess energy
Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Neutron
Shorter “half-life” (faster decay) means higher radioactivity
When these substances are processed into a usable form, such as pellets
or powder, they are called radioactive sources
Many industrial uses: research, cancer treatments, power source
4) Nuclear Weapons
•
•
•
Unique in their explosive energy from nuclear fission or fusion:
Uranium-235 first fissile material discovered
Destructive power up to 50 megatons
–
1,000 tons of TNT = 1 kiloton
Analyzing the WMD Threat
Intentions
High
High
Low
Capabilities &
Opportunities
Low
Where do your “favorite” terrorist groups belong in this diagram?
A Model for Analysis
Intentions
High
High
Low
Capabilities &
Opportunities
What do we know?
Low
Capabilities
What terrorist groups have high capabilities? How do we know?
Group capabilities depend upon:
• Knowledge and skills of organization’s members
• Finances
• Environmental context
– Local grievances that motivate terrorist group recruitment, local
sympathizes, etc.
– access to materials, safe haven, etc.
• Commitment to learning (from own mistakes or
successes, from other group strategies, tactics, etc.)
Opportunities to Acquire
•
•
Dual use problem of many technologies, CBR materials
AQ Khan nuclear proliferation network
•
•
•
Transfer of an intact weapon from a state sponsor
The theft or purchase of materials to fabricate and detonate a crude WMD
WMD designs, instruction manuals available online
“Pre-positioned WMD”
• Nuclear power plants
• Chemical storage facilities
• Bio-technology labs
• Dams, water protection infrastructure (e.g., Katrina)
• Urban transportation of toxic chemicals
Opportunities to Acquire
• 1987: Individuals in Goinoia, Brazil find old discarded x-ray machine
with canister of “glowing material”; kills 4 people, hundreds sick
(cesium-137)
• 1998: 19 small tubes of cesium are stolen from a Greensboro, NC
hospital, and have never been recovered
• 1999: Thieves try to steal 200g of radioactive material from a
chemical factory in Grozny, Chechnya
• 2001: strontium-90 stolen from aging Russian lighthouse
• 2003: Attempt to smuggle (highly radioactive) cesium-137 and
strontium-90 from Georgia to Turkey
• 2003: Chinese doctor Gu Tianming attacks colleague with iridium192
• 2003: Schoolteacher in Bangkok arrested attempting to sell cesium137
A Model for Analysis
Intentions
High
What do we know?
High
Low
Low
Capabilities &
Opportunities
Intentions
• “The probability of a terrorist organization using a chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon, or high-yield explosives,
has increased significantly during the past decade.”
– 2003 US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
• “Terrorists have declared their intention to acquire and use weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) to inflict even more catastrophic attacks
against the United States . . . and other interests around the world. ”
– 2006 US National Strategy for Combating Terrorism
“Dozens of identified domestic and international terrorists and terrorist
groups have expressed their intent to obtain and use WMD.”
- Denis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, 2010
“There is a high likelihood of some type of WMD terrorist attack by the
year 2013.”
- Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, 2008
Indications of CBRN intent
• 1990s: Chechen rebels make several threats against nuclear power
plants
• 1996: John J. Ford, Joseph Mazzuchelli, & Edward Zabo plot to kill
3 New York politicians by putting radium in their food, cars, and
toothpaste
• 1998: Chechen rebels attempt to detonate dirty bomb on railway
• 2003: an apartment in north London has raw ingredients for making
cyanide and ricin, as well as instruction manuals
• 2004: seven pounds of cyanide salt are found during a raid on a
Baghdad house reportedly connected with al Qaeda
Indications of CBRN intent
• November 2004, a “chemical laboratory” is discovered in Fallujah
containing potassium cyanide, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid
• Setptember 2007: Australian home-grown terrorist group allegedly
plans to attack the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor with rocket
launchers
• August 2008: FARC attempts to sell uranium, but not “weaponsgrade”
• December 2008: Right-wing extremist in Maine orders radioactive
materials through the Internet, along with precursors for high-grade
chemical explosives
However . . .
History of WMD attacks by non-state actors is very thin . . .
• 1984, The Dalles, Oregon: Rajneeshes poison locals with salmonella
• June 1990, Sri Lanka: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) used
chlorine gas in its assault on a Sri Lankan Armed Forces camp at
East Kiran
• Japan, 1994-1995: Aum Shinrikyo uses sarin nerve agent for attacks
in Matsumoto and Tokyo
• U.S., September-October 2001: anthrax attacks through U.S. mail
• Russia, 1995: Chechen rebels planted a dirty bomb in Moscow's
Ismailovsky Park, but did not detonate
Theories
Many different theories proposed as to why so few WMD
terrorist groups have crossed the WMD threshold
• Practical Constraints Theories
• Strategic Constraints Theories
• Environmental Constraints Theories
Practical Constraints
• The more complex the weapon, the
lower the probability of success
• WMDs are far more expensive,
difficult to acquire and handle
• For the most part, we can’t really
test these weapons to make sure
we’ve got the right formula, delivery
mechanism
• “These weapons are just too
complicated . . . ”
Complexity
of Weapon
Probability of Success
Strategic Constraints
• Limited (if any) strategic benefit from developing,
acquiring, using a WMD compared to other weapons
– Depends on ideology, local context; will a WMD help us
achieve our objectives faster/better than other means?
• Could be counterproductive
– Deemed repulsive by core constituencies, general public
– Provoke massive government response
Weapon Effects
Different interests according to weapon type
• Biological and chemical weapons can be deployed silently. Effects
produced by chemical and biological weapons are usually delayed
and spread over time.
• Radiological weapons involve both explosion and long-term effects
• Nuclear weapons are unique in their explosive energy (derived
from fission) which can cause catastrophic damage and long-term
radiation
• Terrorists prefer spectacular, massive impact, instant worldwide
publicity, shock & awe effect
• Thus, nuclear or radiological may be more likely, but are more
significantly more difficult
Environmental Constraints
• Access to core materials needed to construct WMD is
difficult
– In many cases, may want to attack in foreign country
– Either need to smuggle a weapon across border, or access
materials and manufacture weapon in unfamiliar territory
• International community is making huge strides in nonproliferation, intelligence and interdiction
Projecting the Future WMD Threat
Intentions
What factors would lead a group to
move from point A to point B?
High
What could diminish practical,
strategic, or environmental
constraints?
B
High
Low
Capabilities &
Opportunities
What kinds of radicalization would
indicate a higher WMD threat?
A
Low
– What do we look for? How do we know?
Affecting the Future WMD Threat
• How can we influence groups to stay away from the
WMD threshold?
• What can be done to exacerbate the practical, strategic,
environmental constraints they already face?
• Other ideas?
Final Thoughts
• The threat is real, but within narrow parameters
• Most important dimensions:
–
–
–
–
Motivations / Intentions
Capabilities
Opportunities
Constraints (theirs & ours)
• There are many ways in which we can contain
and reduce the threat of WMD Terrorism
Open Discussion