Searching for the Right Approach to Deal with WMD Terrorism

Searching the Right Approach to Dealing with WMD Terrorism In exact words of Wayman Mullins, “terrorism is an extremely difficult concept to define. [It] is an ethereal philosophy, and terrorist actors engage in terrorism for a variety of purposes, motivations, and ideologies”. Elmi, Munira. "Is Global Terror the 'Dark-side' of Globalization?" e-International Relations RSS. 12 Mar. 2011. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/12/is-‘global-terror-is-the-‘dark-side’-of-globalization’/ From the origins of the term to the modern times, the task of defining what terrorism is has not only been hard, but also definitions related to the term have always been open to controversy as the phenomenon of terrorism has always been complex. "Homeland Security." Report of the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism. 2002. http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/un-wrkng-grp-terrorism-intro.htm Although there are numerous characterizations in the literature trying to limit and find certain, similar patterns between different examples of terrorism, it is indeed a fact that terrorism inherently tends to be subjective and vague. This makes the task of a researcher even harder when it comes to conceptualize the term itself. For some, “terrorism is characterized, first and foremost by the use of violence” Kiras, James D. "Terrorism and Globalization." The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 372. Print., always has a political character, is distinguished by its non-state nature, do not feel any responsibility towards international laws or norms when it comes to conducting their attacks, and there is always “a surprise use of violence against seemingly random targets”. Cronin, Audrey K. "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." The MIT Press 27.Winter (2002-2003): 33. For others, although terrorism is used “as a synonym for political violence in general, (…) in reality it is a special form of violence”. Wilkinson, Paul. "Terrorism." The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. By Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010: 129. In this line of reasoning, the ‘offensive’ and ‘violent’ character of terrorist activities mirror a common point of departure in the terrorism literature. This offensive and violent nature of the terrorism surely reaches to its zenith when one calls our attention to a catastrophic combination of all times; weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terrorism. On the one hand, it has been argued that WMD terrorism is one of the biggest, deadliest and high risk threats a nation state can face and yet should all the times be prepared, on the other hand it has been said to have a low probability of success and low possibility to take place due to technological complexity, high price and significant state constraints on the acquisition or marketing of these weapons. Accordingly, it is not an easy task to develop a working framework for analyzing the WMD terrorist threat as inherently, the debate has two sides to be mentioned. In this context, the scope of this article is to search for a better assessment of the threat of WMD terrorism while executing an in-depth analysis of contrasting perspectives belonging to skeptics and conventionalists trying to find whether the issue is hype, or not. To be able to do that, the following article first briefly focuses on a relatively new, yet exceptional concept, modern, in other words ‘new’ terrorism which significantly reflects the very transformation of what we have understood from terrorism in the first place. After elaborating this, the second part of the text deals with the definition of WMD by answering why it is what it is while reflecting different views on the term’s denotation. In the third and final section, the aim is to assess the threat of WMD terrorism through different perspectives as the article promised. While the differing sides of the WMD terrorism risk assessment debate are being mentioned, the ultimate goal of the paper is to name the most applicable yet rational perspective in terms of policy and strategy making. Dealing with a Relatively New Concept: Modern/New Terrorism In order to understand the motives behind the WMD terrorism, we should first take a close look at a relatively new concept, modern terrorism, as the former is believed to be the product of the latter. The character of the present international terrorism is said to be composed of “unpredictable and unprecedented threats from non-state actors”. Cronin, Audrey K. "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." The MIT Press 27.Winter (2002-2003): 30. Respectively, the era of globalized terrorism is an era where state-centric threats are still vivid, therefore “have joined by new competing political, ideological, economic, and cultural concerns”. Ibid,31. In proving this it is important to address David Rapaport’s description over the evolution of modern terrorism which divided terrorism into a four phased historical process. In Rapaport’s argument, the first phase is initiated by the breakup of empires, since “the search for a new distribution of political power provided an opportunity for terrorism in the 19th and 20th centuries” as the popular movements of following that particular era devoted themselves to seeking “greater democratic representation and political powers from coercive empires”. Ibid, 35-36. The second phase, as he stressed, is marked by the World War I which was tied to the concept of national self-determination with a particular aim of restoring “political independence or autonomy” since the decolonization called national movements into being. Ibid. During 1970s and 1980s, the third phase came to life due to great advances in technology and the wider role played by international media. This phase, as argued by Rapoport, witnessed to “the height of state-sponsored terrorism” as governments of Iran, Libya, North Korea and Soviet Union regarded international organizations as “an attractive tool for accomplishing clandestine goals while avoiding potential retaliation for the terrorist attacks”. Ibid, 37. Additively, same phase has witnessed a lot a terrorist activity including the attacks of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) during 1972 Munich Olympic games resulted in the death of eleven Israeli athletes; PLO members hijacked planes, and terrorized people outside their borders; Irish Republican Army (IRA) in United Kingdom and Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) in Spain planted bombs, massacred people… These were just a few of varying examples of terrorist attacks that took place during 1970s and 1980s. This view is also asserted by Wilkinson, as for him “the growth of research and academic publications dealing with all types of international and internal terrorism in the late 1960s and the 1970s was clearly a reflection of the dramatic increase in terrorist incidents”. Wilkinson, Paul. "Terrorism." The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. By Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010: 132. The influence of the international media, the widespread network of news, and the international character that terrorism has gained helped these attacks to create an overwhelming distress in societies. The final fourth wave, namely the jihad era is observed to launch out following the September 11 attacks of Al-Qaida and resulted in a new form of religious terrorism. See Rapoport, David C. "The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism." Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy. By Audrey Kurth Cronin and James M. Ludes. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2004. 46-72. The present form of modern terrorism without a doubt is reflecting a sophisticated, transnational character, constituted on dynamic relations between various social factors. It is indisputable that today’s terrorism is much more entangled and well-adapted to conditions appeared with the emergence of modern society. Defining WMD After briefly introducing a popular phenomenon, modern terrorism, the ground has been formed for us to go further in understanding one of its various byproducts, namely the WMD terrorism. Considering the ambiguity surrounding various definitions of conventional terrorism as it has been addressed in the very beginning, it is reasonable to expect a similar challenge when it comes to defining WMD terrorism. The term WMD is originally an old Soviet military term standing for the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the way of inflicting mass casualties however, its scope has widened to include radiological weapons in the modern terrorism context. Bowman, crs report The threat of WMD terrorism actually became a highly prioritized issue concerning national security in the last two decades, as a result of several infamous lethal attempts which were aiming to kill as much people as possible while spreading high levels of fear to masses through media. The WMD weapons, without a doubt, are among the most deadly tools a terrorist group could gather but at the same time the hardest ones as acquiring them necessitates a significant capital budgeting, extensive knowledge regarding the build-up and utilization of the WMD equipment and high levels of technology. Gressang, D., IV. "Audience and Message: Assesing Terrorist WMD Potential." Terrorism and Political Violence 13.3 (2001): 87. Considering the lack of facilities, infrastructure, know-how or capital in the possession of modern time terrorist organizations, it is not shocking to hear that particularly WMD terrorism has took place less than 15 times in the last 50 years among all other types of terrorist attacks. Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 52-53. Although the WMD abbreviation attached to the term clearly indicates that a tool classified under this category is capable of inflicting mass casualties, “today’s powerful conventional firepower, capable of causing large scale killings, immediately challenges this type of definition”. Maerli, Morten Bremer. "Relearning the ABCs: Terrorists and “weapons of Mass Destruction." The Nonproliferation Review 7.2 (2000): 109. What’s more, the use of non-conventional weaponry, as we have witnessed the use of airliners as the source of a deadly attack in the fall of 2001, creates a further problem in distinguishing the former “within the category of ‘WMD’”. Ibid. Another difficulty in defining the term stems from the wide range of destructive power that each weapon (nuclear, biological, radiological or chemical) possesses. With a closer look, it is obvious that each type has different levels of lethality; especially the nuclear weapons are by far the deadliest ones on list since they are considered as the most destructive tools humanity ever faced with. While a single nuclear weapon is by itself capable of destroying a capital city, biological or chemical weapons’ destructive capacity is most of the time limited. To avoid the blur when distinguishing the weapons under the “WMD” category according to their effectiveness and destructive capacity, Morton Bremer Maerli brings “ABC weapons”, a more precise term of the 1950s, which stands for the Atomic, Biological and Chemical weapons, back to the table. Ibid. Similarly, to address the very same problem, an updated, alternative, yet popular use of the related term is recently put in use, namely “CBRN”, another abbreviation standing for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear weapons. Dishman, Chris. "Understanding Perspectives on WMD and Why They Are Important." Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24.4 (2001): 304. For the purposes of this paper, the terms WMD terrorism and CBRN terrorism are interchangeably used. Assessing the Threat: Three Approaches Although the term WMD goes back to earlier times, the debates regarding the severity of WMD terrorism and how to assess the threat stemming from it dates back to mid-1990s. Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 501-502. Selected years are significant in the WMD terrorism literature as three severe, yet high-profile incident occurred in between the years 1995-2000. On March 20, 1995, the infamous Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo used sarin gas –a nerve agent- in the Tokyo subway system, killed eleven people while injuring thousands. Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 52. Although the attack did not proceed the way Aum has planned and failed to inflict mass casualties, it was the very first attempt of a terrorist group utilizing CBRN weapons in a well-organized manner. The second attack happened on such a short notice in April, 1995 outside a federal building in Oklahoma City by a domestic extremist who managed to destroy the whole building and killed 168 with a car bomb. Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 502. The third event took place in 1996 in a pedestrian park in Moscow when “Chechen rebels planted –but did not detonate- a radiological dispersion device (RDD, also known as a ‘dirty bomb’) consisting of dynamite and cesium 137”, if the bomb was to be detonated, the outcome would have been catastrophic. Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 53. Regardless of the fact that all these attacks happened in different parts of the world by terrorist groups sharing completely different ideologies, their occurrence drew attention to the use of CBRN weapons while instigating the debates on the severity of the issue. “The terrorist attacks on September 11 and the anthrax letter attack” Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 502. surely intensified discussions in political and academic worlds while increasing the polarization of opinions on how to deal with the WMD terrorism risk. To be able to understand the reason behind this polarization, it is important to equally stress the opinions of each camp dealing with the issue. Before going any further, it must be stressed that there are different denotations for each major school of thought, namely the optimists (also known as under-estimators, minimalists, or skeptics), pessimists (also known as exaggerators, alarmists or conventionalists) and pragmatists. For more on this see Hoffman, Bruce. "The Debate Over the Future Use of CBRN Weapons" in Hype or Reality: The "new Terrorism" and Mass Casualty Attacks. By Brad Roberts. Alexandria, VA: Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, 2000. 220.; Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 501-20..; and Masse, Todd. "Nuclear Terrorism Redux: Conventionalists, Skeptics, and the Margin of Safety." Orbis 54.2 (2010): 302-19. From the perspective of the optimists, WMD terrorism is a more of an exaggeration as it is a “very low probability, very low consequence threat” Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 503. for several reasons. First of all, their arguments focus on the terrorist groups’ tendency to rely on conventional weapons such as guns and bombs since acquiring CBRN weapons or following an innovative path is not only costly but also technically very challenging. Ibid. Also see Masse, Todd. "Nuclear Terrorism Redux: Conventionalists, Skeptics, and the Margin of Safety." Orbis 54.2 (2010): 306. Accordingly, Todd Masse points the unlikeliness of a terrorist group to obtain an intact CBRN weapon on the black market, a well-known pessimist scenario, and adds; “even if acquired, [they will] unlikely have ability to override potential detonation codes or successfully deconstruct” Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 306.. Optimists also suggest that it is a faulty assumption to believe that a terrorist cell is capable of developing or acquiring CBRN weapons without the notice of domestic or international counterterrorism authorities. Dishman, Chris. "Understanding Perspectives on WMD and Why They Are Important." Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24.4 (2001): 305. They state that it is almost impossible for a terrorist group to work on a WMD attack plot and to stay low-profile at the same time. Last but not least, optimists argue that politically motivated terrorist organizations are reluctant to utilize CBRN weapons in an attack as “politically driven terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead”. Ibid. In this context, optimists are convinced that focusing on ‘exotic’ CBRN terrorism threats distracts policymakers from more likely, in other words ‘real’ attacks, causing them to misallocate state’s funds and human-force while misleading the public to get a wrong and exaggerated idea of the issue. According to pessimists, WMD terrorism is a “low (but growing) probability, high consequence threat” Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 503.. They regard WMD terrorism as the byproduct of the so-called ‘new’ terrorism trend while naming the increasing lethality of terrorist attacks and rising radicalism in religiously motivated terrorist groups as the solid facts increasing the likelihood of CBRN terrorism risk. Ibid. Pessimists also mention of the growing technical and operational capabilities of terrorist groups in modern times due to the internet along many other factor which surely facilitates communication and reaching to the relevant how-to manuals. Accordingly, the conventionalist risk assessment suggests that once the required material is obtained, “it is quite possible a terrorist group could recruit necessary skill sets to construct” Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 307. CBRN weapons. Pessimists’ point of view tends to focus on ‘what could happen’ as they assess the acquisition of CBRN weapons by terrorists as a real threat, for this reason, unlike optimists who base their argument on ‘what has happened’ as a guideline for future attacks, they “usually shelve history in favor of evidentiary fragments”. Dishman, Chris. "Understanding Perspectives on WMD and Why They Are Important." Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24.4 (2001): 304. In this respect, pessimists tend to defend for more aggressive methods and policies of prevention, detection, preparation and response in face of WMD terrorist attacks since they believe the risk is inevitably always high and always there. Pragmatists perceive WMD terrorism as a “low probability, low consequence” Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 503. threat. Since they cover the ground in between optimists and pessimists, their arguments share commonalities with the previous accounts. In line with the pessimists, pragmatists are concerned that the terrorist groups’ interest to utilize unconventional weapons to inflict mass casualties is on the rise. However, they believe that the number of such groups is not only rare in the light of the historical data, but also their desire to obtain and to use CBRN weapons is restrained by several elements. As noted by John Parachini, a prominent pragmatist in the WMD terrorism literature, these elements are; the mindset of leadership, as it is the main determinant of a terrorist group’s motivation to kill people; opportunity, as terrorist groups tend to head for the most practical means to fulfill the desired objective; and technical capabilities, as it is crucial in delivering unconventional weapons. Parachini, John. "Putting WMD Terrorism into Perspective." The Washington Quarterly 26.4 (2003):44-46. Although pragmatists stress the role played by religion as a significant motivating factor, it has been advocated that “the greatest danger occurs when the group also has technical capabilities, easily exploited opportunities, and a minimum of restraints”. Ibid. Being the middle ground, pragmatists neither assess the WMD terrorism threat as an unthinkable one as argued by optimists nor inescapable as pessimists say it is. Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 504. For them, small-scale use of CBRN weapons is a ‘real’ concern although they are skeptic in obsessing over the threat of large-scale WMD terrorist attacks as policymakers do. In this respect, pragmatists tend to defend policies addressing the WMD terrorism trend on a broader context (side to side with the rest of terrorist trends) while aiming to develop a better understanding of the motives, vulnerabilities and capabilities of potential attackers. Conclusions Consequently, just by observing how it evolved from the earlier times to this day, we may assume that the ever changing nature of terrorism will continuously push academics to come up with new approaches and theories addressing the very essence of the terrorism phenomenon. Being part of a wider terrorism concept, the WMD terrorism, regardless of the lacking real-time examples or a certain distinct ideology, is rather worth to be thought over as neither its limits nor its future implications are out in the open. To be able to keep up with the current terrorism literature, it is rather important to meet the paper’s preset aim which is to search for the most applicable and at the same time rational perspective in developing the right strategy and policy making in face of the WMD terrorist threat. In this respect, keeping a foot in both camps, pragmatists are the most confidence inspiring group among the given perspectives. As mentioned above, their argument is worthy in two aspects; first is the approval of the impossibility of eliminating the use of CBRN weapons by terrorist organizations and the second is recognition of the view that “the so-called new terrorists may not always escalate to unconventional weapons”. Parachini, John. "Putting WMD Terrorism into Perspective." The Washington Quarterly 26.4 (2003): 47. By embracing these ideas, pragmatists believe that there are other policy options dealing with the nature of WMD terrorist threat and the ways to combat it that neither restrict authorities’ focus (and prevent them treating the issue one-sidedly), nor misdirect state’s resource allocation. Ibid, 48. Limiting “the physical sanctuary within a state where a terrorist group operates to impinge on its scale of operations” or holding state sponsors responsible as violators of international law in case they get caught transferring “unconventional weapons capabilities to non-sovereign, sub-national groups” are two relevant examples of pragmatist policy options in combatting WMD terrorist threat. Ibid, 47. In pragmatists' understanding, combatting with the terrorist use CBRN weapons requires the assistance of diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement (both inside and outside the state) and military action if necessary. Bibliography Cronin, Audrey Kurth, and James M. Ludes. “Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy”. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2004. Print. Cronin, Audrey Kurth. "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." The MIT Press 27.Winter (2002-2003): 30-58. Print. Dishman, Chris. "Understanding Perspectives on WMD and Why They Are Important." Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24.4 (2001): 303-13. Print. Elmi, Munira. "Is Global Terror the 'Dark-side' of Globalization?" EInternational Relations RSS. 12 Mar. 2011. Web. http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/12/is-‘global-terror-is-the-‘dark-side’-of-globalization’/ Forest, James J. F. "Framework for Analyzing the Future Threat of WMD Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 5.4 (2012): 51-68. Print. Gressang, D., IV. "Audience and Message: Assesing Terrorist WMD Potential." Terrorism and Political Violence 13.3 (2001): 83-106. Print. "Homeland Security." Report of the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism. 2002. Web. http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/un-wrkng-grp-terrorism-intro.htm Kiras, James D. "Terrorism and Globalization." The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 372-84. Print. Koblentz, Gregory D. "Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 23.4 (2011): 501-20. Print. Maerli, Morten Bremer. "Relearning the ABCs: Terrorists and “weapons of Mass Destruction." The Nonproliferation Review 7.2 (2000): 108-19. Print. Masse, Todd. "Nuclear Terrorism Redux: Conventionalists, Skeptics, and the Margin of Safety." Orbis 54.2 (2010): 302-19. Print. Mauroni, Albert J. "A CounteR-WMD Strategy for the Future." Parameters: U.S. Army War College Summer (2010): 58-73. Print. Millar, Alistair. "Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: How to Prevent the Deadly Nexus." Global Dialogue Nuclear Perils 8.Winter/Spring (2006). Print. Morgan, Matthew J. "The Origins of the New Terrorism." Parameters: U.S. Army War College Spring (2004): 29-43. Print. Parachini, John. "Putting WMD Terrorism into Perspective." The Washington Quarterly 26.4 (2003): 37-50. Print. Roberts, Brad. Hype or Reality: The "new Terrorism" and Mass Casualty Attacks. Alexandria, VA: Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, 2000. Print. Schmid, Alex P. "Frameworks For Conceptualising Terrorism." Terrorism and Political Violence 16.2 (2004): 197-221. Print. Wilkinson, Paul. "Terrorism." The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. By Myriam Dunn Cavelty and Victor Mauer. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010. 129-38. Print. Nazlı Zeynep Bozdemir N12226245 11