Threat of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Explosives - Research Paper Example

Chemical, biological, radiological, Nuclear, Explosives Introduction Recent years have witnessed world leaders, security experts, and news media receive warning of the threat posed to global security by the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear explosives (CBRNE) weapons and materials (Oppenheimer 2011). Most recently, there have been warnings that unless the international community acts with great urgency and decisively, there is a possibility that a weapon of massive destruction under the banner of one or a combination of CBRNE materials and weapons will be used in terrorist attack(s) somewhere in the world as soon as before the end of 2013 (Heyman 2009). The government of the United States recognizes the prospect of CBRNE terrorism as a sensitive and delicate security challenge. This is particularly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (Antal 2009). Official government reports have been pointing out to the likelihood, over time, of terror groups and rogue states coming into possession of unconventional materials and weapons such as CBRNE, and the prospects of their use against the interests of the United States within the nation and in other parts of the world (Gage 2011). In order to have a deeper understanding of the topic on CBRNE, this research paper will respond and discuss to these research questions: What is the CBRNE threats of the US and short history? What can we do as a nation to fight terrorism use of CBRNE? And where are the most threats of the use of these CBRNE in the world and what can the US develop to combat the threats? What is the CBRNE threats of the US and short history? The history of CBRNE can be traced largely to the Cold War period. During the Cold War, a few states built up CBRNE stockpiles – a development that was spurred by security logic of deterrence and by arms race (Oppenheimer 2011). Actually, the term CBRNE is a replacement of the term NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) that was used to refer to weapons of mass destruction during that period (Cameron 2000). The Cold War period witnessed the emergence of the bipolar strategic stability where many nations joined one of the two-superpower alliance blocs that were led by either the US or the Soviet Union (Mauroni 2007). The emergence of the bipolar strategic stability led to the existence of palpable risk that war might occur leading to the disastrous use of CBRNE materials and weapons. The Soviet Union and the US produced large quantities of chemical and biological weapons (Prockop 2006). Even though nuclear weapons were not used during the Cold War, several states frequently made confessions of their willingness to do so. However, chemical weapons were used in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 and the effects were catastrophic. The end of the Cold War was the turning point in history of CBRNE. CBRNE replaced NBC and posed greater challenges and threats to global security (Heyman 2009). So, what are the CBRNE threats of the US? The US government has acknowledged in numerous occasions that CBRNE poses an acute security concern not only to the United States as a nation but also to its foreign interests and the world at large (Ganor 2005). Official government reports and senior US officials have pointed out to the likelihood of terrorist organizations coming into possession of CBRNE and the prospects of their use against the US forward-deployed forces, US allies, or US homeland (Gage 2011). The assessment of the CBRNE threats of the US identifies that the threats are based on both the delivery systems and the agents (Pillar 2003). The developments in weapon technology have given potential adversaries and terrorists an enhanced capability of acquiring these agents and employing them against the United States and its interests and allies (Mauroni 2007). These threats are further compounded by the fact that the terrorists and adversaries have an incentive of acquiring CBRNE since they are not able to match the US weapon technology in a conventional manner (Cronin 2004). The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) came up with a conclusion that the use and/or threat of biological or chemical weapons is a potential condition of future warfare and could take place in early conflict stages in order to interfere with the US military operations. This conclusion by the QDR is what prompted the US government to make counter-proliferation the main objective after 1997 (Pillar 2003). The threats from the proliferation of CBRNE emanates from both non-state groups such as terrorists and states who either are US’ real or potential adversaries or are rogue states. CBRNE proliferation is the main driver of the US War on Terror (Gage 2011). The mounting sophistication and availability of CBRNE expertise and technologies serve to highlight the immense threats that these materials and weapons pose to the US (Prockop 2006). These weapons are more and more being viewed as asymmetric ways of countering superior conventional military capabilities of the US (Antal 2009). In addition, the relative inexpensiveness and ease of producing some CBRNE agents have heightened the concern that their possible employment may be more attractive to terror groups that have an intention of inflicting big casualty numbers or causing panic. The threat posed by such materials and weapons are considerably different from the weapons of mass destruction concept of, say, Iraq or Soviet (Ganor 2005). While CBRNE weapons have been identified, there is still lack of proper focus on how to deal with likely scenarios in the future. Within the potential CBRNE threat scenarios that have been identified, the focus is mainly on chemical as the most likely agent of choice for terrorists (Oppenheimer 2011). What can we do as a Nation to Fight Terrorism use of CBRNE? The fact that CBRNE threats have evolved since the end of the Cold War is incontestable. Whereas the criminal and terrorist CBRNE attacks remain of lower probability in the present world than conventional scenarios, their use have potential for disastrous and catastrophic effects that call for comprehensive and effective 21st-century countermeasures and solutions (Oppenheimer 2011). Many multilateral agreements regulate states’ activities and not terrorist activities, thus posing challenges to the fighting of CBRNE threats. However, it is worth noting that since the threats of CBRNE are real and potentially catastrophic, there have been newer and renewed international efforts to fight terrorism and CBRNE attacks in particular. The 2005 Nuclear Terrorism Convention and the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) evidenced this. These two call on states to enact controls and criminalize non-state CBRNE activities that are harmful (Gage 2011). While the international efforts are crucial in helping the entire world including the US to fight terrorist use of CBRNE, the nation has a major role to play in this fight to ensure that our nation and outside interests are safe and secure (Cameron 2000). In order to fight terrorist use of CBRNE effectively, the US, as a nation, should accelerate the process of transforming its military from the threat-based capability to a capabilities-based military. There is the need for more resources to be allocated to the military in order to help it leverage new fighting and technology concepts (Prockop 2006). The military force should have the ability to deploy its members with a modular or tailor-made organization that does not have the traditional logistics requirement but has the ability of developing situational understanding of the conditions and environment it is operating. The Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities should be strengthened in the light of CBRNE threats (Cronin 2004). This will enable the military in the identification of any threat and engaging the threat before it attacks with CBRNE weapons. This approach would be particularly important in helping the military to protect its forces and, at the same time, secure the nation (Heyman 2009). In addition, Domestic Homeland Security (DHS) should be empowered more as regards actively participating in the fight of terrorist use of CBRNE. DHS should be in position to support local and state responses to the incidents of CBRNE effectively (Gage 2011). Moreover, the fight of terrorist use of CBRNE should be well embedded in the counter proliferation and counterterrorism programs. The counter proliferation programs and policies would be critical in focusing on nation-states (especially rogue ones and perceived adversaries), and the ways of producing weapons of mass destruction (Cameron 2000). Counter proliferation programs are fundamental in formulation and implementation of long-term policy initiatives in the fight of terrorist use of CBRNE. The counterterrorism policies are important in the focus on violent extremist groups and terrorist groups who may be searching for CBRNE technology and materials (Mauroni 2007). Therefore, a comprehensive counterterrorism program would enable the government to track these groups and monitor their activities (Heyman 2009). While counter proliferation and counterterrorism programs work from different scopes, funding and use of different agencies, there is a need for them to be streamlined so that they work effectively towards fighting of terrorist use of CBRNE. While the current efforts by the government to fight terrorist use of CBRNE are commendable, there is a need for more efforts to be put towards addressing the threat of these weapons (Oppenheimer 2011). The nature of terrorism is very dynamic and evolves rapidly and therefore, it is important that the government and the public be kept abreast with ways of identifying and preventing any terrorist attacks from occurring (Antal 2009). To achieve this, it is essential that serious reviews be conducted on the policies that are in place to ensure that the threats are significantly reduced, if not totally eliminated (Prockop 2006). Where are the most threats of the use of these CBRNE in the world and what can the US develop to combat the threats? Terrorism is a global phenomenon and as has been witnessed over the years, terrorist attacks can occur anywhere in the world at any given time (Cronin 2004). That fact notwithstanding, recorded incidents and intelligence reports on terrorism have indicated that there are areas that are in more risks of terrorist attacks than others are (Imai 2002). Most threats of the use of CBRNE in the world is in the US homeland, US allies and friends, and US forward- deployed forces. The threats to this areas and targets are not simply of the 21st century; the concern of these threats was also evident during the Cold War and towards the end of the previous century (Prockop 2006). The increasing availability of expertise and technology of CBRNE has heightened the threats of terrorist use of these weapons against US assets. The previous terrorist attacks that demonstrate the reason as to why most threats are on US’ assets and its allies include the 1993 attack on World Trade Center; attack on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the September 11 attacks, among others (Gage 2011). The use of anthrax (biological material) following the September 11 attacks also demonstrated the increasing threats that CBRNE pose in the world (Heyman 2009). Since most threats of the terrorist use of CBRNE in the world is in the US homeland, US assets, US allies, and US forward-deployed forces, US has to develop effective strategies to combat these threats and guarantee its citizens, assets and allies security and safety at all times (Gage 2011). It is important that while seeking and developing new ways of combating threats of CBRNE, US should not lose sight of basic and elemental priorities such as surveillance and quick response to threats (Cameron 2000). The nation should develop better methods of collection and analysis of information regarding the nature of CBRNE risks. In addition, it should step up international coordination particularly with its allies and through UN Security Council to help synchronize resources and approaches for fighting terrorist use of CBRNE (Mauroni 2007). More importantly, since the likeliest threats will stem from areas that have specific technical capabilities, the US should always seek to destroy all those capabilities in those places (Oppenheimer 2011). Conclusion It is no doubt that one of the biggest global security threats is from CBRNE. The impacts of the use of these weapons can be catastrophic to the targets and even to the world at large. The US government recognizes that the prospect of CBRNE terrorism presents an acute security concern to the nation. As has been noted, there are many CBRNE threats to the US that have the potential of significantly affecting the safety of US people if the threats are not addressed. Since the effects of terrorist use of CBRNE can be devastating, there is a need for the American nation to combat this challenge. It can do this by accelerating the process of transforming its military, and by well-embedded fight of terrorist use of CBRNE in the counter proliferation and counterterrorism programs, as well as review security policies often to be in line with emerging threats. The most threats of the use of CBRNE are in US homeland, US assets, its forces, and its allies. In order to combat these threats, the US should develop better methods of collecting and analyzing information relating to CBRN risks and step up international coordination to synchronize resources and approaches. References Antal, John. 2009. Counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency? Military Technology 33, no. 12: 46–49. Cameron, Gavin. 2000. WMD terrorism in the United States: The threat and possible countermeasures. Nonproliferation Review 7, no.1: 162–179. Cronin, Audrey Kurth. 2004. Attacking terrorism elements of a grand strategy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U Press. Gage, Beverly. 2011. Terrorism and the American experience: A state of the field. Journal of American History 98, no. 1: 73–94. Ganor, Boaz. 2005. The counter-terrorism puzzle: A guide for decision makers. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction publishers. Heyman, David. 2009. CBRNE consequence management (cover story). Military Technology 33, no. 11: 90–95. Imai, Ryukichi. 2002. Weapons of mass destruction: Major wars, regional conflicts, and terrorism. Asia-Pacific Review 9, no. 1: 88–99. Mauroni, Albert J. 2007. The future of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense (cover story). JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly, no. 44: 74–78. Oppenheimer, Andy. 2011. CBRN - reassessing the threats. Military Technology 35, no. 11: 29–34. Pillar, Paul R. 2003. Terrorism and U.S. foreign policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Prockop, Leon D. 2006. Weapons of mass destruction: Overview of the CBRNEs (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives). Journal of the Neurological Sciences 249, no. 1: 50–54. Read More