Terrorist WMD attack likely within decade, say analysts
April 11 2008 / by futuretalk
Category: Security Year: General Rating: 8 Hot
By Dick Pelletier
The world faces an estimated 70 percent chance of a nuclear,
biological or chemical attack in the next decade, according to
national security analysts surveyed for a recent Senate Foreign
Relations Committee study. 
More than half of the 85 analysts contacted believed one or two new countries would acquire nuclear weapons within five years, and five more will obtain them in ten. They counted technology sharing between terrorist groups among activities that posed the greatest dangers, and attacks by terrorists as more likely than those posed by rogue states.
Committee Chair Senator Richard Lugar said that though the U.S. may be successful in building new democracies, we are not safe from small, fanatical terrorist cells that could possibly get their hands on nuclear materials.
How great is this risk? During the Cold War, the possibility of a nuclear war that could kill every American made it imperative to do anything possible to avoid conflict. Today, the consequence of even a single nuclear weapon exploding in a U.S. city is almost beyond imagination.
Terrorist’s armed with one nuclear bomb could murder a million people – killing in one day nearly twice as many Americans as died in both twentieth century World Wars combined.
A WMD attack on the U.S. would have catastrophic consequences for other countries too. Researchers at RAND, a government think tank, estimated that a nuclear explosion at the Port of Long Beach in California would cause immediate indirect costs worldwide of more than $3 trillion and, the shutting down of U.S. ports would cut world trade by 10 percent. (cont.)
How could terrorists deliver a nuclear weapon to its target? Arms control expert Albert Carnesale says, “They could simply hide it in a bale of marijuana, which could easily be smuggled into any city.” Others believe that with minimal training, an Al Qaeda suicide bomber could assemble a nuclear or other WMD right here in our own country, drive it to the target area, and detonate.
So, how can we defend against this threat? America can make terrorism hide its ugly head for a while, but to eliminate this danger permanently, we must first bring the world together. We could start with the U.S. and Russia, who control 95 percent of all nuclear weapons, then request that the U.N. convene a World Summit to form a global alliance against terrorism.
Social experts believe that hatred and rage caused by human inequalities that exist in many third-world countries becomes a melting pot for breeding terrorists. Dissatisfaction is strongest among poor people in overpopulated cities, especially in middle-eastern countries.
Every human should have the right to live a dignified life, and not feel shamed or ignored. Powerful tools are available that developed nations can use to help those who are less fortunate. These include micro-credits for self-employment, productivity improvements for farmers, cheap solar energy, satellite TV, and Internet connections with low-cost-to-free computers and/or cell phones.
Most countries that attended a recent U.N. Millennium conference vowed to reduce the number of their poor by 2015 and end poverty completely by 2030. Commitments like these promise some hope, but will they come in time to avert disaster? Positive thinkers predicting a “magical future” ahead believe that they will.
But if this horrific disaster should happen; which city do you think is most likely to suffer an attack that would claim 10,000 or more lives? Comments welcome.
Comment Thread (2 Responses)
-
The solution has to be positive-sum, rather than unilateral. I fear that without a reduction of sovereignty in exchange for an international agency that can monitor certain WMD threats, like nuclear proliferation, we could be due for a nasty surprise. Nice article.
Posted by: FutureFly April 13, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
A single terrorist infected with a contagious agent that has been genetically altered to slow down the infection process, could sneak into a crowded city and infect others who would then in turn infect others. Everyone would become a carrier before they even realized they were infected; and before the magnitude of this horrible threat was even recognized, a million or more could be on their way to dying.
How can we defend against this kind of attack? We would need to step up public-health awareness about contagious diseases, stock plenty of vaccination supplies and drug therapies. We should also criminalize unauthorized or improper use of pathogens, and get every nation in the world to join forces to fight the threat of “bio-attacks”.
Comments welcome.
Posted by: futuretalk April 13, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend