While the likelihood of a severe WMD terrorist incident is very low, nuclear and radiological weapons are nevertheless major homeland security concerns. As Harvey Kushner, an expert on terrorism at Long Island University, puts it: "Terrorists have killed many people with conventional weaponry-not some James Bond–type device." 50 To help put the risks in perspective, consider that, worldwide, there has never been a terrorist incident involving nuclear or radiological weapons-in contrast to scores of bombings, aircraft hijackings, and hostage takings since the 1970s. Similarly no terrorist group is believed to have the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. "There are a limited number of terrorist movements in the world, only a few of which have the ability and desire to acquire and use ," 49 states a report from the ESDP. This is because WMD are harder to obtain or build than conventional firearms and explosives. Many homeland security experts believe that the likelihood of a WMD terrorist attack is very low-or at least much lower than the likelihood of a conventional attack. homeland security strategy surrounding WMD threats. These two considerations underlie the U.S. Second, the threat of a WMD attack requires very different preparations than those being made for conventional attacks (and the different types of WMD attacks each require different preparations). First, as the term suggests, WMD are potentially much more dangerous than conventional arms. There are two main reasons that homeland security experts are so concerned about the possibility of WMD terrorist attacks. In discussions of homeland security, the term weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is used to encompass chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons, and to differentiate between these types of weapons and conventional weapons such as guns and bombs. Chapter Three Nuclear and Radiological Attacks
0 kommentar(er)
