Terrorist attack to u.s.
A quick look at history, said the skeptics, shows that during this century the United States has suffered only one fatality as a result of a chemical or biological attack. terrorist attack to u.s. Anti terrorism jobs. Even the sharpest critics of the budget increase acknowledge, however, that just because a terrorist attack using chemical or biological weapons hasn't caused massive casualties yet, that doesn't mean it never will. Jonathan Tucker, an analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and a critic of the govern ment's tendency to "exaggerate" the threat, concedes that "it may only be a matter of time before a successful attack occurs. "In his essay "Bioterrorism: Threats and Responses," which was published in Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat, a 1999 book edited by Joshua Lederberg, Tucker describes chemical and biological terrorism as a "low-probability high-consequence" threat. terrorist attack to u.s. 9-11 terrorist attack photos. It is the "high- consequence" element of this description that has grabbed the attention of most policy-makers and outside analysts. The threat, Stimson Center analyst Amy Smithson told me recently, is not an exaggeration. "We have examples of terrorist attempts to acquire [chemical and biological] weapons. terrorist attack to u.s. Terrorist attack to u.s.. . . . Whether they want to have these capabilities only to threaten us, we don't know yet. But we shouldn't sit down and wait to be victims. "Ken Alibek, a former Soviet bio weaponeer whose 1999 book Biohazard described a massive Soviet bio weapons program, agrees with Smithson. "Nobody seeks these weapons for fun," Alibek told me. "So you have to face two attitudes: sit and wait or get prepared to mitigate the effects [of an attack]. "Nearly all analysts agree that most terrorists acting alone lack the ability to carry out a chemical or biological attack that would result in mass casualties. The main reason for concern, they say, is the possibility that state actors will aid and abet terrorist groups. David Siegirst, an expert on terrorism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, says that there are groups and individuals who are willing to use chemical and biological weapons-the so-called "new terrorists. " Meanwhile, only states have the capacity to produce and weaponize the right types of chemical and biological agents. "I am concerned about these two groups [terrorists and rogue states] getting together," Siegirst told me. "If a non-major power wanted to lash out at the United States, then it might be tempted to use chemical or biological weap ons"-either directly or by arming a terrorist group. Alibek's revelations about the Soviet bioweapons program have raised another concern about the relationship between state actors and terrorists. Analysts are not concerned that Russia might arm terrorists; rather, they fear that Russia's insecure weapons stockpiles and large cadre of underpaid but highly trained scientists are vulnerable to lucrative offers from terrorists and other states. Donald Henderson, the former director of the World Health Organization's (WHO) program to eradicate the smallpox virus, is particularly concerned about Alibek's disclosure that the Soviet Union weaponized smallpox. According to Henderson, when the WHO declared in 1980 that smallpox had been eradicated from the planet, the virus immediately acquired strategic value.
Terrorist attack to u.s.
2003 || Anti terrorism jobs || Terrorism act 2002 || Control-in-the-border-in-mexico-and-u.s.a-after-terrorism