Now, let's take a quick look at what kinds of materials are considered "weapons of mass destruction" and how those materials might be obtained and used by a terrorist group.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Chemical weapons have been used in combat since World War I, when the Germans used mustard gas on American and British forces in the trenches of France. Agents may be persistent or non-persistent. Cornish lists the types of agents, examples of each, and how the agent attacks the victim:
- Nerve Agents (e.g. tabun (GA)[2] , sarin (GB), soman (GD), cyclosarin (GF)), and Thickened (or Persistent) Nerve Agents including VX and Russian VX (RVX). Nerve agents act by ‘switching off’ the body’s central nervous system. Nerve agents pose very difficult challenges in manufacture, weaponizing and delivery;
- Blood Agents (e.g. hydrogen cyanide (AC), cyanogen chloride (CK), and arsine (SA)). Blood agents prevent absorption of oxygen;
- Blister Agents (e.g. sulphur mustard, nitrogen mustard, phosgene oxime (CX) and lewisite). Blister agents attack the skin and airways, forming large contaminated blisters. Large quantities are required for a successful attack;
- Choking Agents (e.g. phosgene (CG) and diphosgene (DP)). Choking agents attack lung membranes, leading to pulmonary oedema;
- Vomiting Agents (e.g. adamsite (DM)). Vomiting agents cause a violent emetic reaction, which can be especially debilitating when used against troops wearing chemical protection equipment and masks, causing them to remove their protection and thereby expose themselves to other, lethal agents;
- Incapacitants (e.g. hallucinogens such as LSD and BZ, as well as sleeping and laughing gas);
- Irritants (e.g. tear gases such as CS, CN and CR).
Although it was not an act of war, the 1984 Bhopal leak of 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a pesticide, is the best-known example of the toxicity of many chemicals. The leak ultimately killed approximately 28,000 people, and is still the worst accident in the chemical sector globally.
On the terrorist front, the most notorious use of chemical weapons was the simultaneous attacks on the Tokyo Metro by the Aum Shinrikyo religious sect in 1995. The attacks left twelve dead and hospitalized nearly five thousand others (although some researchers believe many of the illnesses were psychosomatic in nature). A year earlier, Aum Shinrikyo had killed seven people in a sarin attack in the city of Matsumoto. According to the Council on Foreign relations, however, the sarin used by the sect was a low-lethality batch. The Council’s “backgrounder” on sarin added:
…the sarin was disseminated poorly; the perpetrators left punctured packages of liquid sarin in subway cars and stations, which gave officials time to seal off the affected areas. If purer sarin had been released, particularly as an aerosol, the attack might have been much worse.
In discussing chemical weapons (CW), Cornish writes:
The general availability of toxic and precursor chemicals has led to CW being described as ‘the easiest of all catastrophic weapons to produce’. ‘Easiest’ although not ‘easy’: the production of CW remains challenging, scientifically and logistically.
This is, at best, disingenuous. While manufacturing true chemical munitions, such as those used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, might be beyond the means of many terrorist groups, there are plenty of ways for a committed terrorist or group to engage in chemical warfare against the US: detonating a rail car containing chlorine or a truck carrying propane; attacking a chemical plant, creating another Bhopal; contaminating a municipal water supply; or releasing hazardous chemicals into the ventilating system of an office building.
As I have noted before, security in the chemical sector is farcical. Even if one decides to pass up readily available materials for more esoteric precursors, it is not impossible that sufficient materials to build weapons have already been stolen and delivered to those with the knowledge and desire to produce weapons.
One consideration that is often overlooked is that virtually all counties – developed and developing alike – have their own chemical sector infrastructures; these facilities, regardless of their alleged purpose, can easily be retooled to develop and produce chemical weapons. This is particularly true for pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturing sites, in that they are already designed with isolation and hazards in mind. Especially in those countries with animosities towards the United States, it is possible – if not likely – that chemical weapons research is being carried out as we speak. Groups such as al-Qaeda, while not nations themselves, often command the same level of dedication or even “patriotism”, with the possibility of sub-rosa chemical warfare research being carried on in purportedly neutral countries on behalf of such groups.
Chemical attacks may not be immediately recognized, due to the time required for agents to achieve full effect. This delay could result in the agent being inadvertently spread to previously uncontaminated areas.
While not chemical warfare per se, it is worth noting that two of the most prevalent chemicals in rural and agricultural America – ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel – combine to form a potent explosive: such ANFO bombs were used in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
The deliberate use of disease-causing agents in warfare goes back almost to the dawn of recorded history, when the bodies of plague victims were catapulted into fortified cities, with the aim of killing or incapacitating defenders. In modern times, Aum Shinrikyo, in addition to carrying out the sarin attacks in Japan, was also working to weaponize Ebola, a hemorrhagic fever, and had attempted to use anthrax in yet another attack. Novelist Tom Clancy, in his book Executive Orders, described a terrorist attack on the US, using Ebola; the attack virtually paralyzed the nation.
In the section on biological weapons, Cornish claims that acquiring an agent would not be easy, that manufacturing a quantity of the agent is “not straightforward”, and that weaponizing the agent is even more challenging. Yet the Washington Post reported in September, 2006, that the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks – spores that killed five and sickened seventeen – was not weaponized.
Certain biological weapons are actually quite easy to obtain. When castor beans are processed into castor oil, ricin, a potent biological toxin, is part of the “mash” that remains. Anthrax may be recovered from manure on farms. Given the ease with which accidental E. coli outbreaks have spread, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional attack would also be relatively simple. Intentionally causing a pandemic (such as avian flu) would also constitute biological warfare.
“Recipes” for biological and chemical weapons can be located in a number of readily-available books such as The Anarchist Cookbook. The Internet also has virtually endless sources of information on chemical and biological weapons.In the report’s Executive Summary, Cornish says:
Although the weaponization of a biological agent would be complex, requiring high-level competence in microbiology, pathology, aerosol physics, aerobiology and meteorology, for a terrorist group seeking a ‘single-shot’ biological attack, safety, reliability and predictability in both production and weaponization might not be of great concern. Delivery of a biological weapon could be a relatively straightforward matter, with a variety of dispersal means available and with more than enough suitable targets on offer.
Of course, the United States has thousands of students of Middle Eastern descent – some of whom have no reason to love America – and others whose sympathies may lie with disaffected Middle Eastern elements, majoring in those very specialties[3].
The first recognized biological attack in the United States occurred in 1984, in The Dalles, OR, when followers of Bhaghwan Shree Rajneesh intentionally contaminated salad bars in restaurants with salmonella; about 750 people were sickened.
As is the case with chemical attacks, biological attacks may not be recognized as such, due to incubation periods, etc. Again, this time lapse could allow the illness to spread far beyond the original point of release.
RADIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDDs) spread radioactive material over a wide area, either in conjunction with a conventional explosive device or through some other means of dispersal. They differ from nuclear weapons in that the radioactive material is not an integral part of the device (what weapons scientists refer to as the “physics package”). Fission is not used to create the blast and thermal effects normally associated with nuclear weapons; the damage is caused by the ability of the radioactive material to contaminate an area and deny its use to those without proper protective equipment.
Radioactive materials are, unfortunately, not difficult to obtain. NBC Nightly News reported on March 12, 2007, that there were 85 reported losses or thefts of radioactive materials worldwide in 2006. The losses were mostly small amounts of materials, but sufficient in quantity for making dirty bombs. The problem – from the terrorist’s point of view – is obtaining materials that are sufficiently radioactive to be usable in a weapon. Suitable materials include cobalt-60, strontium-90, yttrium-90, cesium-137, iridium-192, radium-226, plutonium-238, americium-241, and californium-252. “Weapons-grade” uranium-235 or plutonium-239 are relatively difficult to obtain, but reactor-grade materials, such as spent fuel rods from nuclear generating facilities, may be used in weapons (with a noticeable increase in size and weight, and a decrease in efficiency). Small quantities of reactor-grade materials have been reported a number of times over the past few years. However, it is reasonable to believe that any explosion that showed measurable radiation would cause wide-spread concern, if not outright panic.
Cornish asserts that working with highly-radioactive materials is hazardous, but goes on to cite researchers who say,
Some of the major international terror groups, including al-Qaeda, have not only the resources to carry out such an attack, but also the willing martyrs, whose participation would significantly reduce the cost and complexity of any protective systems needed to allow the perpetrator to survive long enough to carry out the attack.
Using martyrs willing to die for the cause obviously eliminates the need for sophisticated protective gear, and hence, reduces the cost of such a program.
Another possibility for an RDD attack would be to target an existing nuclear facility. Despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security, nuclear security is in desperate need of improvement. Recent studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have revealed glaring deficiencies in the security programs at nuclear plants. Simply crashing a commercial jetliner into a nuclear generating facility could create another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
A single RDD, detonated in, say, New York City, followed by a series of non-radioactive explosions in other major cities, would wreak havoc, in that every incident would have to be treated as a possible radiation incident until proven otherwise. Given the allegations of lying and prevarication lodged against the current administration, such proof would have to be conclusive indeed.
The political consequences of an RDD attack would include public panic, rampant rumors, conspiracy theories, and mistrust of government assurances that decontamination had been completed. Again, the Bush administration’s reputation for dissembling and their proven lackadaisical response to disasters could lead to accusations of malfeasance or even complicity in such an incident.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Much of what Americans know about nuclear weapons comes from fiction: movies such as Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Day After (1983), and The Sum of All Fears, novels like Robin Moore’s The Trinity Implosion (1976), or the occasional documentary on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Bikini Atoll.
Cornish stresses that the technology and equipment required to fabricate a nuclear device are hard to come by and extremely expensive. This is hogwash. Tom Clancy, in the “afterword” to the book version of The Sum of All Fears, notes he was able to obtain detailed schematics and specifications by mail, at minimal cost and apparently without any verification of the uses to which he was to put the information. Many of the technologies developed in nuclear weapons research have found widespread use in non-weapons applications (Clancy mentions electronic firing circuits being slightly modified and used in stereo speakers). The chemistry involved sounds incomprehensibly convoluted, but is (apparently) readily understood by anyone with a couple of college-level physics courses under his or her belt. The Sum of All Fears describes a small band of terrorists assembling a make-shift nuclear bomb using materials recovered from an Israeli weapon, with the bomb being detonated at a Super Bowl game.
The development of nuclear weapons since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have resulted in devices that are many orders of magnitude more powerful than the WWII weapons, with yields measured in megatons, rather than the kilotons achieved with the earlier devices, yet smaller, simpler, and much less expensive to construct. The physics and chemistry involved are thoroughly understood. The computational requirements of the original Manhattan Project can now be met by even the cheapest home computers. Manufacturing equipment is readily available. Assuming a group could obtain suitable radioactive materials, constructing a nuclear device would not be as difficult or cost-prohibitive as some would have us believe.
As is the case with RDDs, obtaining the necessary radioactive materials is far from impossible. University of Alaska researcher Jason D. Brown, in a study entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: An Examination of Literature Concerning the Possibility of Terrorist Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, points out that a mere 10 kilograms of plutonium-239 or 52 kilograms of uranium-235 will create an efficient fission weapon.
Much easier than trying to build a nuke, however, is buying or stealing one. Rumors have been rampant for years that the former Soviet Union has “misplaced” (i.e., lost or possibly sold) an undetermined number of existing nuclear weapons – some as small as a large suitcase. According to Cornish, “The Soviet nuclear arsenal was estimated, in late 1991, to include the following: 9,357 strategic warheads; 15,000–30,000 tactical warheads; a stockpile of HEU [highly-enriched uranium] in excess of 1,000 tonnes; and a stockpile of Pu-239 in excess of 100 tonnes.”
Smuggling a nuclear device into the United States would present no problem for a dedicated terrorist group. Given that less than ten percent of the cargo containers entering the country are screened in any manner, and that most major cargo ports are in or near densely populated urban areas, it makes sense that terrorists would chose that method.
Another possible method (although one that would require the cooperation of a major corporation) would be to conceal the device(s) in consumer goods brought into the country. Novelist Clive Cussler, in his book Dragon, describes small nuclear devices concealed in automobiles being imported into the United States.
