WMD terrorism: How scared should we really be?

Read Time:3 Minute, 21 Second

I am not overconfident that U.S. Intelligence will always be right.  History precludes such an assumption.  I believe it is important to neither overstate or understate the terrorist threat.  It is real but how real is it in relation to the near future?

The fact is al Qaeda has a lot of money and a lot of loyal followers.  More importantly they are ideologically committed to their cause which is the destruction of the free world, and a world that is ruled by the Mullahs.  They are a dangerous organization that is preparing for more attacks the world over.  They are, however, patient.  Time is on their side.  In keeping with their philosophy there is no hurry.  The targets aren’t going anywhere and the more time that goes by without an attack the less prepared the “enemy” will be, as apathy will start to set in, as it already has in a number of quarters.  The people will tire of spending their hard earned money to fight an invisible enemy, one that has not attacked the homeland since September 11, 2001.

It is important not to scare the people, but it is also important to keep them informed.  So, with that in mind, I cautiously agree with the conclusions of the Armchair Generalist.  Again, I must emphasize the use of “cautiously.”  Here is the story and let us know what you think:

Michael Leiter the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), told Congress last week that he was concerned about al Qaeda in Yemen getting chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. He rates their “level of intention” as high, but conventional attacks will remain the norm.

The danger of al-Qaeda or other terrorists “obtaining a biological weapon is more likely than obtaining or producing a yield-producing nuclear device,” said Michael Leiter. He added, though, that in his view, “the likelihood of [their] using a radiological device that doesn’t have [a nuclear explosive] yield might be equally high.”
——–
Testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Leiter said that members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — based largely in Yemen — have shown interest in both chemical weapons and biological devices, such as those capable of spreading anthrax or another potentially lethal pathogen.
——–
“Although there is a huge consequence” involved in any WMD attack, Leiter said, “I do think that the smaller-scale, lone-wolf attack with conventional weapons still stands out as a far more likely event.”

I don’t know the context of this discussion. Maybe the congressional representatives pressed him on the topic, but I’m sure if he were to show the committee the NCTC annual report, he could show them that of the approximately 11,000 terrorist acts that occurred last year, none of them used a CBRN hazard. By extension, there were no WMD attacks. In fact, you won’t find any CBR incidents that caused mass casualties in any of the NCTC’s unclassified annual reports.

I think there is some confusion in what he says here, for two reasons. First of all, there’s Brian Jenkin’s comment that a terrorist intention isn’t the same as a terrorist’s capability. AQ in Yemen can be interested all they want, but they don’t show the ability or desire to switch when high-yield explosives work so well in improvised devices. Second, stating that AQ could get a biological or radiological weapon sooner than a nuclear weapon isn’t exactly news. There are a lot of biological materials and radiological isotopes, and many do not cause mass casualties or death. They scare people, they can cause small incidents, but nothing major. Nothing like putting a explosives on an aircraft bound for the United States.

It’s important that our intel community reflects the danger of WMD terrorism relative to the probability that it will happen. Right now, it doesn’t seem too probable, and we shouldn’t envision danger where none exists. It’s not like we have all that much money to throw at every shadow where one thinks danger lurks.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Post Author

Professor Mike

Professor Mike is a left-leaning, dog loving, political junkie. He has written dozens of articles for Substack, Medium, Simily, and Tribel. Professor Mike has been published at Smerconish.com, among others. He is a strong proponent of the environment, and a passionate protector of animals. In addition he is a fierce anti-Trumper. Take a moment and share his work.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Previous post Will man become immortal in 2045?
Next post America’s #1 serious ass kicking president!
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x