«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

WMD Terrorist Attack "More Likely Than Not" by 2013, Says Report

On the heels of President-elect Barack Obama's announcement of his national security team, a new report wastes no time in outlining one of the more serious and immediate challenges facing the new administration: how to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). According to the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, a congressionally mandated, bipartisan panel of experts led by former senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, the outlook is not good. The panel's final report, due out tomorrow, shows proliferation to be on the rise and concludes that "unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013."

The last administration famously began its ill-fated foreign adventure in Iraq out of fear that "a smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." But the Commission sees biological rather than nuclear weapons as a more pressing concern, describing the United States as "very exposed" to biological attack. The US has taken the lead in securing fissile materials used in nuclear weapons (although serious problems remain), but comparatively little effort has been spent in preventing biological attacks. The nuclear age began with the use of nuclear weapons, which gave urgency to fighting their spread. "The life sciences community," says the Commission, "has never experienced a comparable iconic event. As a result, security awareness has grown slowly, lagging behind the emergence of biological risks and threats." One possible exception, of course, was the 2001 anthrax attacks. But the vulnerabilities in the system has been "only partly addressed" and the Commission notes that "if only 15 grams of dry anthrax spores delivered by mail could produce such an enormous effect [an estimated $6 billion in damages, not to mention lives lost], the consequences of a large-scale aerosol release would be almost unimaginable."

But don't discount nuclear terrorism entirely. As the Commission observes, "were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan." The country has become, thanks to the A.Q. Khan network, perhaps the world's greatest proliferator. It has a history of unstable dictatorships, is a haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and possesses a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. Many experts now point to Pakistan's tribal areas as a the place where future terrorist plots are likely to be hatched, and the Commission agrees. "In terms of the nexus of proliferation and terrorism, Pakistan must top the list of priorities for the next President and Congress."

The Commission will present its findings tomorrow to President Bush, Vice President-elect Biden, and senior congressional leaders.

Comments

In other words, the government is telling us:
Be Afraid! Be VERY Afraid, and give up more of your Liberties in exchange for the illusion of Security we're offering!"

Wo, Who's Surprised?

Posted by: Fear Factor on 12/02/08 at 9:34 AM Respond

"Fighting terror" and its terrible twin, the "terrorist threat", are back in fashion these days. A remarkable revival.

Posted by: CommunityRules on 12/02/08 at 12:54 PM Respond

According to the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, a congressionally mandated, bipartisan panel of experts led by former senators Bob Graham and Jim Talent, the outlook is not good.

"Experts"?
Who are these "Experts", and what makes them that?
Former Senators?
Senators?
You mean the guys who held a very high degree of responsibility for national security on 2/26/93, the first time the WTC was attacked? And again on 9/11/01, when the towers were destroyed and the Pentagon hit by a flying airliner bomb?
Are they "Experts" because of their failure?

Could this panel contain many of the same "Experts" who've been pushing FEAR on the public for the last 7 years and more?

Reach over and push that little red button for me, would you please? It calms me to hear the sirens...

Posted by: Condition Very RED on 12/02/08 at 1:24 PM Respond

It seems to me that this Commission's fundamental tenet: "Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that stopping terrorists from obtaining nuclear and biological weapons must be an urgent national priority"--is wrong minded in its utter futility.

While fear-mongering is to be resisted and motives suspect, I see no reason, based on common sense, that their projections are not valid and have long thought that the potential for a 'biological weapon' attack from an enemy is formidable indeed, considering the fact that a single operative can deliver covertly. Under the radar.

US policy of the past 8 years has exacerbated the terrorist situation and fed the ranks of its enemies. For all our "military might" the target that is terrorism is elusive, transcends national borders and ideology-driven. Delivering an envelop of anthrax, for example, takes only one operative. How should the US proceed from this point onward? What actions are in the best interests of developed nations? What is the solution keeping in sight the long-range possibilities and potential results of actions taken? What would Sun Tsu do?

Wouldn't it be nice if Obama proves to be an independently thinking leader? We shall see.

Posted by: Marinaid on 12/03/08 at 6:22 AM Respond