战略与国际研究中心-The-Risks-and-Effects-of-Indirect,-Covert,-Terrorist,-and-Extremist-Attacks-with-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction_178页_533kb

Summary of "DEFENDING AMERICA: REDEFINING THE CONCEPTUAL BORDERS OF HOMELAND DEFENSE"

Core Content

This document, authored by Anthony H. Cordesman and published in February 2001 as part of the CSIS Homeland Defense project, explores the risks and challenges posed by indirect, covert, terrorist, and extremist attacks using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and flexible approach to homeland defense, considering the full spectrum of threats, from chemical and biological to nuclear and radiological weapons.

Main Points

• WMDs are a growing threat: The document argues that while the risk of WMD attacks is lower than conventional attacks, the potential impact is far greater, especially when used in a covert or indirect manner.
• Diverse attack methods: The report outlines a variety of illustrative attack scenarios, including the use of CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) weapons in urban, public, and critical infrastructure targets.
• Terrorist capabilities: It discusses the increasing accessibility of WMD technology to non-state actors, though notes that state sponsorship is still a key factor in the development and use of such weapons.
• Lethality and unpredictability: The lethality of WMDs varies significantly, and their effects are often unpredictable, especially in the case of biological agents, which can have long incubation periods and delayed symptoms.
• Detection and response challenges: The document highlights the difficulty in detecting and responding to WMD attacks, particularly in the case of biological and chemical agents, which can be dispersed in ways that evade early warning systems.
• Need for updated assessments: It stresses the importance of ongoing technical assessments and flexible strategies to address the evolving nature of WMD threats, as technological advancements may make these weapons more accessible and lethal.
• Conventional attacks still dominate: While the focus is on WMDs, the report reminds that conventional attacks remain a significant threat, and that homeland defense should not neglect them in favor of WMDs.

Key Information

Chemical Weapons

• Impact and variety: Chemical weapons can range from toxins like ricin to industrial chemicals such as chlorine and mustard gas.
• Delivery methods: Include aerosol delivery, aircraft, and public infrastructure.
• Lethality: Varies with the type of agent, delivery method, and environmental conditions.
• Case study: The Aum Shinrikyo attack in Tokyo (1995) used anthrax and sarin, demonstrating the real-world application of WMDs by non-state actors.
• Response challenges: Detection is difficult, and decontamination procedures are not well-established for many agents.

Biological Weapons

• Agents: Include bacteria, viruses, toxins, fungi, and arthropods.
• Lethality: Biological agents can be highly lethal and difficult to detect, especially if used in asymmetrical or covert ways.
• Case studies:
  • Iraq and Russia have been identified as state actors with biological warfare programs.
  • The Yugoslav smallpox incident and US cases (e.g., anthrax hoaxes) show the increasing interest in biological materials.
• FBI threat spectrum: The FBI identifies biological toxins and biological pathogens as the most likely threats from domestic terrorists, while chemical agents are considered less likely.
• Response issues: The slow onset of symptoms and limited medical infrastructure pose major challenges in containing and treating biological attacks.

Radiological Weapons

• Practical risks: These include contamination of public spaces, long-term health effects, and economic disruption.
• Delivery methods: Can be smuggled into infrastructure or delivered via aerosol.

Nuclear Weapons

• Lethality and effectiveness: Even small nuclear devices can cause mass casualties and long-term environmental damage.
• Delivery challenges: Requires state sponsorship or highly sophisticated planning.
• Case studies: Includes smuggling of nuclear components, modified shipping containers, and use of weather models to maximize fallout or spread.

Threat Assessment and Prioritization

• Uncertainty in threat assessment: The likelihood of WMD attacks is low, but the impact is high.
• Need for flexibility: The complexity and unpredictability of WMD attacks require a flexible and evolutionary defense strategy.
• Multiple attacks: The report warns of the possibility of simultaneous or cascading attacks, which can overwhelm response systems.
• Policy implications: The government must prepare for a wide range of low-probability, high-impact events, rather than focusing on a single type of attack or attacker.

Conclusion

The document concludes that while the probability of WMD attacks is relatively low, the potential for mass casualties and disruption is substantial. It calls for a comprehensive, flexible, and continuously updated approach to homeland defense that includes improving detection and response capabilities, reducing conventional vulnerabilities, and addressing the complexities of CBRN threats. It also emphasizes the importance of interagency coordination, public awareness, and international cooperation in mitigating these risks.