Research Paper: Chemical, Biological, Radiological
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Other
Introduction
Background/Literature Review
- Description of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) weapons
- Identification of basic threats associated with CBRN weapons
Discussion
- Summary of past terrorist use of CBRN weapons based on case studies
- Comparison and contrast of various CBRN weapons that could be used in a terrorist attack
- Examination of critical knowledge of the current CBRN threat.
Conclusion
Recommendations
Abstract
This research paper explores chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats (CBRN) to United States of America within the last decade. The exploration encompasses a description of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) weapons used as a threat within the past decade. Identification of basic threats associated with CBRN weapons will be embraced. A summary of past terrorist use of CBRN weapons based on case studies will be explained. Also, a comparative analysis of various CBRN weapons that could be used in a terrorist attack against the US will be undertaken. Finally, an examination of critical knowledge of the current CBRN threat will be reviewed.
Introduction
This document contains an exploration of CBRN threats to United States of America within the past decade. It encompasses a background literature review of the subject. Further, a comprehensive discussion; conclusion and possible recommendations to avoid future attacks will be undertaken.
Background/Literature Review
CBRN is abbreviated chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats (CBRN). As such, any country has a right to develop defense mechanism against these attacks. This back ground literature review will focus on how United States of America has employed CBRN tactic over the past decade. There are three techniques used over the years. They embody mitigation, avoidance strategies and passive protection. Weapons used in CBRN warfare are considered weapons of mass destruction (Drielak, 2004).
According to the English philosophy of CBRN it is actually replaces for the cold war terminology NBC known as nuclear, biological, and chemical). Further this is a replacement of atomic, biological, and chemical (ABC). This concept was popular during the nineteen fifties. Additional ly radiological or R is a relatively new threat discovered emerging from the dirty bombs ideology and their consequences. During the twenty first century CBRNe was perceived in further explaining CBRN. Consequently, e signifies an enhanced explosives threat (Fiser, 2007).
As it relates to United States CBRN is used to describe Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Operations Specialists (MOS). The army encourages all its soldiers to pursue a career in CBRN at the United States Army CBRN at its school located in Fort Leonard Wood. Precisely, the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC 3E9X1) in emergency management is used in CBRN. These officers are considered the specialist in this discipline. USAF also provides training for all Airmen recruited in the US army and are encouraged to pursue a career in counter-CBRN operations at the Fort Leonard Wood(Fiser, 2007).
The CBRN within the American context is also an abbreviation used to describe two military occupational disciplines. They are the Marine Corps, which operate the CBRN School and is responsible for training the Marine CBRN Defense Officers; next is the Marine CBRN Defense at the same location situated at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (USMC CBIRF) also, provides a wealth of information regarding CBRN activities within the past decade (Fiser, 2007).
Description of the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) weapons
The National Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is responsible for classifying and detecting CBRN weapons from the United States perspective. Current threats are categorized as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the methods though which they are transferred in war fare. Recent extensive advances in biological and technological sciences progressively nullify NATO protection. Often new techniques have to be designed since bio-terrorist threats against NATO forces itself could easily be overrun(Howard, 2008)
As such some new techniques embody a new NATO Strategic Concept emerging from the Lisbon Summit declaration of 2010. This summit confirmed a commitment Alliance agreeing to strengthen collaborative efforts against CBRN the threats and detection of weapons mass destruction. They endeavored to protect populations vulnerable to anthrax, bombs and deliberate manufacture of deadly viruses or bacteria that can wipe out populations very quickly. This Joint CBRN Defense effort operating in the form of a Task Force (CJ-CBRND-TF) proved to be very effective key defenses NATO designed against CBRN threats, but new weapons are appearing on the market every day. Therefore, more prevention measures must be securitized in the aim of limiting WMD (National Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2010).
Identification of basic threats associated with CBRN weapons
Some basic threats associated with CBRN weapons include flu outbreaks, Anthrax and viruses. World Health Organization issued warning regarding the emergence of a flue pandemic, which was suspected as a weapon of mass destitution. The precaution offered was that the pandemic was unavoidable since the attack was planned and launched a long time prior to its detection. Already, during the twentieth century there had been three similar pandemics. Among the worst was the Spanish flu of 1918-1919. It claimed the lives of twenty million people initially. As it spread internationally more than 100 million people died. Following that weapon of mass destruction the Asian flu attached 1957-1958 claiming the lives of approximately one million people. When it was believed that CBRN had protected the nation against this weapon of mass destruction in 1968-1969 the honking flu became a force to reckon with. Some 1-4 million people lost their lives internationally. From the trend these pandemics occur every 20 -30 years (Leitenberg, 2005).
Discussion
Summary of past terrorist use of CBRN weapons based on case studies
Analysts have discovered that there has been significant increase in religious groups terrorists activities internationally. During the past decades they have been identified as terrorist though activities they have conducted in various parts of the world including Hong Kong. They have escalated from being a few of just 3% during 1980 to approximately 43% to 1995.These religious terrorists identify their targets as hectic, infidels or just merely unfit to live according to their standards. September 11th, 2001 is one of these terrorist attacks conducted by a religious group. It would appear that in incentive for performing such attacks is minimal except for the satisfaction gained destroying the undesirables. There have been significant increases within the past decade creating concern for CBRN defense in United States of America (Cronin, 2003).
Another concern besides the use of these weapons is information regarding how and where they are manufactured. Groups which have expressed interest acquiring these weapons of mass destruction include ‘Al Qaeda are the PLO, the Red Army Faction, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Workers Party, German neo-Nazis, and the Chechens’(Cronin, 2003, p 42).
Comparison and contrast of various CBRN weapons that could be used in a terrorist
Attack
A number of CBRN weapons could be used in a terrorist attack. There is no limit to the extent to which the activity could escalate. It all depends on how outrageous the terrorists are against their targets. In Hong Kong gas was used to destroy people travelling in the subway. Definitely, some biological warfare takes more lives than others. For example, the twin towers incident took a great deal of lives when compared to the gas attacks in the Hong Kong subways. More importantly, a flu pandemic takes millions of lives. These are the comparisons and contrasts CBRN defense ought to take into consideration when planning strategies. However the disadvantage exposed by Audrey Cronin (2003) is that due to perpetual development of new nuclear weapons it is difficult for United States of America to keep abreast with all the changes emerging in the science. In many cases when these weapons are discovered they were being created and used several years before CBRN forces make contact with them(Cronin, 2003).
Examination of critical knowledge of the current CBRN threat.
As was explained earlier the critical knowledge of current CBRN threats is where do they originate and what they are. For example, on September 11th 2011 CBRN never anticipated planes crashing into the twin towers destroying lives. They might have been searching for bombs planted into the building. In this situation critical knowledge would have played significant role. Now this information is available as current knowledge. However, new devices are emerging. Maybe CBRN United should start conducting experiments in anticipation of new weapons of mass destruction which can emerge overnight on the market (Adelman & Legg, 2009).
Conclusion
This discussion embraced an exploration of CBRN threats to United States of America within the last decade. Truthfully, there have been no serious threats within the last decade. The 9/11 experience is gone beyond 10 years. The terrorists have been duly punished. However, President Bush detected a risk in Iran ruled by Sadam Hussein. Immediately he launched an attack trying to find those weapons. Indeed CBRN defense was against enduring another 9/11 experience. Unfortunately, none of the anticipated weapons of mass destruction were found and United States of America was severely criticized for taking advantage of Sadam Hussein and his country(Eldridge, 2006).
Recommendations
According to CBRN analysts United States of America since these threats have developed extensive measures collaborating with the Nunn-Lugar Comprehensive Threat Reduction program designed towards counteracting the arsenal weapons created by the former Soviet Union terrorists’ regime. However, post-conflict Iraq has become a very important new risk for proliferation. While legislation is in place such as Iraq Sanctions Act of 1990, CBRN defense must be strengthened. It is true that provisions contained the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention could be beneficial. They must be revised from time to time since newer devices are taking the CBRN technological warfare (Eldridge, 2006).
References
Adelman, D.S. & Legg, T.J. (2009). Disaster nursing: a handbook for practice. Sudbury, Mass.;
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Cronin, A. (2003). Terrorist Motivations for Chemical and Biological Weapons Use: Placing the
Threat in Context. Report to Congress
Dolnik, A. (2007). Understanding terrorist innovations: technology, tactics and global trends.
New York, NY.; Routledge.
Drielak, S.C. (2004). Hot zone forensics: chemical, biological, and radiological evidence
collection. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas.
Eldridge, J. (2006). Jane's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defense 2006–2007 (19th ed.).
Coulsdon, Surrey, UK; Alexandria,
Fiser, U. (2007).Deterrence, Terrorism, and American Values. Retrieved on August 5th, 2013
fromhttp://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=3.1.4
Gowen, A. (2004). Surviving terrorism: recognition and response guide to chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear attacks. Lawrenceville, NJ.: Pinninti.
Howard, R.D. (2008). Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Dubuque, IA : McGraw Hill.
[*http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0902/2008298857-t.html ]
Leitenberg, M. (2005).Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat. Retrieved
on August 18th, 2013 from
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub639.pdf
National Atlantic Treaty Organization (2010). Combined Joint Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear Defense Task Force. Retrieved on August 18th 20013 from
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49156.htm
