The US is the country with the most powerful military and is involved in the security of many states that share borders with aggressive neighbors. Unfortunately, the position of power makes the United States an enemy and a target of aggressive and usually totalitarian regimes. These regimes develop various weapons of mass destruction using their economic capabilities. This paper claims that the state programs should focus on preventing chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats to the US army during the next decade.
CBRN
Ensuring national security is the primary task of any state, especially for countries with high military potential. CBRN is the abbreviation used by scientists to refer to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. The US Department of Defense created the CRE enterprise whose main purpose is to develop strategies for responding to CBRN incidents. Today, CRE employs more than 18,000 people involved in the implementation of defense strategies (Mills, 2018). The main strategy of the Department of Defense against CBRN threats is aimed at managing the threat and reducing the vulnerability of the system. Threat management includes non-proliferation strategies that facilitate the development and creation of CBRN weapons.
Such countermeasure systems should be as effective as possible since some threats cannot be sufficiently controlled. Reducing system vulnerability includes developing and maintaining resources and protocols, strengthening infrastructure, and improving social capabilities to minimize threats. Threat management is based on the principles of risk assessment and results in intelligent detection and measurement of threats. It is assumed that the top threats from CBRN “(a) can be developed by a limited set of actors, and (b) can be contained in a specific physical area after release” (Trump et al., 2020, p. 4706). Under this assumption, the Department of Defense and its subordinate agencies develop prevention strategies and conduct risk assessments. For example, attackers may be deprived of knowledge and tools for the development and use of CBRN weapons. Given the above, public authorities should continue to work on the strategies and security systems in the designated areas.
Chemical Threats
Chemical weapons are extremely dangerous, as they are aimed directly at the destruction of living organisms, including poisoning people and environmental pollution. Therefore, in the US, there are response systems that provide countermeasures to chemical attacks. Unfortunately, today there is a wide range of highly toxic industrial chemicals that are widely available. In addition, some dangerous substances, such as phosgene oxime, can be easily synthesized (Singh et al., 2021). The accidental release of hazardous chemicals that are used in industry can pose threats similar to chemical weapons. In particular, chemical accidents due to enemy attacks from the air can lead to mass casualties.
Toxic substances can be used both within the framework of military operations and by individual radical groups. For example, phosgene oxime is the most readily available dangerous substance that enhances the qualities of other dangerous substances (Singh et al., 2021). Phosgene oxime has long-term toxic effects and its mechanism of action is not well understood to develop adequate medical countermeasures. Therefore, in the next ten years, it will pose a danger to security, and the state should increase funding for programs that provide protection against chemical threats of this kind.
Biological Threats
Biological weapons include various viruses that infect biological systems, including humans or animals. Some countries have secret laboratories that develop biological weapons to use in case of danger to their regimes and as a lever of control. Planners of defense policy and biosecurity countermeasures face challenges due to the diversity and uniqueness of each new virus and the poor ability to control new virus outbreaks. For example, dangerous viruses such as the West Nile virus, which causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome, H1N1 influenza, and monkeypox, have posed a serious security risk (Cieslak et al., 2018). Even though the natural origin of viruses was subsequently proven, each outbreak was considered a potential act of bioterrorism. Scientists note that today it is extremely difficult to determine whether the virus was developed in the laboratory, or is of natural origin.
Interestingly, to better control biological threats and prevent attacks in the future, scientists emphasize the importance of correctly assessing biological threats that will be relevant in the next decade. Cieslak et al. (2018) offer a matrix with 12 characteristics of potential weapons that have been evaluated by 12 expert groups in 6 NATO countries. It was proposed to use such evaluation attributes as “infectivity, infection-to-disease ratio (reliability), predictability (and incubation period), morbidity and mortality (virulence), ease of large-scale production and storage, aerosol stability, atmospheric stability, ease of distribution, communication skills, availability of preventive countermeasures, availability of therapeutic countermeasures, and ease of detection” (Cieslak et al., 2018, p. 60). After applying these attributes, scientists have come to important and unexpected conclusions.
For example, some viruses that were traditionally considered the most dangerous, such as tularemia or anthrax, fell into the category of less dangerous due to ease of detection, lack of transmission, and availability of countermeasures. At the same time, the factors of virulence and lack of available countermeasures identified some little-known toxins as the most dangerous agents. Therefore, scientists recommend that NATO countries use scientific criteria to effectively assess and combat biological weapons in the future, and these recommendations should be widely applied.
Radiological Threats
Radiological weapons are threats from radiation emitted from bombs or the destruction of industrial structures by explosions, including when missiles hit the reactors of nuclear power plants. Today, many countries are showing interest in radiological weapons through research, development, and testing (Meyer et al., 2020). Remarkably, often after testing, countries officially refuse to deploy radiological weapons. Still, the United States does not have sufficient intelligence information to confirm that such refusals guarantee the cessation of weapon development. Therefore, the security services should focus on strengthening the systems of air defense, and prevent the extraction and distribution of substances and tools that are used to manufacture radiological weapons.
Nuclear Threats
Nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger, and after the use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Japan in World War II, it is generally accepted that this threat is especially relevant. China, North Korea, and Russia pose a particular threat because they openly declare their refusal to get rid of nuclear weapons, despite the unanimous position of other developed countries on this issue (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2021). Therefore, the United States needs to continue to build up the potential for protection against nuclear threats, and pursue a world policy ensuring the security of NATO member countries.
Thus, it was discussed why the state programs should focus on national security and prevent chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats in the following ten years. Chemical weapons are dangerous due to the greater ease of development of dangerous agents and their higher proliferation. These weapons are the most dangerous in terms of terrorism inside and outside the country. Biological weapons should be addressed to scientific laboratories that focus on the creation of antigens. Equally important, radiological and nuclear weapons pose a serious threat that requires effective national security response and defense strategies.
References
Cieslak, T. J., Kortepeter, M. G., Wojtyk, R. J., Jansen, H. J., Reyes, R. A., Smith, J. O., & NATO Biological Medical Advisory Panel. (2018). Beyond the dirty dozen: A proposed methodology for assessing future bioweapon threats. Military Medicine, 183(1-2), 59–65.
Meyer, S., Bidgood, S., & Potter, W. C. (2020). Death dust: The little-known story of US and Soviet Pursuit of radiological weapons. International Security, 45(2), 51–94.
Mills, G. D. (2018). Reassessing the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear response enterprise. US Army School for Advanced Military Studies Fort Leavenworth United States.
Singh, S. K., Klein, J. A., Wright, H. N., & Tewari-Singh, N. (2021). Phosgene oxime: A highly toxic urticant and emerging chemical threat. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 31(4), 288–292.
The threats that US nuclear weapons policy must address. (2021). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Trump, B. D., Keisler, J. M., Volk, K. M., & Linkov, I. (2020). Biosecurity demands resilience. Environmental Science Technologies, 54(8), 4706–4708.