The definition of Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)
An ultimately correct definition of WMD is a complicated one to give. Feltes (2021, p. 49) points out that it “is far from established and subject to controversial debates.” However, the most generally accepted definition is the one codified in law. Title 50 of the United States Code identifies weapon of mass destruction as “any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people” (Definitions, 2020). It then lists the different types of WMDs: chemical, biological, and radioactive weapons.
The difference of public perceptions and the legal definitions of WMDs
While specialists view WMDs as a complex of different weapons, this is not the case for general public. Most people associate WMDs with nuclear weapons, as evident from sociological articles dedicated to the issue (Baron, 2020; Lytle, 2020). The reason to this is that, historically, nuclear disasters have been more evident and traumatic to large groups of people. For Americans, even peaceful nuclear technology is associated with destruction precisely because of this fact (Baron, 2020). Older Americans consider the risk of a nuclear attack in the nearest future as low. Young Americans, however, view it as a more serious threat, as media coverage has increased nuclear apathy among them (Lytle, 2020). Despite the Cold War being long over, recent events such as the Fukushima disaster and North Korea threatening to use its bombs have increased young Americans’ anxiety over a possible nuclear catastrophe. Thus, general audience perceives WMDs mainly as nuclear weapons, as they deal with it more often via media featuring historical experiences and recent news concerning that type of WMD.
The constraints of terrorist groups
Considering that WMDs are exceptionally dangerous weapons, it is logical that their ending up at terrorists’ disposal would cause catastrophic and destabilizing consequences. In fact, entire programs are being employed by governments, the U.S. Government specifically, to stop the terrorists from acquiring WMD. These programs, in conjunction with most WMDs not being easily obtainable, terrorists being conservative, and other factors, effectively prevent terrorists from using WMDs.
As already mentioned, it is unlikely for terrorists to acquire WMD. As per the National Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism (2018, p. 1), the “agents, precursors, and materials needed to acquire WMD are placed beyond the reach of terrorists”. The quantity of WMD and related materials from which they can be produced in the world has been reduced as well (National Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, 2018). The main objective of the National Strategy (2018) is to prevent the acquisition of said materials or tools which could be used for producing a WMD, as well as the necessary training for it. Another factor that has its role is that most terrorists are conservative in the methods they employ. According to Feltes (2021), their most used tool is an attack by a vehicle, followed by conventional weaponry. Chemical weapons are the fourth most used method, and that is a matter that will be touched upon later. Still, the less-technological weapons are what the terrorists employ the most, and the reason for this is that they cannot develop new technologies and have limited access to technology created by others.
Nevertheless, in theory terrorists would opt to gain access to WMDs. The most known WMD – a nuclear weapon – is limited in numbers and difficult to create. Thus, the terrorists would have to obtain one from a state. The most unstable countries having nuclear weapons in their possession are Russia and Pakistan; however, even these countries take the necessary security measures making them hard targets for terrorists. Thus, nuclear weapons would be considerably difficult for terrorists to obtain.
Biological weapons are not considerably different in accessibility from nuclear weapons. They are the only type of WMD that can “match nuclear weapons in the scale of casualties they produce” (National Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, 2018, p. 6). Like nuclear weapons, the ways of acquiring them include theft from a state or own production. Theft from a state is only available via insiders with access to secret programs, and own production is complicated as well. It requires “obtaining the correct micro-organism, procuring the right equipment, avoiding contamination, and ensuring virulence during weaponization” (Ackerman, 2018, p. 27). In addition, the most common toxic obtainable by terrorists is ricin, which is not infectious or contagious. Thus, while biological weapons are more obtainable than the nuclear ones, they are still not a practical weapon for terrorists due to their rarity.
The most probable WMD for terrorists to acquire are chemical weapons. Their most likely sources are unstable states such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, or North Korea. While the governments of these countries will not risk war by providing terrorists with WMDs, there might still be willing collaborators with access to the weapons (Ackerman, 2018). Other possible ways are: to “produce a chemical agent and appropriate delivery mechanism using precursor materials”; to release industrial chemicals from storage; or to produce traditional chemical warfare agents (Ackerman, 2018, pp. 26–27). These possibilities are notably more probable to be realized than with other types of WMD, which makes chemical weapons relatively accessible.
Thus, the terrorists face a lot of constraints on their potential attempts to get WMDs. They lack funding, technology, ability to create said technology, lack cooperation from countries with access to WMDs, even the most unstable ones. Their conservatism limits their possibilities at obtaining WMDs as well. All these factors make them forgo the risk of trying to acquire WMDs, opting for cheaper and more traditional forms of warfare.
References
Ackerman, G., & Jacome, M. (2018). WMD Terrorism: The Once and Future Threat. PRISM: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations, 7, 22–37.
Baron, J., & Herzog, S. (2020). Public opinion on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: The attitudinal nexus in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101567.
Definitions, 50 U.S.C. § 2302 (2020), Web.
Feltes, J. (2021). Weapons of Mass Destruction – Conceptual and Ethical Issues with Regard to terrorism. In A. Henschke, A. Reed, S. Robbins, & S. Miller (Eds.), Counter- Terrorism, Ethics and Technology: Emerging Challenges at the Frontiers of Counter- Terrorism (Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications) (pp. 49– 69). Springer.
Lytle, A., & Karl, K. (2020). Understanding Americans’ Perceptions of Nuclear Weapons Risk and Subsequent Behavior. International Journal of Communication, 14, 299– 323.
National Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism. (2018). Penguin Random House.