Forums in the Master of Emergency and Disaster Management

By Roberto Miguel Rodriguez

Discussion essays published throughout a variety of courses while pursuing a Master of Emergency and Disaster Management at American Military University, also known as the American Public University System.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Oct 3, 2018
• ISBN: 9780359134106

Book preview

Forums in the Master of Emergency and Disaster Management

Forums in the Master of Emergency and Disaster Management

Forums in the Master of Emergency and Disaster Management

HLSS 522 – Weapons of Mass Destruction and the New Terrorism

EDMG502 – Emergency and Disaster Theory

EDMG 665 – Climate Change Adaptation

EDMG530 – Economics of Disaster

EDMG 503 – Emergency and Disaster Planning and Management

EDMG560 – Crisis Action Planning

EDMG509 – Interagency Disaster Management

HLSS 522 – Weapons of Mass Destruction and the New Terrorism

WEEK 1

After viewing the video for this week (Weapons of Mass Destruction), the notion that technology has been instrumental in creating these weapons was repeatedly highlighted. Evaluate if technology is something that will continue to evolve making it more likely or unlikely for non-state actors to use a WMD?

The successful explosion of the two American atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki inaugurated the atomic age, an age that has been characterized by enormous scientific advances in all branches of science. At the end of World War II, the United States remained for a while as the only country in the world in possession of atomic weapons, but other nations quickly developed the same technical capability. In 1949, just five years after the first American atomic test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, the former Soviet Union exploded its first successful atomic test in Kazakhstan. Three years later, the United Kingdom, and then France and the People’s Republic of China, followed by India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. However, technology has not remained stagnant. The first nuclear weapons were fission bombs, which work by splitting the atom, followed by splitting the atom’s nucleus, which then hit the nuclei of nearby atoms in an explosive chain reaction.

In 1952, the United States devised a new method to produce more powerful bombs, which start with the same fission reaction but while in the atomic bomb most of uranium or plutonium remain unused, in a thermonuclear bomb or hydrogen bomb, more of the bomb’s explosive power becomes available with the result of producing an explosion equivalent to about 10,000 kilotons of TNT, while the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki yielded roughly 15 and 20 kilotons of TNT respectively.

Newer technologies such as the development of drones allow the military to operate in faraway lands without having to risk the possibility of casualties. Satellite communications facilitate global instantaneous communication, something unheard of at the end of World War II. Obviously, while most military research is produced by the developed economies, there is always the risk that such technologies, including the technology necessary to produce weapons of mass destruction could fall in the wrong hands with catastrophic results. It is bad enough that irresponsible governments such as North Korea and Iran have already obtained or are close to obtain nuclear technology, but this technology also could eventually fall in the hands of terrorist groups which would not think twice before using them against civilian targets.

So far, the governments of the world have made impossible for nuclear materials to fall into the hands of terrorists. However, these groups have expressed their intention to acquire and use such weapons. While the nuclear weapons in the United States, the United Kingdom and France are stored and protected, most of the nuclear material possessed by Russia is not so well controlled, although the weapons previously in possession of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were successfully transferred to the Russian Federation after the declared independence of the 15 republics that previously formed part of the Soviet Union. The same occurs with chemical weapons. In the United States, just at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in the Utah Desert we have over 7,000 tons of nerve and mustard agents still waiting incineration (Raphael and Cole, 2007, p. 10). There is a high probability that weapons of mass destruction, or at least dirty bombs, might eventually be acquired by terrorists, and if this happens, most likely, these groups will attempt to use such weapons against civilians anywhere they can.

The assessment written by Bergen, Hoffman and Tiedemann about the Jihadist Terrorist Threat to American Interests clearly explain that this is a possibility. Al Qaeda leaders repeatedly have expressed their opinion that the United States owes the Arab world millions of deaths because of its alleged crimes against Islam (Bergen, Hoffman and Tiedemann, 2011, p. 67). On the other hand, Long (2006) using strategic culture as an analytic concept, are unlikely to use weapons against destruction against the West, even if they could obtain them, because they feared pulling heaven down upon their heads in a retaliatory strike by the West (Long, 2006, p. 22). This author also believes that the central Al Qaeda leadership is unlikely to take this step against the West, although he remains cautious about the possibility of other affiliated or semi-autonomous branches of the organization using weapons of mass destruction. Although Long’s analysis is interesting and academic, the chronology of their activities pursuing nuclear weapons and other mass destruction weapons presented by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen clearly questions the results of Long’s cultural analysis.

References

Bergen, P., Hoffman, B. and Tiedemann, K. (2011). Assessing the jihadist threat to America and American interests. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34, 65-101.

Long, J.M. (2006). Strategic culture, Al-Qaida, and weapons of mass destruction. Washington, DC: Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Mowatt-Larssen, R. (2010). Al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction threat: Hype or reality? Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Raphael, M. (Writer), & Cole, J. (Producer). (2007). Weapons of mass destruction [Video file]. Used by permission of A&E Television.

Hi Krista,

The possibility of a weapon of mass destruction being smuggled into one of our largest ports is a nightmare scenario for emergency disaster specialists. The video mentions how each container goes through a series of steps to ensure that its contents are what they should be and not undeclared weapons or materials. Still, the same documentary mentioned that only a fraction of these containers is screened, which means that what we are doing is reducing a statistical possibility not eliminating the danger. I read somewhere that the Container Security Initiative inspects only 34 percent of US-bound containers overseas, and only 17.5 percent of high-risk cargo. Another problem is that many port facilities have extreme space constrains for increasing the number of scanning facilities and diversion areas, and this limits how quickly adaptations can be achieved. 

On January 15, 2005 and again on April 2, 2005, more than 30 Chinese immigrants were found emerging from containers at the port of Los Angeles, which demonstrate that such containers also could be used to bring into the country either terrorists or weapons of mass destruction (De Rugy, 2005, p. 21).

However, after reading the articles for this week and the next, I am more inclined to believe that the most likely scenario for a terrorist attack using WMD is a dirty bomb. This basically will be some radiological materials packed together with conventional explosives. The bomb will explode like a normal bomb but will also spread radioactive materials in the air with tragic consequences for many people.

Reference

De Rugy, Veronique. (2005). What does homeland security spending buy? American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Hi Jennifer,

You mentioned in your post the 2008 event when six Somali-American youth disappeared from Minneapolis, a city very close to where I live and appeared somewhere in Somalia recruited by al-Shahab. As you can imagine this event was daily in my local media because of the presence in this state of a large immigrant group from Somalia. These immigrants were relatively recent arrivals to the city. They came after the US-controlled UN-approved UNOSOM II peacemaking effort in Somalia in 1993. The fact that the youth decided to join the terrorist organization surprised everybody around here because these kids were doing OK in schools, although like most Muslim immigrants everywhere, they never integrated into society and kept themselves isolated amid the larger culture. Still, it was a surprise. 

Unfortunately, the incident you mentioned was not the only event. In 2014, a group of 10 Somali youth were apprehended while trying to travel to Syria to fight with the Islamic (Browning and Smith, 2015, p. 1). Also in 2015, another report in the same paper mentioned that 58 persons from the United States, most of them from Minnesota, attempted or succeeded joining ISIL in Syria (McEnroe and Sherry, 2015, p. 2).

Although the Minnesota examples show mostly Somali youth joining the terrorist organizations, in reality the problem is much wider. Bergen, Hoffman and Tiedemann explained that in the past few years the diversity of people joining the terrorists has erased any clue that we might have about who is next. These authors mention that terrorists-to be have included affluent suburban Americans… persons of color and Caucasians… women along with men… good students and well-educated individuals and high school dropouts and jailbirds… people born in the U.S. or in Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Somalia (Bergen, Hoffman & Tiedmann, 2011, p. 89). However, the authors refused to acknowledge something that unites all of them: they are all Muslims or at least sympathize with them.

References

Bergen, P., Hoffman, B. and Tiedemann, K. (2011). Assessing the jihadist threat to America and American interests. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34, 65-101.

Browning, D. and Smith, L.M. (2015). Judge orders Twin Cities man suspected of supporting ISIL held pending detention hearing. Star Tribune, December 10 http://www.startribune.com/feds-charge-another-somali-youth-with-supporting-isil-terrorists/361354001/

McEnroe, P. and Shery, A. (2015). Minnesota leads the nation in would-be ISIL terrorists from U.S., report finds. Star Tribune, September http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-leads-the-nation-in-would-be-isil-terrorists-from-u-s-report-finds/329942131

HLSS 522 – WEEK 2

After reading this week’s course material, choose one potential weapon from one of the chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) categories (i.e. you could select Tularemia, which could be a potential biological weapon). Write in your own words an assessment of your selected potential weapon's characteristics, accessibility, consequences of terrorists using that weapon based in researched facts. What are the prospects for non-state actors to acquire and use that WMD in a foreign country or in the United States?

Nuclear Weapons: A Terrorist’s Dream

There are basically two types of atomic weapons. The first is a gun type weapon where a mass of highly enriched uranium, or HEU, is shot down a tube into another HEU mass, creating a supercritical mass and nuclear explosion (Medalia, 2004, p. 3). This is the simplest nuclear fission weapon and also the most reliable. It was used untested in the Hiroshima bomb (Beckman, Crumlish, Dobrowski & Lee, 2007, p. 376).

The other is the implosion type. A shell of this material is surrounded by chemical explosives arrayed to produce a symmetrical inward-moving implosion shock wave that compresses the plutonium enough to be supercritical. The bomb detonated at Nagasaki was of this type. A concentration of more than 90 percent is optimal for both uranium 235 and plutonium 239 (Rhodes, 1996, p. 8). Nuclear material with much lower concentrations can be used in nuclear weapons, but uranium at concentrations less than 20 percent cannot be used for this purpose (Rhodes, 1986, p. 9).

The nuclear material necessary to build a bomb is as little as 35 pounds of uranium 2356, or nine of plutonium 239 (Rhodes, 1986, p. 19), and the smallest nuclear bomb ever made is the Davy Crockett, with a yield of 0.1 kiloton, and weighting only 51 pounds (Medalia, 2004, p. 4). A kiloton is a unit of energy for measuring the prompt yield of nuclear explosions, and is equal to the energy released by one thousand tons of TNT (Beckman et al., 2007, p. 376).

The Hiroshima bomb weighed 9,700 pounds and was 10.5 feet long and 29 inches in diameter, but much of this size was taken up by an armored steel shell and stabilizing fans, as well as by arming, fusing and firing devices (Rhodes, 1985, p. 701). The gun barrel was 6 feet in length by over 6 inches in diameter and weighted about a half-ton (Medalia, 2004, p. 4), which means that an atomic bomb can fit in a car, boat or small airplane, and occupy just a small space in a shipping container.

Of course, the easiest bomb to prepare is not the atomic bomb, but what is called the dirty bomb, which is prepared with radioactive materials, which are much easier to find. A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive containing radioactive material, the use of which radioactively contaminates the immediate vicinity of the explosion (Beckman et al, 2007, p. 375). Potential sources to build a dirty bomb are americium, cession, and strontium, found in hospitals, at industrial and construction sites, and at food irradiation plants.

Scholars are divided about how close any terrorist organization might be to get access to an atomic weapon. Bergen, Hoffman and Tiedemann (2011) believe this could be a possibility. At least they have tried hard to get their hands on at least one. Long, on the other hand, believes this possibility to be unlikely because the terrorists have to position themselves within the religious beliefs of Islam and only one fatwa has been issued approving the use of nuclear weapons. Most Muslim scholars dissent from this position.

The problem, as Long himself recognizes, is that even if Al Qaeda central office rejects the use of an atomic weapon, that any of its newly created autonomous branches, if presented with an opportunity, will most likely use it. Also, the chronology presented by Mowatt-Larsen points out towards the nuclear option possibility. A nuclear weapon might never fall into the hands of terrorists, but if this were possible, most likely they will not hesitate in using them if they have an opportunity.

References

Beckman, Peter R., Crumlish, Paul W., Dobrowski, Michael N & Lee, Steven P. (2007). Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear States & Terrorism. 4th Edition. New York, NY: Sloan Publishing.

Bergen, P., Hoffman, B. and Tiedemann, K. (2011). Assessing the jihadist threat to America and American interests. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 34, 65-101.

Long, J.M. (2006). Strategic culture, Al-Qaida, and weapons of mass destruction. Washington, DC: Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Medalia, Jonathan. (2004). Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses. CRS Report for Congress, September 22.

Mowatt-Larssen, R. (2010). Al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction threat: Hype or reality? Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Rhodes, Richard. (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hi Krista,

Thanks for your post. Probably finding uranium is not very difficult, what is more difficult is converting it to a usable form. Uranium ores are widely distributed throughout the world. Deposits of pitchblende, the richest uranium ore, are found chiefly in Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, formerly Zaire), and the United States (WNO, 2017, p. 1). Most of the uranium mined in the United States is obtained from carnotite occurring in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Wyoming (WNO, 2017, p. 2). A mineral called coffinite, discovered in 1955 in Colorado, is a high-grade ore containing nearly 61 percent uranium. Coffinite deposits were found subsequently in Wyoming and Arizona and in several foreign countries (WNO, 2017, p. 3). In 1990, U.S. production of pure uranium concentrate was about 3417 metric tons, while Canadian production was about 8729 tons; world production totaled about 29,100 metric tons. Uranium never occurs naturally in the free state but is found as an oxide or complex salt in minerals such as pitchblende and carnotite. It has an average concentration in the crust of the earth of about 2 parts per 1 million (WNO, 2017, p. 4).

In normal state, the uranium-235 isotope is found