CIAO DATE: 06/2008
May 2005
Finnish Institute for International Affairs
“WMD” is a political term, not an analytical one. It mixes up very different weapons; some that would have little effect if used by terrorists, and some that would have catastrophic effects.
The more dangerous the type of weapon, the more difficult it is for terrorist groups to obtain those weapons.
It is important to understand the differing reasons why terrorists have not chosen to use “WMD” in the past, in order to make useful threat assessments.
With radical jihadi groups, the symbolic value of suicide attacks as a demonstration of faith seems as important as the effects of the attack. If this changes it could increase the interest of jihadis in “WMD”.
The United States National Security Strategy of 2002 notes on page one that the US is now: “menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few”. The European Union’s Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) states in its fi rst paragraph that their proliferation is: “a growing threat to international peace and security”, and that: “[t]he risk that terrorists will acquire chemical, biological, radiological or fi ssile materials and their means of delivery adds a new critical dimension to this threat”. The two most infl uential actors in international politics today have put the idea of “WMD-terrorism” at the heart of their security thinking. Are they right to have done this?
Resource link: "WMD" Terrorism - How Scared Should We Be? [PDF] - 238K