"The Terrorism to Come"
Noted historian and terrorism scholar Walter Laqueur has a sober and thought provoking new essay in the August/September 2004 issue of Policy Review:
The Terrorism to Come
Here's a brief excerpt:
It could well be that, as far as the recent past is concerned, the danger of terrorism has been overstated. In the two world wars, more people were sometimes killed and more material damage caused in a few hours than through all the terrorist attacks in a recent year. True, our societies have since become more vulnerable and also far more sensitive regarding the loss of life, but the real issue at stake is not the attacks of the past few years but the coming dangers. Megaterrorism has not yet arrived; even 9-11 was a stage in between old-fashioned terrorism and the shape of things to come: the use of weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
Today these have become real possibilities. For the first time in human history very small groups have, or will have, the potential to cause immense destruction. In a situation such as the present one there is always the danger of focusing entirely on the situation at hand — radical nationalist or religious groups with whom political solutions may be found. There is a danger of concentrating on Islamism and forgetting that the problem is a far wider one. Political solutions to deal with their grievances may sometimes be possible, but frequently they are not. Today’s terrorists, in their majority, are not diplomats eager to negotiate or to find compromises. And even if some of them would be satisfied with less than total victory and the annihilation of the enemy, there will always be a more radical group eager to continue the struggle.
Anyone suffering from complacency vis a vis the issue of terrorism should read this essay. In an age of WMD, the terrorist threat will be with us for a long time.
Update: Please read the thoughtful comment attached to this post by David March, here's an excerpt:
This is exactly what is at the root of the problem of WMD’s--- they don’t need to be huge. You don’t go looking for an airfield covered with sophisticated bombers, or a military compound with huge tanker trucks filled with poison. All that is needed is enough material to fit in a backpack, with a timer and a few ounces of C-4, and you have a device that will create a huge problem for any functioning urban center.
A Weapon of Mass Destruction does NOT need to BE Massive.
1 Comments:
Dear David Durant,
First of all, I applaud the courage it must take to fly in the face of your co-librarian community. In many ways, I have admired the profession, but like the campus, it has become more than a little in-grown with radical notions that having failed in the real world, retreated to a sanctuary that offers no challenge or test.
The acronym WMD has spawned a vast population of people who distort its meaning, either intentionally or out of ignorance.
Just a few years back, two incidents occurred in which intensely radioactive materials--- built into devices for cancer diagnosis & therapy--- were stolen by scavengers. Not having a clue of the nature of what they’d liberated, they smeared the powdered cobalt salts on their hands and faces, and carried pellets in their pockets for days.
In Mexico, a small group of people was exposed enough to cause serious radiation poisoning. But in Brazil, hundreds were affected, and the government had to set up a long-term followup program for people living in the area. [I apologize that I don’t have the information and URL references at hand--- I researched a post on Bill Whittle’s website over a year ago, and I’ve moved across country since then.]
This is exactly what is at the root of the problem of WMD’s--- they don’t need to be huge. You don’t go looking for an airfield covered with sophisticated bombers, or a military compound with huge tanker trucks filled with poison. All that is needed is enough material to fit in a backpack, with a timer and a few ounces of C-4, and you have a device that will create a huge problem for any functioning urban center.
A Weapon of Mass Destruction does NOT need to BE Massive.
David March, animator & fiddler
dmarch@directcon.net
http://apsnyblog.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home