Even major global powers won’t use hsr, China is failing
Download 0.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- No means for large attack – it’s all speculation.
- No Terror
- Terrorist groups short-lived—empirics prove.
- No Nuke Terror
Terrorists Won’t AttackTerrorists won’t conduct a maritime attack – scarce targets and easier land options.Breanne Wagner, November 2007, staff writer, National Defense, “License to Boat?,” Vol. 92 Issue 648, p. 24, Ebsco Host **cites CRS analysts Paul Pariomak & John Frittelli, experts on maritime terrorism**] In the CRS report, analysts Paul Pariomak and John Frittelli said that increased govern-ment efforts, along with specific challenges to terrorists on U.S. seas, might prevent per-petrators from attempting a waterborne attack. Terrorists face more obstacles to maritime attacks than land attacks, the report said. This is because sea targets are more scarce than land targets , surveillance at sea provides less cover and ocean conditions make an attack scenario somewhat unpredictable , said Navy Capt .James Pelkofski, according to the report." Although a successful attack on U.S. mar-itime targets would likely satisfy certain objectives of known international perpetra –tors such as al-Qaida, tactical uncertainties and security deterrents may lead terrorist planners to turn their attention elsewhere," Parfomak and Frittelli wrote. They point out that since1997, less than one percent of global attacks involved sea targets . No means for large attack – it’s all speculation.Janes Intelligence Review, 2006 “maritime Terrorism: the threat in context” Does the concern about the potential for large-scale maritime terrorism match the reality of the threat? A lack of necessary skills and the practical difficulties facing terrorists attempting to operate in the maritime sphere may render many of the nightmare scenarios feared by governments and port authorities unlikely. Martin Murphy reports. An accurate assessment of the current nature and scope of the global maritime terrorist threat should be driven by an assessment of what is probable, rather than merely possible. However, sober analysis of this issue has been clouded amid the anxiety created by the current global security climate, with much discussion turning on the notion that terrorists could potentially strike any target with virtually any means available. While the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US demonstrated the willingness of a new generation of Islamist militants to conduct mass-casualty attacks, conceptually it was not very different from other terrorist 'spectaculars'. There was no fundamental innovation in terrorist methods and the attacks did not herald a significant change of direction. Rather, they built on the steady standards of terrorist tactics: surprise and simplicity, executed by means of known and straightforward technology. In the 11 September 2001 attacks, it was the scale, audacity and, once it became apparent, the international reach of the group behind it, which surprised many. These elements led observers to look for other possible scenarios where acts on a similar scale could be carried out. The sea certainly offers scale, and it is not surprising that some of this speculation has focused on the maritime domain. Two main reasons are put forward as to why terrorists might mount attacks on water: the high seas are an unregulated space that, in the case of weak states that are unable to police their territorial waters effectively, extends right up to coast; and that few terrorist incidents have occurred at sea and therefore it is the turn of ships and seafarers to provide the next vehicle and set of victims. Such speculation has fallen into two broad categories: large ships as weapons, and ships as delivery vehicles for weapons No TerrorThere is Minimal terrorist presenceProf. John Mueller, 2010 (PhD in political science, professor of political science at Ohio State University), Terrorizing Ourselves, Cato Institute, "Assessing Measures Designed to Protect the Homeland", http://books.google.com/books?id=HIsLQgAACAAJ By 2005, however, after years of well funded sleuthing, the FBI and other investigative agencies concluded in a secret report that they had been unable to uncover a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell anywhere in the United States, a finding (or nonfinding) publicly acknowledged two years later. Al Qaeda deserves special attention here because, as stated by Glenn Carle, a 23-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, where he was deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats, it is "the only Islamic terrorist organization that targets the U.S. homeland." Terrorist groups short-lived—empirics prove.Prof. Audrey Kurth Cronin (PhD, professor of strategy at the National War College), 2010, Terrorizing Ourselves, Cato Institute, "Defeating al Qaeda", ISBN: 978-1-935308-30-0, http://books.google.com/books?id=HIsLQgAACAAJ (page 16) In doing the research for my book, I studied hundreds of groups. I was careful about how groups were selected, omitting those that had only one attack or one small set of attacks, for example. Of the 475 (of 873) groups in the RAND/MIPT (Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism) database that deliberately targeted noncombatants and engaged in a series of attacks (thus a campaign), the average life span was only about eight years. Estimates given by others are even shorter: long-standing terrorism expert David Rapoport argues that 90 percent last less than a year. No Nuke TerrorNuclear terrorism is science fiction - easier to launch Bin Laden into space. It’s not ironman where you just create high tech weapons in a hideout cave.Adam Garfinkle, 2009 (PhD in international relations, served as a staff member of the National Security Study Group of the U.S. Commission on National Security), May 2009, Foreign Policy Research Institute, "Does Nuclear Deterrence Apply in the Age of Terrorism?", http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1410.200905.garfinkle.nucleardeterrenceterrorism.html There have, of course, been several novels, dozens of action movies, and countless television shows featuring terrorists who had somehow gotten their hands on a nuclear device. But none of these dramas ever explains credibly how a bunch of ragtag dropouts and narcissists get their hands on or figure out how to build a useable nuclear weapon. This is because they can't. It is, to understate the matter, not an easy thing to build a nuclear weapon, given the physics, metallurgy, and engineering involved. It takes a fairly large space, a lot of people with different kinds of specialties, and a fair amount of time and money. The material involved is not easy to hide or move, and it certainly isn't easy to deliver a bomb to a target even if one could be fabricated or stolen. Some of the more imaginative depictions of potential catastrophe would have us believe that terrorists could put a nuclear bomb in a suitcase. This is nonsense. You've got to be very sophisticated technically to get a nuke into a suitcase. If you're al Qaeda working in a cave somewhere, even if you have some metallurgy experts and scientists trying to help you, getting a nuclear device into a suitcase is even less likely than being able to launch Osama bin Laden into orbit. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|