Terror Defense No Al Qaida Terror
No Electrical Grid Terror
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- No ISIS Terror
- There is a very low risk that ISIS could acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
No Electrical Grid TerrorNo AttackIt is impossible for hackers to perform a large scale attack on the US power grid.Perera 14 [David Perera, cybersecurity reporter for POLITICO Pro, “U.S. grid safe from large-scale attack, experts say,” September 10, 2014, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/power-grid-safety-110815.html#ixzz3fEZeVZrQ]//JIH The specter of a large-scale, destructive attack on the U.S. power grid is at the center of much strategic thinking about cybersecurity. For years, Americans have been warned by a bevy of would-be Cassandras in Congress, the administration and the press that hackers are poised to shut it down. But in fact, the half-dozen security experts interviewed for this article agreed it’s virtually impossible for an online-only attack to cause a widespread or prolonged outage of the North American power grid. Even laying the groundwork for such a cyber operation could qualify as an act of war against the U.S. — a line that few nation-state-backed hacker crews would wish to cross. None denied that determined hackers could penetrate the networks of bulk power providers. But there’s a huge gap between that and causing a civilization-ending sustained outage of the grid. Electrical-grid hacking scenarios mostly overlook the engineering expertise necessary to intentionally cause harm to the grid, say experts knowledgeable about the power generators and high voltage transmission entities that constitute the backbone of the grid — what’s called the bulk power system. There’s also the enormity of the grid and diversity of its equipment to consider. “The grid is designed to lose utilities all the time,” said Patrick Miller, founder and director of the Energy Sector Security Consortium. “I’m not trying to trivialize the situation, but you’re not really able to cause this nationwide cascading failure for any extended duration of time,” he added. “It’s just not possible.” No ISIS TerrorEven if ISIS has the intent to utilize chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, it would be virtually impossible for the group to develop and deploy them.Esfandiary and Cottee 14 [Dina Esfandiary, MacArthur Fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King's College London, Matthew Cottee, research analyst with the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The very small Islamic State WMD threat,” October 15, 2014, http://thebulletin.org/very-small-islamic-state-wmd-threat7729]//JIH With ISIS running amok over such a large swathe of territory, it’s no surprise that these kinds of fears are growing. But it is important to be realistic about the threat. It remains unlikely that the group will be able to acquire and effectively use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. For a start, concerns that terrorists could buy or steal a nuclear device from a country that possesses them are exaggerated and have been comprehensively discredited. Very few countries sponsor terrorism or wish to be seen as doing so, and nuclear forensics would make it relatively straightforward to find the source of any given device. The consequences for any state conducting such business would be severe. Some of the hysteria surrounding ISIS and WMD is based on the theft in July of around 40 kilograms of uranium compounds from Mosul University. But if this was a targeted attempt to acquire nuclear material—rather than part of a broader raid on the university—it suggests that the thieves’ knowledge of nuclear bomb-making lacks sophistication. The stolen material cannot be turned into a viable nuclear device: The uranium was low-grade and would have to be further enriched and then weaponized, requiring obscure raw materials and technologies, a delivery means, and facilities that would take years and a significant sum of money to develop. It took the United States, with its vast resources and advanced knowhow, six years to develop a nuclear device. It took China roughly 10 years and Pakistan more than two decades. Needless to say, even for an established country, developing a nuclear weapon is not simple. The most likely threat is a radiological device of some kind. It is relatively simple to develop a so-called “dirty bomb,” in which explosives are combined with a radioactive source like those commonly used in hospitals or extractive industries. But the radioactivity released by a dirty bomb would have only limited health effects, causing more disruption than destruction. If ISIS used its stolen uranium in a dirty bomb, the weapon’s blast would be more deadly than the radiation it released. What about chemical and biological weapons? In June, ISIS seized the Al Muthanna chemical complex in northern Iraq, leading to concerns that the group would acquire the ability to deploy chemical weapons. According to a letter circulated by the Iraqi government at the United Nations, the facility held 2,500 chemical rockets filled with the nerve agent sarin, as well as other chemical remnants and some empty delivery mechanisms. But the chemicals were old and either partially destroyed or degraded. As chemical weapons go, sarin is particularly susceptible to degradation if it is impure. Its shelf life is estimated to be one to two years. While sarin’s degraded remnants are still toxic, they cannot be used as chemical weapons. The Al Muthanna facility also housed mustard gas, which is more stable. In recent days, reports have emerged that ISIS allegedly used mustard gas in an attack against Kurdish officers in Kobane. But the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors reported two decades ago that these chemicals had been degraded. More important, the two bunkers ISIS seized had been chosen by UNSCOM for destruction operations because of their solid structures. Both were sealed, which means penetration by ISIS would not only be difficult but would expose them to the chemicals. In short, there is virtually nothing available for ISIS to use at the Al Muthanna complex. Moreover, even if the group were to get access to agents like sarin or mustard gas, deploying them without its own members being contaminated would present a considerable challenge, as they are not trained in chemical weapons use. The use of chlorine, however, is a possibility. Chlorine is a readily available industrial chemical with many peaceful uses. It can be pressurized and cooled to a liquid state so that it can be shipped and stored relatively easily, which means it can be used in improvised devices. When dispersed it spreads quickly and hinders breathing. But it’s significantly less lethal than other chemical agents. While chlorine isn’t useful in battle, it’s an effective weapon of fear. ISIS appears to have some interest in developing biological weapons, as files contained on a laptop seized in Syria last summer suggest. But the group would need sophisticated labs and technical expertise to develop, manufacture, and deploy such weapons. And as with chemical weapons, the use of biological weapons by untrained troops puts them at risk of contamination, too. While it is possible for ISIS to get its hands on biological toxins and pathogens, it would be very difficult for its soldiers to safely handle and disperse large quantities of the agents to cause mass casualties. In short, ISIS does seem interested in acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but ambitions do not necessarily equate with reality. The complexities of such weapons, combined with the difficulties involved in obtaining and handling the necessary material, make the likelihood of its use remote. Let’s not exaggerate the threat. There is a very low risk that ISIS could acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.Bell 14 [Matthew Bell, Freelance journalist writing on defence, security, cyber, aviation, infrastructure and business, “Theresa May's comments on IS and WMDs 'embellish the threat,’” October 2, 2014, http://www.channel4.com/news/theresa-may-weapons-of-mass-destruction-is-isis-isil-tory-speech]//JIH Emily Chorley, Proliferation Editor for IHS Jane's, admits that "technically there's a risk of any state or group" getting their hands on chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. News "But in this case, as in most, I'd say the risk is relatively low," she told Channel 4 News. "There are no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons left in Iraq, and all of the chemical weapons declared by the Assad regime have been removed from the country." "Iran certainly wouldn't share its nuclear technology with Isis and its facilities are fairly well-secured," she adds "There is always the possibility that Isis might try to get their hands on 'orphan sources' of radiological material - not under proper regulatory control - for use in a 'dirty bomb', but that would require a lot of effort and risk of apprehension for limited impact. "This type of weapon would also be difficult to smuggle into Western countries." So what analysis backs up Mrs May's claim? Nothing was offered in her speech, and the Home Office told Channel 4 News intelligence "is not something we would provide or comment on", adding that her speech to the Conservative party conference was not something "that involved the Home Office". So in a strange echo of another Iraq war, we're left with claims that WMDs could be developed by a malicious group within reach of the UK, but without sufficient detail to back up the claims. If such evidence does exist, then hopefully the home secretary has it, and surely it's worth us having it too. ISIS hasn’t acquired effective chemical weapons, and there is a low chance that they will – current chemical capabilities’ potency is lacking.Mutter 14 [Paul Mutter, foreign policy blogger on leave from the NYU Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism, contributes to PBS Tehran Bureau, “No, Iraqi Terrorists Aren’t About to Gas Us,” Jul 11, 2014, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/no-iraqi-terrorists-arent-about-to-gas-us-cc816f861d4b]//JIH Unlike conventional explosives, chemical munitions are so specialized that it’s hard to repurpose them. ISIS would be better off testing the remaining precursor chemicals at Al Muthanna to create its own chemical weapons from scratch. Fortunately, the Iraq Study Group reported in 2004 that it had found no working production equipment on site. Iraqi terrorists already have a limited gas capability in the form of chlorine-dispersal bombs. But they’re more of a psychological weapon than practical military one. In the case of the chlorine bombs, the heat from the blast often neutralizes much of the agent. It would take ISIS a lot of trial and error to build a proper dispersal mechanism for a custom sarin bomb. And unlike chlorine, which is a commercial industrial chemical, Al Muthanna’s chemicals are not safe for anyone to handle or transport normally without protective gear. Locked inside brick and concrete sarcophagi, the greatest danger these decaying weapons pose right now are to inept handlers. Of whom ISIS would not be the first. U.N. inspectors arrived on site in 1991 and stayed full-time until 1994. They found that Iraqi safety measures left much to be desired. The Iraqis were using a dry stream bed as a dumping site. They left chemical-filled barrels out in the open. Leaks were an ever-present danger. Even though the U.N. estimated that most of Iraq’s existing CW stock had lost 90-percent of its potency as early as 1992, its degraded contents were not inert. Leaks sent people to the hospital and allegedly killed two Iraqi officials who mistook a sarin-filled warhead for a conventional one. The Iraq Study Group surveyed the ruins during the U.S. occupation and found that there has been widespread looting since Baghdad expelled the U.N. in 1998. Given the poor living conditions for Iraqi guards, such neglect is hardly surprising. Fortunately, even as chemical canisters lay scattered around the grounds, thieves seemed to be focused on stealing recyclable metals. Despite the site’s lax security, none of the site’s materials or former personnel have turned up in terrorists’ hands. As of now, ISIS has not broken into any of the sealed bunkers. Al Muthanna is in poor shape for ISIS to take advantage of its toxic legacy. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|