One way to conceptualize terrorism is “communication amplified by violence.” ₁ Since the bombing of Japan in World War II, the killing power of a nuclear device has been widely understood and generally feared by people. Furthermore, since chemical weapons were introduced, such as chlorine gas, in World War I, the objective of possessing a WMD has been at the fore-front of government and now terror objectives.

Terror organizations and their structures have rapidly and more widely developed in the past several decades. The organization has moved to “one that has no political or social objectives,” making the analysis of whether a WMD will or will not be used more unclear and difficult to determine. ₂ Furthermore, terror organizations have moved from state sponsored organizations to those independent of a country’s influence; from demanding money, political freedom for individuals or groups of individuals, or the overthrow of a political regime to ones whose only objective is to inflict pain and fear among the target’s population. ₂ The idea of analyzing the next steps or target population for the possible use of a WMD becomes one of analyzing how an organized crime network reacts to varying pressures and tactics by law enforcement.

The idea of a terror organization using a WMD strikes fear directly into its intended target population. “Violence without publicity is ineffective,” so terror organizations must be ready to claim the most feared weapon created by humankind. ₁ Additionally, a terror organization must be ready to prove that such a weapon of mass destruction is in its possession.

A specific point to consider is the impact that the use of a WMD will have on the terror organization’s overall objective. As shown in the Aum Shinrikyo’s March 1995 use of sarin gas in a Tokyo subway, the number of deaths and injuries directly related to the WMDs use were highly exaggerated. ₃ Furthermore, the public view of Aum Shinrikyo changed from a nuisance organization to one capable of doing great harm to the Japanese people. ₃ If an objective is to change some thing, having the support of the public is vital. Negative publicity and exaggeration of actual events certainly becomes a detractor to the terror organization’s message or cause.

The major objective of the new terror organization is to instill a sense of fear in a population. High profile attacks can and do produce an initial reaction of fear, but rarely have the impact desired by the terror organization. As seen in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center (WTC) bombing, the United States did see a period of fear, though not extending a considerable length. In fact, the WTC bombing did not cause the United States to “withdraw from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries” and certainly increased the United State’s resolve to combat terrorism. ₃ Furthermore, the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack in Tokyo failed to persuade the Japanese people to overthrow their government. ₃ Fear must be maintained for such organizations to persuade a population to their cause. To date, WMD attacks have not been successful in sustaining the quantity of fear necessary to make populations change political or socio-cultural positions.

Of equal concern is the lack of a deterrence method’s effectiveness on non-state sponsored or controlled terror organizations. Deterrence is the act of preventing or persuading to not use or do something by some use of power. ₄ The problem with deterrence is the normal uses of political power do not work against a non-state entity. ₄ For example, who do you attack in retaliation for a terror incident (deterrence by punishment and isolation)? How do you block a location from receiving materials that could be used against a country’s population (deterrence by denial of materials)? A non-state sponsored or controlled terror organization does not fit the current methods of deterrence used and perfected against countries.

Furthermore, in 1999, the Monterey WMD Terrorism Database showed 175 entries of WMD use or hoaxes threatening WMD use globally. ₅ A closer review shows that only 39 entries were for actual use of a WMD’s agent and the remaining were threatened use, possession of, or other non-action uses. ₅ The 1999 statistics do reveal the desire for some terror and non-terror organizations to possess or claim possession of, and possibly use WMD against a target population.

If one looks at fear being the overall objective of the new terror organization, possession of a WMD, providing proof of possessing a WMD, and the threat of use of the WMD will strike fear into a population. That potential to strike fear, and subsequently cause a change in policy or position of a government, may be the one driving factor for terror organizations to claim or attempt to possess (or in some cases generate) WMDs.

A major concern as it relates to whether a terror organization will or will not use a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is the varied definitions of what is a Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) weapon or device. If you think about a release of a chemical (such as chlorine or anhydrous ammonia) that reduces the amount of oxygen below the 19% needed for human survival, would that be a chemical agent? Accepting a wide definition of a CBRN weapon which causes mass causalities logically means terror organizations must have CBRN capabilities as many of these items (especially chemicals) are readily accessible.

Related to the concern of determining what a CBRN is the problematic definition of chemical weapons. Many experts only relate the term to those high end chemical compounds, such as sarin or VX gas. ₅ However, the likelihood of a terror organization possessing these high end compounds is rare. However, many low end chemical compounds, such as commonly acquired industrial chemicals, are widely available and may be in the possession of terror organizations. ₅ The distinction between high end and low end chemical compounds is important as the literature is vague when discussing what chemical compounds are being researched for possible possession by terror organizations.

According to Howlett and Littlewood’s assessment, CBRN has been used by various loosely supported groups in recent years; to include acts in Chechnya, North Korea and others. ₂ Furthermore, a conclusion extrapolated from public records and evidence showed “that when particular groups have used CBRN, the primary weapons of choice have been chemical (CW).” ₆ For now, conclusions can be made that terror organizations possess chemical weapons. As of now, biological and radiological weapons possessions are still somewhat vague and unconfirmed by public records.

Another interesting point is the number of casualties resulting from terror organizations using WMD weapons: “largest death toll from a chemical or biological attack is twelve” and over 90% of the cases where chemical or biological substances were used, the attack resulted in killing or injuring “three or fewer people.” ₃ In contrast, widely available chemical compounds, such as those used in manufacturing and agriculture, have killed or injured thousands, as seen in the “1984 Bhopal, India incident where 3,800 died and 11,000 were injured in a matter of hours.” ₇ If a terror organization’s objective is the widespread death of a population, current uses of WMD (high end or military grade weapons) by terror organizations have lacked the killing capacity industrial chemicals or low end WMDs have on a population.

Networking, funding and technological and scientific resources needed to make, store, transport and use WMD becomes self-limiting as many terror organizations lack these resources. ₈ Only a very few non-state sponsored organizations, such as al-Qa’ida, have the resources available to develop, store, transport and deliver high end or military grade WMDs. ₈ Therefore, the possibility of a terror organization having the capabilities of a high end or military grade WMDs or the resources to possess a high end or military grade WMDs is low, making its use extremely rare.

The overall conclusion as this paper defines the WMD weapon of choice would not be a high end or military grade WMD. The obstacles for acquiring, possessing, transporting, etc. theses high end or military grade WMDs are too great for a non-state sponsored organization. Only a very few well networked and well funded terror organizations, such as al-Qa’ida, have the resources to conduct high end or military grade WMD attacks.

The United States and other countries have been dealing with chemical incidents since the start of the Industrial Revolution. “Emergency services have dealt with numerous chemical incidents caused by either accidents or deliberate contamination.” ₉ Additionally, the World Health Organization’s guidance on biological and chemical weapons clearly shows their belief that common, low end or industrial chemical agents are of a greater concern than high end or military grade chemical weapons. ₁₀ In a brief statement, the World Health Organization stated

there is a somewhat similar lesson in the fact that the chemical agent that has thus far figured most commonly in deliberate releases in the United States has been not some deadly nerve gas, but butyric acid, which is a malodorant. ₁₀

This statement by the World Health Organization shows the concern by public health authorities on readily available chemicals and their possible possession and use by terror organizations.

A significant point to consider is the broad definition of chemical weapons. To reiterate, chemical weapons range in compounds from those widely available chemical compounds, such as those used in manufacturing and agriculture, to high end or military grade weapons. According to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, any chemical causing a disruption of life activities is considered a chemical weapon. ₉ Terror organizations have used chemical agents on populations in recent times. For example, Aum Shinrikyo’s use of sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995, ₉ and two remarkable events in 2003, one in Michigan where an individual sprayed ground beef with an insecticide and the other in South Carolina where an individual left ricin at a postal facility. ₁₁ With such a variety of chemicals available for commercial use, terror organizations have the capability and access to chemicals that would be classified as chemical weapons. If terror organizations have access to low end or industrial chemicals, they have and do use them as a weapon.

Furthermore, research has shown that low end or industrial chemical agents tend to be the weapon of choice for terror organizations. ₆ The chemical agents are readily accessible, many chemicals are used in facilities where storage and security measures are questionable or lax, and many chemicals have been used in the past by terror organizations. However, one must realize most terror organizations use readily available chemicals and “increases in the number of casualties and disruptions have been achieved with conventional rather than CBRN weapons.” ₉ Consequently, even if chemicals are the choice of agents for terror organizations, most prefer explosives over chemical. Will this use of explosives on a chemical storage facility be the next target for terror organizations?

Remember the attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma in the late 1990s? Fear spread through the entire United States about how a terror organization could mastermind an attack in the heartland. People started to wonder if another attack was possible in the Heartland, and how the United States was going to be prepared for such an attack. The author of this paper submits that an attack in the Heartland is possible, and chemical manufacturing and storage facilities will be the next target for a major terror organization.

Chemicals are a part of life in the United States and throughout the world. Chemicals are used in a variety of products and businesses, such as agriculture, manufacturing, refining, pharmaceutical production, waste and water treatment, to name a few. ₁₂ The safety of these chemicals and the security of manufacturing facilities have sparked discussion in the United States government and private sectors since the World Trade Center attack in 2001. In the course of researching this topic, I discovered varying opinions and facts; but I feel with such a variety of opinions, the risk may be real for these facilities to be possible terror organization targets.

One area of debate is whether chemical manufacturing facilities are safe. A report from Eben Kaplan suggests that experts disagree on the answer. ₁₂ Kaplan’s research describes a reporter walking into a chemical facility, without being challenged by security, and was even given directions to highly sensitive facility location. ₁₂ In contrast, the research also suggested that a lapse of security by a single or few facilities cannot be the catalyst for concern, as the “industry policies itself are extremely vigorously.” ₁₂ Additionally, at a chemical plant security summit, previous Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated “I don’t need to tell you the consequences of ignoring a clear warning about securing dangerous chemicals”. ₁₃ Another report suggests that “current chemical security efforts … are inadequate to protect workplaces and communities.” ₁₄ This disagreement among experts causes public concern about chemical manufacturing security.

One of the disagreements in the debate is whether a chemical manufacturing facility in the United States has actually been attacked or the target of an attack, or is the hype just about fear and government intrusion into the private sector. According to a Government Accounting Office report, the Department of Justice has been concerned about attacks on chemical facilities since the early 1980s. ₁₅ The report further goes on to reveal that “domestic terrorists plotted to use a destructive device against a U.S. facility that housed millions of gallons of propane in the late 1990s.” ₁₅ Another report suggests that convicted World Trade Center bomber Nidal Ayyad used his position at a chemical manufacturing facility to illegally obtain cyanide for use by his terror organization. ₁₂

Another argument suggests that chemical manufacturing facilities are not located in densely populated areas or would not cause massive causalities if a release happened. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 15,000 facilities produce chemicals harmful if released and the Department of Justice suggests that 7,000 of these facilities are located near populations greater than 1 million. ₁₂ Another report suggests the top 101 dangerous chemical facilities are located in dense population areas ranging from 996,117 to 12,000,000 people, affecting a total of 80 million people across 30 states. ₁₄ A report from the U.S. Army Surgeon General suggested that an attack on a chemical facility near a populated area could kill or injure 2.4 million people. ₁₂ Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security has suggested “a major chlorine gas spill [release by terror or non-terror means] in an urban area could kill 17,500 people.” ₁₆ These reports suggest that chemical facilities are located near densely populated areas and a terror organization could cause mass causalities attacking these facilities.

Current developments in facility security and chemical safety have lessened the possibility that terror organizations will attempt an attack on a chemical facility. Since the 1984 Union Carbide chemical release in Bhopal, India, Congress has become concerned about regulating chemical manufacturing in the United States. ₁₂ Furthermore, subsequent federal legislation has required states and local governments to have an emergency plan in the event that chemicals from manufacturing facilities were released and for manufactures to have a Risk Management Plan to identify shortcomings in security and safeguard chemicals in their possessions. ₁₂

However, many critics argue that “there is no clear, unambiguous legal or regulatory authority at the federal level to help ensure comprehensive, uniform security standards for chemical facilities.” ₁₂ Others call the current efforts by the Bush Administration as a “piecemeal” effort and accuse the Administration and Congress of “bowing to the wishes of the chemical industry behind closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language.” ₁₂ Others claim the current regulations offer an “off-site consequence analysis,” allowing the public, governmental agencies and facilities to ensure safety and security standards are met or exceeded. ₁₄

The previous argument emphasizes how low end or industrial chemicals may be a target for terror organizations. Chemical facilities are located near densely populated areas, allowing an attack to have the fear desired by a terror organization. Furthermore, facilities near densely populated areas have the ability to cause massive causalities in an attack, extending the fear from a localized event to a nationwide event, as chemical facilities are located across the United States. In addition, the debate over the security and governmental or industry standards of chemical facilities does allow the possibility for an attack to be successful, as security plans may not be as widely used or in place as the industry suggests.

The Chemical Manufacturing Facility

Transportation of Chemicals