TERRORISM: HOW VULNERABLE IS THE UNITED STATES?
by
Stephen Sloan
From Terrorism: National
Security Policy and the Home Front,
Edited by Stephen Pelletiere, published by
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, May 1995.
INTRODUCTION
If there is a "fog of war," there is probably a more dense "smog
of terrorism," for the small nature of terrorist groups, their close
interpersonal communications, and their predilection for soft targets of
opportunity make it difficult to predict their future operations. Counterterrorism
analysts must therefore peer through a very cloudy crystal ball when assessing
the intentions, capabilities, and targets of existing and future terrorist
groups. Life would be easier if, as when assessing a conventional army,
analysts could pour over communications intercepts to discern orders of
battle and make predictions based on the enemy's known doctrine and strategy.
The problem of penetrating the "smog of terrorism" is further
exacerbated by the fact that it is difficult to infiltrate terrorist cells
to acquire the tactical information needed to prevent, or at least to mitigate,
a potential threat or actual incident. The most sophisticated capabilities
in the arsenal of technical intelligence are no substitutes for the HUMINT
(human intelligence) capabilities that are needed to gather information
on terrorists. The problem of predictive analysis is further complicated
by the fact that even if terrorist organizations have an encompassing ideologyóor
what is at best a proto-strategyóit tends to be rather general in
nature and directed at establishing a broad declaration on revolutionary
action that may not provide a clear plan for action that can enable the
analyst to have a foundation for assessing future terrorist operations.
Furthermore, predictive capabilities are challenged by the tact that there
is a whole range of potential new terrorist weapons and associated scenarios
for destruction that create major problems for those responsible for identifying
a new generation of terrorist threats. There are those in the field who
sometimes long for the "good old days" when a "terror network"
guided by Moscow could be blamed for bombings, hostage-taking, skyjacking
and other forms of mayhem.
Given these conditions, one faces an onerous task in attempting to assess
how vulnerable the United States is to future threats and acts of terrorism.
Nevertheless, such an assessment can prove useful if it can assist the analyst
and those responsible for countering terrorism to look beyond the immediate
threats or the latest incident. In their contingency driven, highly pressurized
environment, analysts must concentrate on the collection and analysis of
what is primarily tactical, combat or operational intelligence. They often
lack the time to deal with strategic threats, to veer from the current requirements
for narrowly focused, tactical intelligence.
What follows is a brief overview of the terrorist threat to the United States
based on the application of strategic intelligence. This form of intelligence
has a broader application than either operational or tactical intelligence,
forms of information analysis dealing with immediate threats. Strategic
intelligence integrates politics, social studies, and the study of technology.
It is designed to provide officials with long-range forecasts of what is
important rather than what is urgent.[1]
THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The analytical framework employed in this chapter will consist of the following
components. The author will attempt to identify major changes in the international
environment. He will then discuss how these changes create new terrorist
threats in the United States. The author will then focus on probable technological/operational
changes among terrorist groups. Finally, changes in terrorist motivations
and goals will be examined. All of these components will then be analyzed
in a strategic context to assess potential terrorist targets, operations,
and resulting vulnerabilities within the United States.
THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Even though it probably never fully existed, the artificial superficial
equilibrium imposed by the Cold War has been destroyed. Within the former
republics of the defunct Soviet Union the order imposed by Moscow on ethnic
and nationalist movements has given way to separatists' demands often accompanied
by political violence including terrorism, various forms of low intensity
conflict, rapidly growing organized crime, and civil war. The instability
has spilled over into Eastern Europe where the former satellites are attempting
to cope with the uncertainties of democratization.
Additionally, now that Moscow and Washington are no longer inclined to use
regional surrogates as a way of avoiding direct confrontation, a number
of regional powers are emerging. Neither Moscow nor Washington have either
the inclination or the influence needed to constrain many of these regional
would-be superpowers. Iran is a case in point. Countries like Iran, Syria
and Libya use terrorism as a form of diplomacy and as an adjunct to their
foreign policies.[2] To these states, terrorism is as integral a part of
their diplomacy as the exchange of ambassadors. Smaller states can easily
emulate their example.
In this era of what should be called a "new world disorder" the
breakdown of central authority and the domination of the existing state
system has been under assault from a number of quarters. First, the legitimacy
of many states has been challenged by the growing assertion of both sub-national
and transnational calls for "self-determination" by ethnic groups
and religious movements that deny the legitimacy of what they perceive to
be a discredited international order. Despite the optimism of the past,
primordial loyalties have not withered away in the face of technology, democracy,
and the introduction of free market economies. Indeed, many groups and movements
have fed upon a reaction to what is sometimes viewed as the secular immorality
of the West. Tribal loyalties on a sub-national level share the rejection
of secular mass societies with fundamentalist movements. Some of these movements
seem to offer the chimera of psychological, sociological and political security
to people who are trying find their place in an uncertain, even threatening,
world.
New and dangerous players have emerged in the international arena. The level
of instability and concomitant violence is further heightened by the rise
to international political significance of non-state actors willing to challenge
the primacy of the state. Whether it be the multinational corporation or
a terrorist group that targets it, both share a common characteristic. They
have each rejected the state-centric system that emerged 175 years ago at
the Congress of Vienna.
All of these factors have accelerated the erosion of the monopoly of the
coercive power of the state as the disintegration of the old order is intensified.
And, this process will in all probability gain even greater momentum because
of the wide ranging and growing activities of criminal enterprises. These
include everything from arms traders and drug cartels, which will provide
and use existing and new weapons in terrorist campaigns as a part of their
pursuit of profit and political power.
In sum, present and future terrorists and their supporters are acquiring
the capabilities and freedom of action to operate in the new international
jungle. They move in what has been called the "gray areas," those
regions where control has shifted from legitimate governments to new half-political,
half-criminal powers.[3] In this environment the line between state and
rogue state, and rogue state and criminal enterprise, will be increasingly
blurred. Each will seek out new and profitable targets through terrorism
in an international order that is already under assault.
TECHNOLOGICAL/OPERATIONAL CHANGES
The remarkable changes in the international environment have been accompanied
by technological changes that may have serious ramifications as regards
future terrorist operations both internationally and in the United States.
Up to now, terrorists have not been especially innovative in their tactics.
Bombing, although not on the intended magnitude of that at the Oklahoma
City Federal Building, remains the most common type of attack. Hostage taking
and kidnapping are fundamental to the terrorist repertoire and skyjacking
is always a possibility. Automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pistols
remain the weapons of choice.
However, the employment of stand-off weapons like American Stinger and Russian
SA-7 hand-held anti-aircraft missiles, the U.S. Army M-72 light anti-tank
weapon (LAW), and the Russian-built RPG-7 anti-tank weapon may be more readily
available to terrorists than many like to believe. The same may be said
of terrorist bombing technologies. Dynamite has been replaced by the more
destructive and easily concealed Semtex. Furthermore, the threat has grown
as a result of increased technological sophistication of timing devices
and fuses. But weapons need not be sophisticated to be destructive. One
only has to consider what might have happened if the pilot of the lone single-engine
light aircraft which crashed into the White House had filled his plane with
something as simple as a fertilizer bomb. That incident, even if it was
not a terrorist act, should serve as a warning for those who are concerned
with more advanced technological threats. They should remember that smaller
and more conventional instruments of destruction are still quite lethal
and can have a profound affect on the targeted individual, corporation,
government or what is often the ultimate target: public opinion.
A growing concern is that terrorists will cross the threshold to engage
in acts of mass or "super terrorism" by using atomic, biological,
and chemical (ABC) weapons. So far, the international order has been spared
terrorist incidents involving nuclear weapons. Indeed, those that have been
reported have turned out to be elaborate hoaxes. Fortunately, the threats
have yet to be translated into actual incidents, but many believe it is
only a matter of time before they are.[4]
All this could easily change as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. The current trade in illicit weapon's grade plutonium serves to underscore
the fact that the necessary material and attendant technology will be increasingly
available for those terrorist groups who may want to exercise a nuclear
option, be it in the form of a dispersal of radioactive material that could
contaminate a large area or the use of a relatively small but very lethal
atomic weapon. The illegal trade in weapons and technology will be further
exacerbated by the very real dangers resulting from the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. There is good reason to fear that either a rogue state,
its terrorist surrogates, or independent terrorist groups will have the
capacity to go nuclear. Whether this threshold will be crossed will depend
in part on the motivation, attendant strategies, and goals of present and
future terrorist groups. In sum, there is every reason to be concerned that
terrorists will engage in their own form of technical innovation to develop
the capacity to make the nightmare of a nuclear, chemical, or biological
threat move from the pages of an adventure novel to the shores of the United
States.
Scenarios addressing future acts of high-tech terrorism include a wide variety
of assaults on the delicate interdependent infrastructure of modern industrialized
society. These scenarios move beyond the bombing or seizing of conventional
or nuclear power plants to include the potentially disastrous destruction
of the technological infrastructure of the information super highway. However,
the scope of what constitutes a terrorist act on computers and their associated
facilities is subject to interpretation. The bombing of a multinational
corporation or a government's crucial computer centers could be judged an
act of terrorism, but what if a terrorist hacker placed a computer virus
in a very sensitive network? The results could range from the massively
inconvenient to dangerous or disastrous. Such an act, however, would lack
an essential element of terrorism as it is now defined: the use or threat
of the use of physical violence. Nevertheless, as the technology expands
so may definitions of what constitutes a terrorist act. From the terrorist's
point of view the following dictum may apply, "so many new targets...
so little time."
Finally, if indeed terrorism is "theater" and the people are the
audience, the stage is changing.[5] CNN and other networks provide the terrorists
with a potential and almost instantaneous means for spreading their message
of fear and intimidation. The reality of video proliferation is just as
significant as that of nuclear proliferation. Some terrorist groups already
have the ability to stage and videotape their acts, sending them out to
either a broad or limited audience. They can even transmit live events through
low power transmitter stations. Furthermore, the next generation of terrorists
may produce highly imaginative presentations to seize the attention of a
violence jaded public, one which has grown used to the now standard images
of hooded terrorists holding hostages in embassies, prisons, or aircraft
cabins. This kind of theater of the obscene will find a ready mass audience
among those who watch the tabloid television shows and depend on the National
Enquirer for their news.[6] Given the public's fascination with television
happenings like the O.J. Simpson trial, one can only imagine what might
happen if future terrorists direct and produce their own television spectaculars.
CHANGES IN TERRORIST MOTIVATIONS AND GOALS
There are almost certainly going to be changes in both the motivation and
goals of terrorist groups. The traditional motivations for terrorism: ethnic,
tribal, and religious animosities, will continue and intensify. Even while
people of goodwill struggle to find solutions to problems in Northern Ireland
and in the Middle East, the disintegration of the former Soviet Union and
the related turmoil in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere have engendered
new groups pursuing their own varied agendas through violence, including
terrorism. While much of the violence is confined to the various regions,
the potential for involving surrounding states and for international assaults
is significant. Even in the Middle East, where the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) and Israel are moving along a tortuous road toward accommodation,
various factions, willing and able to engage in non-territorial terrorism,
will continue to "bring the war home" to Israel and its primary
supporter, the United States.
Perhaps even more ominous is the growing significance of apolitical groups
which resort to terrorism in pursuit of financial gain as a part of criminal
enterprises. While a number of these groups may, in part, justify their
actions under the rubric of political rationalization, their major goal
will relate to maximizing their profits through co-opting, corrupting, and
neutralizing the authority of the states in their respective countries and
regions of operations. These groups, which include narco-terrorists, are
particularly difficult to counteract given their vast resources gleaned
by illicit trade in drugs or weapons, and because of their ability to influence,
control or demoralize governments in countries where they operate. This
new criminal order can engage in operations with the kind of violence that
makes the old Mafia seem pacifistic by comparison.
Finally, one might anticipate that in addition to existing extremists operating
according to issue-oriented movements such as radical environmentalism,
fringe elements of the pro-life movement, and extremist animal rights groups,
there will emerge new groups willing to use terrorism to avenge grievances
both real and imaginary. These groups, which at the outset may be small
and not tied to any recognized social or political movement, may have the
capability to maximize their impact through the availability of a wide variety
of weapons, a rich selection of targets, and the skillful use of the media
and communications technology. There will be both old and new adversaries
to threaten the international order and, more specifically, U.S. interests
and citizens both at home and abroad.
HOW VULNERABLE IS THE UNITED STATES AND WHAT ARE THE TERRORISTS GOALS?
The following assessment is based on integrating the analytical components
presented above. The focus will be on the vulnerabilities in the United
States to attacks by international terrorist or domestic groups or by such
groups with domestic-international linkages.
The new threat environment may see the emergence of a wide variety of sub-national
and transnational groups intent on venting their frustrations with Washington
for what they perceive to be a lack of support for their causes or, conversely,
for supporting their adversaries. As the major military superpower, with
an increased global involvement, even when engaged under the United Nations,
the United States is likely to be viewed as the primary party in future
disputes. Even when neutral, Washington is likely to be viewed suspiciously
by one or more warring factions. In addition, when Washington moves beyond
"peace keeping" to "peace enforcement"' operations,
the likelihood of a reaction among one or more disputants is possible.
Even though the United States may not want to be the policeman or the conscience
of the world, the parties in any conflict may question whether Washington
is intentionally or unintentionally pursuing a political agenda that may
be counter to their objective. The result might be the spillover of violence
to the United States by one or more parties in the dispute. Resort to terrorism
could be a punitive action or it might be an effort to dramatize a cause.
As the United States tries to redefine the formulation and execution of
its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era, even if Washington is motivated
by the highest of ideals, i.e., democratization, humanitarian assistance,
or nation-building, those who will be the objects of such efforts might
resent it. Their use of terrorism on American soil is a likely response.
The potential spillover effect may be intensified by the domestic political
and economic environment. The potency of ethnic-based politics, coupled
with the tendentious debates over immigration policy, may provide fertile
ground by which ethnic-based conflicts from overseas may be transported
to the United States. Even if that is not the case, the existence of large
immigrant communities may provide the "human jungle" in which
external terrorist groups can operate. The emergence of a variety of issue-oriented
transnational groups could also lead extremists within their respective
organizations to establish linkages with like-minded individuals or groups
within the United States. Such groups could undertake joint operations against
American targets in an effort to dramatize their causes or seek changes
in public policy. Cooperation between home-grown terrorists and their foreign
counterparts cannot be understated. In an increasingly interrelated international
environment, a new "terror network" might emerge with issue-oriented
groups launching assaults on domestic targets.
The threat posed by fundamentalist religious groups of all faiths cannot
be discounted. Not only Islamic extremists, but other "true believers"
of a variety of faiths are likely to engage in terrorist acts against American
targets. These groups might be supported or joined in their operations by
domestic religious extremists. In addition, they might also seek alliances
with a variety of cultists, survivalists, or neo-fascists who, for their
own reasons, reject the existing social, economic, and political order and
await their own versions of Armageddon.
Perhaps even more dangerous will be the resort to terrorism by apolitical
terrorists who are engaged in violence and intimidation as a pant of criminal
pursuits. Such groups have operated overseas with impunity. Inner-city America
could become a fertile ground for their operations. They will be particularly
threatening since, as a result of their illegal trade in drugs and other
criminal enterprises, they may have access to vast funds with which to corrupt
local authorities. What will make these groups especially dangerous may
be the fact that their threats and acts of terrorism will not necessarily
be meant to achieve publicity or to dramatize their cause.
Such groups may use terrorist tactics in extortion attempts like those used
to "shake down the neighborhood'"-only these gangs may attempt
to blackmail the entire city. With their vast revenues, they could acquire
a formidable arsenal of weapons with which to challenge local authorities
and carry out their acts of violence on a scale not yet experienced in the
United States. Furthermore, it may be very difficult for our already strained
criminal justice system to address the development of new criminal cartels.
The scope and magnitude of future potential terrorist organizations will
be enhanced by the rapid changes in technology that will provide the next
generation of terrorists with capabilities undreamed of by the most highly
dedicated and skilled terrorist of today. In a sense the capture of the
infamous Carlos marked the end of an era. A new generation of terrorists
armed with technologically advanced weaponry will be able to engage in violence
that is more dramatic and destructive than that intended in the bombing
in Oklahoma City. The threat at the lower end of the spectrum is likely
to grow as well. The M-16, M-10, Uzi and AK-47 assault rifles will be supplemented
by stand-off weapons like Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, LAWs and RPG-7s,
already available on the world weapons market. Just because a weapon is
relatively unsophisticated does not mean it cannot cause massive casualties.
A stinger missile aimed at a jumbo jet as it takes off or as it approaches
a large metropolitan airport could cause tremendous casualties. A LAW or
RPG round lobbed into the right area of a nuclear power plant could produce
catastrophic consequences.
Ultimately, the most fearful and recurrent terrorist nightmare may be drawing
closer to reality. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and associated technologies,
and the diffusion of knowledge needed to manufacture chemical and biological
weapons, raises the fearful specter of mass destruction that makes concerns
related to use of anthrax as a way of spreading both disease and panic pale
to insignificance. The scary truth is that the United States is all too
vulnerable to this kind of attack. The porous borders that have allowed
massive illegal immigration are just as open to those who want to import
new instruments of mass destruction. And, because there are significant
profits to be made, there are suppliers who are willing to provide the new
generation of portable nuclear weapons, chemical and biological delivery
systems despite Washington's growing concern and the improving technical
means to counter such threats. Furthermore, the next generation of terrorists
will have the capability of effectively exploiting the highly competitive
electronic and print media both to dramatize their conventional or ABC capabilities
and to extort money.
Technological changes will certainly have an impact on target selection.
At the outset, the availability of more sophisticated conventional explosives
could enable terrorists to inflict greater damage on potential targets while
lessening the risk of capture that results from having to process or transport
the material. Highly symbolic targets like government buildings and corporate
headquarters will be more vulnerable to attack. Major public events, like
the Super Bowl or the 1996 Atlanta Olympics are also prime targets.
Despite more effective physical security and technological countermeasures
it will be increasingly difficult to harden potential targets. Even if the
range of the weapons is relatively short, it will be a considerable challenge
to expand an anti-terrorist security zone beyond the immediate periphery
of potential targets like sports facilities, government buildings, or nuclear
power plants. Defense in depth will require broader protective measures.
Even of greater concern is the potential threat of such weapons to aviation
security. While anti-skyjacking measures have been largely successful in
the industrialized West, the possibility of the threat or the destruction
of commercial aircraft cannot be dismissed. It is exceedingly difficult
to expand a security zone beyond the confines of an airport. Moreover, stand-off
weapons provide the opportunity for highly flexible hit and run attacks.
The resulting mobility will make it very difficult to predict or take appropriate
action against terrorists. Finally, as potential targets continue to be
hardened in urban areas, there is no reason to believe that terrorists will
not seek softer targets of opportunity either in the suburbs (corporate
headquarters) or rural areas (nuclear or thermal power plants and other
installations). Despite these threats, it will remain difficult to develop
the necessary awareness, technology and training among those corporations
outside urban areas. Too many people may not take the threat seriously enough
due to an "it can't happen here" syndrome.
Most ominous, however, is the threat issuing from mass or super-terrorism.
Cities may be held hostage by threats to poison the water supply or to disseminate
any number of dangerous chemical or biological agents. Such threats must
also be taken seriously given the proliferation of ABC capabilities. The
threat might be overt, in which case the authorities will have the onerous
task of reconciling the need to take appropriate action without creating
a panic. Or the threat might be covert, in which case governments will be
facing a form of nuclear, chemical, or biological blackmail unknown to the
public. Finally, one can anticipate that there will be more incidents of
criminal terrorism directed against senior executives, public officials,
and their families. The terrorists will justify such acts of hostage-taking
and kidnapping on the basis of political causation, but in many cases they
will be motivated by nothing more than a desire for ransom money. There
is no reason to believe that criminal extortion, which has become a major
industry in Mexico and throughout Central and South America, will not be
emulated within the United States. In sum, the constellation of potential
targets and the means to attack them will continue to expand in the coming
decade.
The traditional motivation behind the resort to terrorism by various groups
is sure to continue. Ethnic identification and hatred, the call to right
perceived wrongs, and the demand for self-determination will continue to
inspire terrorists. The ranks of the traditional terror mongers will be
joined by religious extremist groups who have rejected what they view to
be the excesses of Western and American secular society. These forces of
reaction may come from the Middle East, but there will be the non-Islamic
equivalents of the HAMAS and Hizbollah venting their anger and demanding
the destruction of the "Great Satan." These true believers, in
the conduct of what they view to be a "just war," may attack the
symbols of their religious or secular rivals.
Acts such as the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community
Center in Buenos Aires might be emulated in Washington or New York. Moreover.
domestic groups acting either independently or with the support of external
terrorist organizations may launch their own assaults. One need only recall
how a sectarian dispute within the United States was transformed into a
mass hostage taking by the Hanafi Muslims in Washington, DC in 1977. The
most alarming aspect of the religious extremists is the fact that they did
not necessarily constrain their actions by using terror as a weapon to coerce
or to propagandize for their causes. The new true believer, armed with the
certainty of faith, may not be concerned with current public opinion or
a change in the policy of an adversary. To them, being killed while undertaking
an act of terrorism may be a way to paradise in the next life. The image
of the smiling truck bomber driving his vehicle into the Marine barracks
in Beirut may be duplicated in a large urban center in the United States.
And the nightmare only becomes more horrific if such a perpetrator uses
a nuclear device. While one does not want to overstate the threat, the strategic
thinker must be willing to "think the unthinkable" so that appropriate
responses may be conceived.
The panoply of potential attacks, save for the nuclear option or other forms
of super-terrorism, will probably not create a major change in U.S. foreign
policy or the articulation and pursuit of U.S. strategic interests and national
security objectives. However, in this new world disorder terrorism may come
to the United States whenever foreign adversaries want to test Washington's
resolve in continuing its support for activities of the United Nations and
friendly governments. Given the lack of coherence in the international environment
and the low threshold of pain in regard to the taking of American casualties
in ill-defined conflicts and the emergence of neo-isolationism, one must
recognize that future acts of terrorism, if skillfully executed, might have
a strategic result. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut changed
the course of U.S. policy toward Lebanon. That kind of act could be duplicated
in the United States with even more dramatic results.
CONCLUSION
As noted at the start of this chapter, it is difficult to see through the
smog of terrorism to assess America's vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it is
dangerous to either understate or overstate the threat. If one minimizes
the threat, little action may be taken. If one overstates it, the public
and the authorities might overreact. What is needed is a realistic assessment
which avoids both extremes. While recognizing that there is a threat, but
not overemphasizing it, appropriate measures can be taken to lessen the
likelihood of an attack. Moreover, a balanced and cautious view can assist
both the public and policymakers in developing a consistent level of anti-terrorism
awareness and countermeasures. Constant awareness and preparedness are fundamental
to deterring terrorists. Such a prudent approach is far better than the
overreaction that might occur after an incident. In the final analysis,
the United States is vulnerable to the changing terrorist threat. But the
threat can be met through heightened levels of awareness, resolve, counterterrorism
measures, and consistent policies.[7]
ENDNOTES
1. Bruce D. Berkowitz and Allan E. Goodman, Strategic Intelligence for American
National Security, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989, pp.
304.
2. Stephen Sloan, "International Terrorism: Conceptual Problems and
Implications," Journal of Thought: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly,
Vol. 17, No.2, Summer 1982, p.23.
3. Xavier Raufer, "Gray Area: A New Security Threat," Political
Warfare: Intelligence, Active Measures and Terrorism Report, No. 20, Spring
1992, p.1.
4. For a short chronology of chemical and biological incidents, see Joseph
L. Douglass, Jr. and Neil O. Livingstone, "Selected List of C/B Incidents
by Terrorists and Other Nonstate Actors," in America the Vulnerable:
The Threat of Chemical and Biological Warfare. The New Shape of Terrorism
and Conflict, Lexington Books, 1987, pp. 183-187.
5. Brian Jenkins, Intentional Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict, Research
Paper No. 48, California Seminar on Arms Control and Foreign Policy, Crescent
Publication, 1976, p.4.
6. See Stephen Sloan, "Acts of Terrorism or the Theater of the Obscene,
in Simulating Terrorism, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981,
pp. 19-28. This book illustrates how the techniques of improvisational theater
in the form of highly realistic simulations were prepared and conducted
to test the ability of police and military forces who are responsible for
responding to terrorist threats.
7. Stephen Sloan, "US Anti-Terrorism Policies: Lessons to be Learned
to Meet an Enduring and Changing Threat," Terrorism and Political Violence,
Vol.5, No. 1, Spring 1993.
Return to the Security
Resource Net