Lee Boyland

WMD Terrorism Fears are NOT Overblown
December 8, 2008

Peter Bergenen, CNN National Security Analyst, in an article posted on CNN dated December 5, 2008, entitled Commentary: WMD terrorism fears are overblown, poo-poos the conclusions of “The Congressionally authorized Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism” report issued the first week of December, that concluded: "It is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013."

Mr. Bergen, according to his biography posted on his website is an experienced, well traveled journalists with no military, engineering, weapons, or scientific training. He styles himself as a terrorism analyst.

After reading his “commentary” I have concluded that he is certainly not an expert on weapons of mass destruction. His comments and terminology demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of how such weapons work. The danger of a terrorist attack employing WMDs is real, and commentaries by self-styled experts mislead the public, negate the actions of responsible organizations, and place the public at risk.

Mr. Bergenen begins with, “So is the sky falling? Not really. Terrorists have already used weapons of mass destruction in the past decade in attacks around the world, and they have proven to be something of a dud.” No terrorist has used a WMD. They have used chemical and biological weapons, but not on a scale that would classify them as WMDs. I have been involved in weapons development, and it is a rarity when the first test of a device meets all objectives. Engineers learn from their mistakes—and so do terrorists. The second World Trade Center attack, 9/11, is a perfect example. Al-Qaeda got it right the second time.

Mr. Bergen cites the anthrax letters as his first example. “[They] caused considerable panic but did not lead to many deaths. Five people were killed.” What Mr. Bergen failed to consider was: first, the letters could have been a test of a method of distribution; and second, had thousands of anthrax treated letters been sent, the casualties would have overwhelmed hospitals and many would have died. Consider the number of mass-mailed items, add anthrax, and you will begin to understand the magnitude of the threat.

Anthrax is the ideal terrorist bio-weapon. It is delivered in its spoor form. Think of an egg that will hatch in your lungs—that’s what an anthrax spoor does. To be effective the spoors have to be “weaponized.” This means processing the material carrying the spoors into a fine powder, small enough so that it will enter the sacks in a persons lungs. Granted, producing weaponized anthrax is difficult for terrorists, but not for a sponsor such as Iran or Syria. Consider a government providing Hamas, Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda a 55 gallon drum full of weaponized anthrax—visualize a drum’s content as powdered coffee creamer. Don’t forget that Ayman Zawahiri is a medical doctor. He understands all of this.

Mr. Bergen’s next example is the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo’s attempts to make anthrax, and refine uranium. I am not sure which “leading scientists” he is referring to, but being a scientist does not necessarily equate to a being a weapons scientist. I do agree that the cult found biological and nuclear technology too complex and moved on to chemical agents, a homemade nerve gas, sarin. The strength of the homemade sarin, coupled with an ineffective dispersal device limited the effect of the agent released in a subway car. This was a localized attack.

Chlorine was used as a terrorist weapon in Iraq and Jordan, however, chlorine (gas) is not [according to Bergen] “laced in” bombs—it is dispersed by the explosive in the bomb. Chlorine gas cylinders are the bomb. Al-Qaeda quit using them, because they were turning Muslims against the terrorists. The effects of chlorine gas leaks are often reported in the U.S. Now, al-Qaeda has tested its ability to convert cylinders of chlorine into bombs and is ready to do so here. Chlorine was the first chemical agent used in war. In WWI the Germans vented cylinders of chlorine gas and allowed the wind to carry it toward the Allied trenches.

Mr. Bergen says, “There is a semantic problem in any discussion of WMDs because the ominous term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' is something of a misnomer. In the popular imagination, chemical, biological and nuclear devices are all weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there is only one weapon of mass destruction that can kill tens or hundreds of thousands and that is a nuclear device.” Wow, think about the number of treaties, manuals, and training programs, all created by knowledgeable people, that now have to be revised to meet Bergen’s definition. The only part of Mr. Bergen’s statement that I agree with pertains to a nuclear device. Mr. Bergen is correct in his assertion that a nuclear device will be the terrorists weapon of choice in order to kill thousands or tens-of-thousands of people with a single attack.

Mr. Bergen says to the reader, “So the real question is: Can terrorists deploy nuclear weapons any time in the next five years or even further in the future? To do so, terrorists would have one of four options: to buy, steal, develop or be given a nuclear weapon. But none of those scenarios are remotely realistic outside the world of Hollywood.” His last sentence is absolutely not true. Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea could provide a terrorists group with several thick washers, around six inches in diameter, and a rod that will fit through the washer’s hole, made from highly enriched uranium, 90% or more U-235. With these components, any of the main terrorist organizations can make a gun-type nuclear device. My first book, The Rings of Allah, describes such a device and how it could be used. The world’s second atomic explosion was such a bomb, The Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, and the washers were called the target rings.

Could the U.S. identify the source of the uranium used in such a device? Yes, if we have a sample of the uranium provided by the supplier of the device.

Mr. Bergen used Saddam Hussein’s interrupted nuclear weapons program as his example of a failed nuclear weapons program, which is the basis for his highly questionable statements in the following paragraph pertaining to when Iran will have a nuclear bomb. If Germany had been able to bomb our secret weapons facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico in the period 1942 to early 1945, they would have been able to talk about our failed nuclear weapons program. On July 16, 1945 America detonated the world’s first atomic bomb.

Iran probably has at least one simple nuclear device, and I predict Iran will detonate a nuclear device shortly after January 20th, there by presenting President-elect Obama with Senator Biden’s crises, and also by doing so, join the nuclear club.

In spite of the questionable logic presented by Mr. Bergen in later paragraphs, Iran is capable of providing Islamic terrorists the components required to build a simple nuclear device. To state otherwise demonstrates a total misunderstanding of statements made by Iran’s leaders, and their religious belief. Iran’s supreme leader and president, in addition to many, many, more, are Twelvers, a Shia sect that believes in the return of the 12th Imam.

Mr. Bergen describes a “dirty bomb”, the proper name is a radiological dispersal device (RDD), as “A device that marries conventional explosives to radioactive materials.” An RDD consists of a radioactive isotope or isotopes dispersed by an explosive charge, much like the chlorine cylinders discussed above.

Mr. Bergen, using his false definition of WMDs, attempts to discount the threat of a successful terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction by blurring the distinction between an attack and a WMD attack. I am unsure as to his purpose for doing so. Misleading the public only ensures that more citizens will suffer if, or when, such an attack does occur.