U.S. Capacity for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction

Running Head:U.S. CAPACITY FOR COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASSDESTRUCTION 1

U.S. Capacity for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction

Name:

Date:

U.S. CAPACITY FOR COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION2

Abstract

Weapons of mass destruction include nuclear, radiological, biological, or chemical

devices or weapons that are capable of causing mass injuries and destruction. The accessibility of

nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical materials, as well as the likelihood of them being

utilized by organized terrorist groups, triggers the need to prepare, plan and counter their

utilization. Countering the utilization of weapons of mass destruction takes into consideration all

activities taken by the United States Government to safeguard its interests and the security of its

people.


U.S. Capacity for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

Combating weaponry of mass destruction (CWMD) as well as their delivery means is

among the greatest challenges that the U.S faces(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Mass destruction

weapons can damage and disrupt the U.S, its allies, forces, multinational partners and various

friendly nations. As such, it is important for United States’ commanders and other staffs to

understand that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are both an adversary and a capability an

enemy can use. Equally, adversaries can use WMD as an instrument to inflict fatalities on

civilian populaces and degrade U.S instruments of national power. CWMD is a worldwide

mission that goes beyond geographic regions of responsibility(White, 2013). Additionally,

CWMD requires a synchronized and integrated effort as well as numerous multinational and

interagency partners for actual mission accomplishment. Moreover, CWMD needs a continuous

campaign supported and conducted by the entire government of the United States. As such, it is

important to synchronize CWMD missions with the missions of homeland security in order to

prevent any attack by a terrorist on US homeland(Moroney&Hogler, 2009).

Weapons of Mass Destruction Concerns

Increased access to expertise, materials and technology increases the risks that terrorists

will proliferate, develop and utilize weapons of mass destruction to realize their

goals(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Weapons of mass destruction are posing greater challenges to

the security of the United States. Some of the challenges posed include the diverse nature of

weapons of mass destruction, terrorists and threats diversity. Equally, there is also the dynamic

and complex weapon of the mass destruction continuum(United States 2007). Other challenges

include the increasing number and complexity of weapons of mass destruction proliferation


networks and the psychological impact linked with the use of weapons of mass

destruction(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Some of these weapons are as discussed below.

Radiological and Nuclear Weapons

In order to deal with nuclear weapons, it is imperative for the Department of Homeland

Security to comprehend the threat posed by them(Busch & Joyner, 2009). For instance, when

denoted, nuclear weapons release energy as nuclear radiation, thermal radiation and blast which

greatly impacts the health of the environment and the general public. Equally, radiological

weapons are often utilized by terrorist groups to cause fear, panic, and chaos. Moreover, these

weapons are utilized to inflict economic and psychological damage to a country(United States

2007). The United States consider radiological weapons as a serious threat due to easy access to

radiological sources which are utilized in various fields including industrial and research

communities and medical fields. These sources are utilized with fewer security

precautions(Moroney&Hogler, 2009).

Biological Weapons

These weapons are utilized to cause disease in animals, plants or personnel. In some

instance, they are used to cause damage to materials(Busch & Joyner, 2009). The emergence of

biotechnology has made it extremely easier for people to develop biological weapons.

Furthermore, diseases outbreak including acute respiratory syndrome might make it extremely

difficult to differentiate from natural occurrence and intentional introduction of the virus by the

terrorist groups(Busch & Joyner, 2009).

Chemical Weapons

Terrorist organizations make use of chemical weapons to injure, kill, and incapacitate

citizens as a result of their physiological effects. The knowledge for producing these chemicals is


easily obtained by non-state and state actors(Kesaris& Lester, 2002). The use of chemical

weapons is very lethal and results in mass casualties, especially among unprotected individuals.

Mass casualties overwhelm medical facilities and the widespread of the contamination limits

access to medical facilities. Other weapons of mass destruction include improvised weapons,

ballistic missiles, and cruise (Kesaris& Lester, 2002).

United States National Strategy

The national strategy of the U.S has three primary pillars such as counter-proliferation to

combat the use of WMD(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Equally, the strategy focuses on strengthened

nonproliferation to fight WMD proliferation and consequence management to retort to weapons

of mass destruction use. Additionally, Counter-proliferation means the actions taken to counter

the use of WMD or the threat against the U.S, its partners, its allies and its Armed Forces.

Moreover, nonproliferation refers to the actions taken to avert WMD proliferation by impending

or dissuading distribution of, or access to sensitive expertise, material and technology(Busch &

Joyner, 2009).

Consequence management involves the decisions taken to reduce WMD attack effects

and to help in the restoration of significant services and operations both abroad and at home.

Moreover, combating the use of WMD is not an isolated or separate mission, but it is entwined

with maintaining appropriate preparedness overseas(White, 2013). As such, the Department of

Defense (DOD) is accountable for homeland defense against the threat of using WMD against

the United States. Equally, the department of defense has the responsibility of supporting

homeland security against any probable covert. Subsequently, the support of the domestic

military is subject to a policy, statutory, and constitutional restrictions(White, 2013).


National Military Strategy

The U.S Armed Forces have various principles that they use to defeat aggressors and

protect the United States(Busch & Joyner, 2009). There are six principles include defense-in-

depth, layered, active, situational awareness and assimilated control and command, assurance,

effects-based approach, capabilities-based planning and global force management. Additionally,

the Armed Forces of the U.S always focus on military planning, operations, capabilities and

posture in accord with essential mission tasks and United States’ partner’s interests. Moreover,

the national military strategy’s mission is to defeat, deter, and dissuade individuals with the aim

of harming the U.S, its partners, and allies using WMD(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Equally, if

terrorists attack the U.S, the national military uses the strategy of mitigating the effects of the

attack and restore deterrence(United States 2007). Furthermore, the national military approach

offers the components of DOD guidance and a tactical framework for fighting WMD. The

approach uses a means, ways, and ends scheme to resourcing, planning, and executing missions

for combating WMD (Kesaris& Lester, 2002).

Military Mission Zones

The task of the military is to daunt, dissuade and defeat individuals who want to harm the

United States, its partners and allies by using WMD(Busch & Joyner, 2009). The mission

directly supports the three pillars (consequence management, counter-proliferation, and

nonproliferation) of the national policy for combating WMD. Equally, U.S Armed Forces

usually undertake eight missions: danger reduction cooperation, partner activities and security

cooperation, WMD result management, passive defense, active defense, elimination, interdiction,

and offensive operations(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Thus, for the U.S government to enhance its

capacity for combating WMD, it should prioritize and address the critical capability


requirements of the eight mission zones. Offensive operations include non-kinetic or kinetic

options to defeat or deter a WMD threat or consequent use of WMD. For example, the military

can use elements of space as well as apply information operations(Busch & Joyner, 2009).

Elimination operations are processes that systematically characterize, locate, disable,

secure, and destroy a non-state or state actor’s WMD initiatives and related competencies.

Furthermore, interdiction operations usually stop WMD proliferation, associated technologies,

and delivery systems(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Equally, the operations can stop WMD expertise

and materials transiting from various states and non-state actors. On the other hand, active

defense dealings include missile defense (cruise and ballistic), special operations, and air

defense. Similarly, active defense deals with security operations that defend the country against

unconventional and conventional delivered WMD. Passive defense encompasses measures to

negate or minimize the vulnerability to WMD attack(Kesaris& Lester, 2002). Furthermore,

passive defense reduces WMD use effects against the U.S, allies and partners as well as U.S

military welfares, critical infrastructure, and installations. Consequence management involves

the actions taken to minimize the effects of an attack through WMD, including poisonous

industrial chemicals and materials(Busch & Joyner, 2009). It also helps in the restoration of vital

services and operations at home as well as abroad. As such, U.S military must be ready to

support the retort to a WMD incident in the homeland then, when directed, assist partners and

allies.

Partner activities and security operations are undertakings of the military that support

worldwide efforts to fight WMD. Thus, it is imperative for the army to exercise and expand

partnerships of combating WMD with the aim of making partners that can offer for themselves

and help during alliance operations. Threat lessening cooperation activities involve operations


undertaken with the cooperation and consent of host nations’ authority. Equally, the operations

improve physical security, as well as emplace detection apparatus. Moreover, the operations

redirect, dismantle, reduce or improve the protection of a country’s current WMD capabilities,

stockpiles, and programs(Busch & Joyner, 2009).

Strategic Enablers

Strategic enablers involve crosscutting capabilities that expedite military strategy

execution. They enhance the integration and effectiveness of military fighting WMD mission

competences. As such, commanders must repeatedly assess enabling competences and identify

the needed improvements(Busch & Joyner, 2009). Three planned enablers facilitate the efforts of

DOD to combat WMD; they include strategic communication backing, partnership capacity, and

intelligence. Intelligence directly improves decision-making, planning, and strategy; facilitates

enhancements in operational capabilities as well as informs risk management and

programming(Busch & Joyner, 2009). To reduce doubt, the United States’ intelligence capability

exploits various sources, facilitates information sharing and enhances situational awareness.

Moreover, strategic communications define perceptions at the national, regional and global

levels. As such, U.S actions and words reassure partners and allies and underscore, to possible

adversaries, the risks and costs associated with WMD use and acquisition (Kesaris& Lester,

2002).

Building Partnership Capacity (BPC)

Building partner capacity encompasses all the required efforts to enhance the collective

performance and capabilities of the DOD and its partners(White, 2013). The main objective of

BPC is to carry out a multiagency approach to achieve the strategic objectives of the U.S

government. The approach includes entities of U.S government as well as its key allies and


partners abroad(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Additionally, the U.S works with foreign partners so

that they can defeat terrorist networks and prevent hostile non-state and state actors from using

or acquiring WMD. Moreover, the BPC approach aims to stop irregular warfare in allied

countries and enhance security, stabilization as well as assist in reconstruction operations(White,

2013).

Although alarming, the utmost immediate danger is not that a completely assembled

chemical, biological or nuclear weapon would someway change hands(Kesaris& Lester, 2002).

Rather, the illegal transfer of technologies, components, chemicals or dual-used items and

specialized manufacturing equipment to non-state or state actors is specifically difficult to detect

or observe. Thus, the United States basically does not have the in-depth knowledge, resources or

access to every potential transit network, source, or route to stop the threats of WMD. As such, it

is important for the U.S government to understand probable partners’ current ability to address

the danger called weapons of mass destruction(White, 2013).

Building partner ability is vital to the realization of the U.S mission to battle

WMD(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Nonetheless, a lot of effort needs to be undertaken to assist

partner countries embrace the urgency of combating WMD. Similarly, the U.S should develop

cooperative methods of combating the threats of WMD as near to the root as

possible(Moroney&Hogler, 2009).A coordinated exertion to enhance partner nations’ capacity to

combat WMD is required to solve the worldwide nature of the problem. The global partnership

will augment international safety and security; hence it is important for the U.S to invite various

nations that are ready to adopt its guidelines and principles regarding WMD. Moreover, all

nations should stop supporting non-state actors in using, transferring, transporting, possessing,

manufacturing, acquiring or developing biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The strategy


for the national military to combat WMD sights the importance of cooperating with security

partners to combat WMD as a serious enabler(Moroney&Hogler, 2009).

The U.S building partner ability for fighting WMD programs focus on equipping and

training foreign militaries(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Equally, the programs focus on equipping

and training overseas civilian agencies as well as securing facilities of WMD and improving

infrastructure. Furthermore, the U.S military is furnished with capabilities that they can readily

transfer to partners who are fighting WMD threats. For example, the programs created to transfer

such capabilities include the ICP program, the CTR Proliferation Prevention Initiative (PPI) and

the CTR Chemical Weapons Destruction (CWD) (Busch & Joyner, 2009). Together, the above-

mentioned programs offer the resources to equip and train foreign civilians and militaries to

secure facilities of WMD, eliminate WMD and improve border security. Nevertheless, partner

ability is not merely built using the military. Civilian agencies have the ability to engage

nonmilitary counterparts, for instance, customs officials, border guards and various frontline

safety services(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Some types of these programs comprise of the

Department of Energy (DOE) Second Line of Defense (SLD) program and Export Control and

Related Border Security (EXBS) program. Consequently, building partnership capacity (BPC),

multilaterally and bilaterally, enhances the United States capability to fight WMD. Equally, the

U.S government should leverage and build on Non-Governmental Organizations, corporate and

global partner capability(Moroney&Hogler, 2009).

Conclusion

U.S Armed Forces and national law implementation agencies must be ready to respond

against every source of WMD attack(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Additionally, the main goal of a

reaction is to disrupt an impending attack or a continuing attack and eradicate the danger offuture


attacks. Moreover, prevention and deterrence require an effective response to robust strike and

rapid attribution capability. Furthermore, the U.S government must accelerate determinations to

field novel capabilities that will eliminate WMD-linked assets (Kesaris& Lester, 2002).

Additionally, United States’ national security plan recognizes the need for preventing its enemies

from threatening its citizens, allies and friends using mass destruction weapons. The U.S

advances the plan through fortified alliances, the creation of new partnerships and proactive

counter-proliferation efforts(United States 2007).Counter-proliferation activities encompass

steps taken to counter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

Similarly, the U.S government advances its strategy towards combating weapons of mass

destruction by using modern technologies in intelligence analysis and collection

(Moroney&Hogler, 2009). Moreover, the national strategy to combat mass destruction weapons

provides the government security component with a strategic framework and guidance for

CWMD. The strategy applies a ways, means and ends approach to resourcing, planning and

execution CWMD missions. Equally, the strategy emphasizes on government policies that relate

CWMD missions regarding the prominent role of the military in the matter(White, 2013).

Moreover, the strategy defines the strategic objectives of the military as well as eight military

operation zones where United States Armed Forces can be assigned to perform. Similarly, the

strategy defines the strategic enablers and strategic end states affected by weapons of mass

destruction (United States 2007).


References

Busch, N. E., & Joyner, D. (2009).Combating weapons of mass destruction: The future of

international nonproliferation policy. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Kesaris, P., & Lester, R. (2002).Nuclear weapons, arms control and the threat of thermonuclear

war: Special studies. Frederick, Md: Univ. Publ. of America.

Moroney, J. D. P., &Hogler, J. (2009).Building partner capacity to combat weapons of mass

destruction. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute.

United States. (2007). Implementing the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

recommendations to combat weapons of mass destruction (WMD): Hearing before the

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the Committee on

Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, second

session, hearing held April 5, 2006. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

White, J. (2013). Terrorism and Homeland Security. London: Cengage Learning.

U.S. Capacity for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Capacity for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction