Prospect of Biological and Nuclear Terrorism in Central Asia and Russia. Musa Khan Jalalzai
include a lack of transparency and honesty, defensiveness, a disrespectful and unkind attitude to families, a failure to learn from or even recognise serious incidents, and a “toxic” culture. The 2015 inquiry (pdf) into deaths of babies and mothers at University hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS foundation trust, the Francis inquiry two years earlier into failures at Mid Staffordshire, and the 2001 landmark public inquiry (pdf) into children’s heart surgery at Bristol Royal infirmary all revealed layer upon layer of systemic failings. These included the breakdown of teamwork, poor leadership, lack of respect between professional groups, a tolerance of poor standards, defensiveness, dishonesty, failure to assess risks, and repeated failures to recognise and investigate serious incidents. The newspaper reported.
On 19 December 2019, BBC reported scandal of Stafford Hospital scandal where regulator condemned “appalling” standards of care and reported there had been at least 400 more deaths than expected between 2005 and 2008. Later, an independent inquiry chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC, with a report published in February 2010, stated that hospital patients had been left “sobbing and humiliated” by uncaring staff. BBC reported.
Biological war in Europe and Central Asia will cause huge fatalities. These weapons introduce a bacteria or virus, combined with a delivery mechanism, into an environment for hostile purposes that is not prepared to defend itself from the intruder. It is important to note that these weapons agents are cheap. Joelle Jenny and Simon Limage (War on the Rocks, 01 March, 2018) have argued that terrorist groups want to buy and sale radiological material to make a dirty bomb. They also noted that the nuclear material fallen into the hands of ISIS terrorist group in Iraq was a warning to international community to secure their weapons programme:
“States are not alone in engaging in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: There are strong indications that terrorist organizations are seeking to access them as well. ISIL, for example, has not only used chemical weapons in Syria, but also acquired the knowledge to develop them–and possibly other weapons of mass destruction. In 2014, an ISIL laptop was recovered containing documents on how to develop biological weapons, including the bubonic plague. According to the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, there were a total of 143 terrorist attacks across the world from 1970 to 2014 that used weapons of mass destruction – 35 biological, 95 chemical, and 13 radiological. Countering this shadowy threat requires close collaboration beyond any one country’s borders. This massive effort is underpinned by a global architecture of arms control and nonproliferation treaties that define the obligations of governments to prevent the illegal export or use of weapons of mass destruction. These far-reaching obligations include tasks such as destroying chemical weapons stockpiles, developing and implementing rigorous export control laws, or implementing stringent security practices at sensitive facilities. To succeed, these efforts need a combination of well-resourced intelligence gathering, law enforcement, border controls, and preventive measures. These efforts also need to directly engage the scientists, laboratory technicians, emergency first responders, law enforcement agencies, intelligence officers, and customs officials who are at the front end of nonproliferation efforts. Ultimately, these are the people who make the world safer.”
Conventional weapons explode once and are finished. The “new era of biology” emerging over the last couple of decades has been characterised by significantly accelerated scientific and technological developments. Development of bio-technology and its illegal use against rivals is matter of great concern. In yesteryears, a number of disasters and attacks involving a CBRN component, whether they have occurred or been prevented, have challenged response systems and left their mark on public opinion worldwide. While Ebola virus attacked West Africa in 2014-2016, France and other states tackled it with military means. In 2015, the Paris terrorist attacks, the military doctors in the field of triage and care of wounded by warlike injuries proved decisive when the care system had to cope with an influx of victims.
During the last 20 years, Russia and the United States have made considerable progress for maintaining nuclear warheads. This dayto-day militarisation of potential conflict, the withdrawal of NATO and US forces from Afghanistan, and civil wars in the Middle East have all intensified the war of interests between the two states. In the presence of all these weapons, the danger of nuclear terrorism, the potential spread of nuclear materials in the black market and the recent threatened control of nuclear materials by terrorist group (ISIS) in Iraq, has raised serious questions about the safety and security of nuclear weapons. The international task force on the prevention of nuclear terrorism has also warned that the “possibility of nuclear terrorism is increasing” because of a number of factors including “the conventional forms of terrorism” and the vulnerability of nuclear power and research reactors to sabotage and of weapons-usable nuclear materials to theft.
In the past, terrorists attacked Pakistan’s nuclear installations. In 2007, terrorists attacked two air force facilities in Sargodha, associated with nuclear installations. On August 21, 2008, terrorists attacked the Ordnance factories in Wah. In July 2009, a suicide bomber struck a bus that may have been carrying A Q Khan Research Laboratory scientists, injuring 30 people. Moreover, two attacks by Baloch militants on suspected Atomic Energy Commission facilities in Dera Ghazi Khan have also drawn international attention to the security of the country’s nuclear installations. On October 10, 2009, nine terrorists, dressed in army uniform, attacked the GHQ. In June 2014, two suicide bombers killed high ranking military officers linked to Pakistan’s nuclear programme in Fateh Jang. In his Global Security Review paper Gerald Brown (Dec 16, 2019) not only supported my standpoint on the possible nuclear war, and the use of biological weapons in Asia and Europe, but also described the fear of security expert and policymakers:
“The possibility of escalation to a limited nuclear conflict at the tactical level, utilizing low-yield, counterforce nuclear weaponry is a plausible reality. Low-yield, counterforce nuclear weapons can be utilized in a limited fashion against an adversary’s military forces without threatening the survival of either state—particularly when there is a significant disparity between the nuclear capabilities of the states involved. The structure of the international system has been one of conflict and anarchy for the entirety of human history. The world has never known an era without warfare; states compete to maximize their security and ensure their survival against one another. But in the modern era, this competition may have far more dire consequences. States now yield weapons with unimaginable destructive capabilities and are capable of delivering them at unprecedented speeds. While these weapons almost certainly cause states to act more cautiously, it does not undermine the competitive nature of international relations; states will still compete and seek primacy over one another, securing their own interests and security. While possessing nuclear weapons may raise the risk of failure and serve as a strong deterrent to other states, the weapons by themselves are not enough to prevent this competition between states. In some cases, they may go as far as to instigate it as states seek to ensure their security against another’s nuclear capabilities. Nuclear weapon use in a limited manner may be a serious threat, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the changing state of the world into a multipolar nuclear order may encourage this”.4
The current threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons proliferation signals trouble, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, which will not be redressed without resolving regional conflicts, which may in turn require internal political changes. India and Pakistan need to implement nuclear risk reduction measures. Terrorists want to buy or steal nuclear material to fabricate a crude bomb or to make or detonate radiological weapons. Analyst Gerald Brown (Dec 16, 2019) has noted the emergence and invention of modern nuclear weapons but argued that nuclear modernization and proliferation have forced states to develop low-yield, counterforce nuclear weapons which can be utilized without threatening a state’s survival in a limited nuclear conflict:
“In the modern nuclear age, the use of these weapons is increasingly likely, particularly if doing so will give a state a significant advantage over another. Deterrence has merit, but it undoubtedly lies in the presence of a realistic, credible threat, across all levels of the threat spectrum that mitigate this potential advantage. Nuclear multipolarity and increased interstate competition are resulting in an increasing number of competing, nuclear-armed states with historical tensions, leading to instances of escalation and the development of the security dilemma between multiple actors. Nuclear modernization