How Likely is a Terror Attack on Our Nation's Capital?
Special: Barbara Walters Refuses to Return to the View, Due to This Secret
image: http://engine.newsmaxfeednetwork.com/i.gif?e=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&s=5ukKch0-AyukciT8C7oGQLf-G7M
Could ISIS get its hands on a nuclear warhead? The Economist seems to
think so, calling that scenario “the stuff of nightmares,” in their recent review
of former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry’s five-minute film. Perry’s film
explores what a potential nuclear attack might look like and notes that a plot
similar to the one he outlined could be planned and carried out in the United
States right under our noses. His “nightmare” ends with mass hysteria and the
death of over eighty thousand people, including Congress and the President.
It’s a little bit dramatic, but it’s not far from the truth. There are many reasons
to fear nuclear weapons might end up in the wrong hands. Take for instance
the several unstable, well-armed nations that entrust their arsenal to people
who are sympathetic to radicals. For instance, Pakistan has over one hundred
nuclear weapons at its disposal, and this number is growing. As a safe haven
for terrorists with a government unwilling to face the issue of extremism,
Pakistan is the perfect place from which to acquire nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the Economist says, “up to 40% of Pakistan’s middle-ranking
army officers are to some extent radicalized.” Many of these radicals have
access to dangerous tools made privy to officers. Although other
non-radicalized officials might not support insurgent groups like ISIS,
they sympathize with them, which is almost as dangerous because
they might be willing to aid in arming radicals or simply look the other way.
Not only is ISIS capable of attaining weapons from dangerous,
untrustworthy state actors in the Middle East, but it is also able
to spend lots of money to obtain these weapons and execute an attack
that would prove devastating to the world. Although ISIS has seen
a decrease in revenues due to its loss of territory, it is still the World’s
richest terrorist organization. According to statistics taken in March
2016, Fox News states the group brought in $56 million per month.
The Washington Post also notes that ISIS restrains from using
international finance and instead relies on finance within its borders,
which it mainly acquires from criminal activity. Additionally, it says the group
has a highly diversified group of financial sources from which it can pull. It
obtains revenue from donors, means of extortion, sales of oil and antiquities
and looted property, human trafficking, and Iraqi banks. It's this wealth that
also helps ISIS to field a motivated fighting force. ISIS fighters are motivated
in large part because of the compensation ISIS fighters receive for their
efforts- around $400 per month- according to the Washington Post estimates.
Due to the resources made available to ISIS by hostile states, supportive
groups, and individuals, the American people should be very concerned
about possible threats on American soil, particularly in the nation’s capital.
It seems that it will only be a matter of time before a large-scale attack in
Washington is executed. The threat is so clear that the Obama Administration
has made it a high priority. Whether or not you agree with his policy, it is clear
he aims to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on such weapons by
calling on world leaders to attend nuclear security summits and by
promoting multilateral discussions. The spotlight the Obama administration
has put on nuclear warheads is extremely important; however, whoever
takes the oval office in 2017 needs to take the initiative further a step further; t
he next president of the United States needs to be more aggressive in his or
her fight against ISIS. This means enhancing security features at home and
abroad, in addition to nuanced military campaigns and intelligence-gathering
abroad.
think so, calling that scenario “the stuff of nightmares,” in their recent review
of former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry’s five-minute film. Perry’s film
explores what a potential nuclear attack might look like and notes that a plot
similar to the one he outlined could be planned and carried out in the United
States right under our noses. His “nightmare” ends with mass hysteria and the
death of over eighty thousand people, including Congress and the President.
It’s a little bit dramatic, but it’s not far from the truth. There are many reasons
to fear nuclear weapons might end up in the wrong hands. Take for instance
the several unstable, well-armed nations that entrust their arsenal to people
who are sympathetic to radicals. For instance, Pakistan has over one hundred
nuclear weapons at its disposal, and this number is growing. As a safe haven
for terrorists with a government unwilling to face the issue of extremism,
Pakistan is the perfect place from which to acquire nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the Economist says, “up to 40% of Pakistan’s middle-ranking
army officers are to some extent radicalized.” Many of these radicals have
access to dangerous tools made privy to officers. Although other
non-radicalized officials might not support insurgent groups like ISIS,
they sympathize with them, which is almost as dangerous because
they might be willing to aid in arming radicals or simply look the other way.
Not only is ISIS capable of attaining weapons from dangerous,
untrustworthy state actors in the Middle East, but it is also able
to spend lots of money to obtain these weapons and execute an attack
that would prove devastating to the world. Although ISIS has seen
a decrease in revenues due to its loss of territory, it is still the World’s
richest terrorist organization. According to statistics taken in March
2016, Fox News states the group brought in $56 million per month.
The Washington Post also notes that ISIS restrains from using
international finance and instead relies on finance within its borders,
which it mainly acquires from criminal activity. Additionally, it says the group
has a highly diversified group of financial sources from which it can pull. It
obtains revenue from donors, means of extortion, sales of oil and antiquities
and looted property, human trafficking, and Iraqi banks. It's this wealth that
also helps ISIS to field a motivated fighting force. ISIS fighters are motivated
in large part because of the compensation ISIS fighters receive for their
efforts- around $400 per month- according to the Washington Post estimates.
Due to the resources made available to ISIS by hostile states, supportive
groups, and individuals, the American people should be very concerned
about possible threats on American soil, particularly in the nation’s capital.
It seems that it will only be a matter of time before a large-scale attack in
Washington is executed. The threat is so clear that the Obama Administration
has made it a high priority. Whether or not you agree with his policy, it is clear
he aims to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on such weapons by
calling on world leaders to attend nuclear security summits and by
promoting multilateral discussions. The spotlight the Obama administration
has put on nuclear warheads is extremely important; however, whoever
takes the oval office in 2017 needs to take the initiative further a step further; t
he next president of the United States needs to be more aggressive in his or
her fight against ISIS. This means enhancing security features at home and
abroad, in addition to nuanced military campaigns and intelligence-gathering
abroad.
Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/the-possibility-of-an-attack-on-washington#FkC14r7EwYZwKCwW.99
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.