Introduction

doi:10.1215/9780822380900-001

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction: How serious is the threat?

O’Neil¹

2003

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the extent to which terrorist use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons poses a tangible threat to international security. In the literature on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) some analysts have tended to exaggerate the scope of the threat and assumed that large-scale terrorist acts involving WMD are only 'a matter of time'. In short, there is a tendency among observers to converge on analogous assessments at the higher end of the threat spectrum. In this article I argue that although WMD terrorism remains a real prospect, the ease with which such attacks can be carried out has been exaggerated; acquiring WMD capabilities for delivery against targets is a lot more problematic for terrorists than is generally acknowledged in the literature. However, this is not to say that the possibility of such attacks can (or should) be ruled out. The rise of a 'new' brand of terrorism that operates across transnational networks and whose operations aim to inflict mass casualties, coupled with the destructive threshold crossed on 11 September 2001, mean that terrorist attacks using WMD will continue to be a realistic prospect in the future.

show abstract

Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction: How serious is the threat?

O’Neil¹

2003

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Weaponized NonCombatants: A Moral Conundrum of Future Asymmetrical Warfare

Gray

2014

Journal of Military Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liberal Arts Program, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Dubai Do noncombatants in warfare receive immunity because of their subjective or objective characteristics? Can a noncombatant be 'weaponized', and if so, how does this weaponization change the noncombatant's moral status as protected from direct attack? The purpose of this article is to analyze the moral issues that arise when noncombatants are made into weapons, specifically as delivery systems for biological weaponry. Examining such a tactic, I go on to explore how the problems that arise from 'weaponized' noncombatants illustrate deeper problems in the (under-)theorization of noncombatant status.

show abstract

Extremists and unconventional weapons: examining the pursuit of chemical and biological agents

Guarrieri

Meisel

2019

Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction: How serious is the threat?

Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction: How serious is the threat?

Weaponized NonCombatants: A Moral Conundrum of Future Asymmetrical Warfare

Extremists and unconventional weapons: examining the pursuit of chemical and biological agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About