Terrorism threat

Congress has decided that reprocessing will not be practiced in this country so that we will not be in the plutonium production business. This seems like a safe thing to do since this action will minimize terrorism threats. Reprocessing generates chemi cal wastes but greatly reduces the volume of the highly radioactive waste. It also isolates plutonium and unused fuel for possible use as new fuel. 

At present time, mass terrorism acquires a progressively growing scale all over the world. As a result of acts of terrorism, a lot of people perish, and extensive damage is caused to the ecosystems. Scales of terrorism threat can be evidenced by the known cases in Matsumoto (1994), Tokyo (1995), Amman (1997), New York (2001), Moscow (1997,2002,2003), etc. 

Combating Terrorism Threat and Risk Assessments Can Help Prioritize and Target Program Investments. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Accounting Office (NSIAD-98-74, April 9) 1998.. 

Keywords terrorism al Qaeda chemical terrorism biological terrorism radiological terrorism nuclear terrorism state sponsored terrorism threat sensors. 

Stage 1 Is the threat possible If a chemical facility is faced with a terrorism threat, it should evaluate the available information to determine whether or not the threat is possible (i.e., could something have actually happened). If the threat is possible, immediate operational response actions might be implemented, and activities such as site characterization would be initiated to collect additional information to support the next stage of the threat evaluation. 

Source Adapted from Amy E. Smithson, Ataxia The Chemical and Biological Terrorism Threat and the US Response, Washington DC Henry L. Stimson Center (2003), p. 61. 

Gurr, N., Cole, B. (2000). The new face of terrorism Threats from weapons of mass destruction. New York I. B. Taurus. 

Smithson, A., Levy, L. (2000). Ataxia The chemical and biological terrorism threat and the U.S. response. Stimson Center Report, No. 35. Retrieved from http //www.stimson.org/... 

Biological Pathogens Identified by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as Likely to Have Been Weaponized and Likely to Be Used as Biological Terrorism Threat Agents... 

Smithson, A. and L.A. Levy. 2000. Ataxia the chemical and biological terrorism threat and the US response. In Stimson Center Report No. 35. Washington, DC Henry L. Stimson Center. 

In this country, the District of Columbia s Emergency Management Office and Public Health Agency were provided an extensive, although generic, briefing on the terrorism threat just before the start of the Gulf War. 

Support for broad-spectrum antiviral drugs for treatment of VEE, WEE, FEE and other viruses considered biological terrorism threats should be considered a high priority. 

Governments perceptions of terrorism threats have laid the foundation for the war on terrorism , and most countries have after September 11,2001 introduced new terrorist legislation, relocated resources and mandates of security agencies, implemented security measures in different societal sectors, for example aviation and shipping. These terrorism countermeasures have aU in common that they increase the power of the authority bodies and decrease the citizens accessibihty and civil Uberties (Jackson, 2005). 

We analyzed changes in the discourses about the terrorism threat in Norway. In the examination of the texts we applied the following questions ... 

Which factors are considered to increase and decrease the terrorism threat ... 

First we will illuminate how the terrorism threat has been an important driving force behind the renewing of mandates and resource allocations for both the Norwegian Defense and the PST according to the newspaper articles, and how they are framing the terrorism discourse. Then we will identify the storylines that both of these stakeholders are sharing. We will show that the discourse is based on several storylines that are linked together by the terrorism threat. 

The terrorism threat as a change stimulus for the mandate of PST before 9/11... 

The terrorism threat as a change stimulus for the mandate of PST after 9/11 The 9/11 terrorist attacks shocked the whole Western world, and gave renewal to terrorism as a security threat in Norway. The terrorism risk against Norway subsequent the attack on the US, was strengthened because it was seen as an attack on the western way of Uving and democracy. Suddenly there was a need for expertise on terrorism and the terrorist threat, and in this POT had a role to play 9/11 caused that the public woke up. We have been working with terrorism for many years, but most people have not been aware of the scale (Per Sefland, Director of POT in Aftenposten 16.12.2001). 

PST prepares both general and periodic threat assessments subjected to the risk of terrorist attack. The risk assessments of PST are in most cases not giving any more information than their exact assessment of the threat which has been either low or moderate. When PST decided to increase the risk level in Norway from low to moderate after Al-Qaeda announced the second terrorism threat, there was hardly any information about what the assessment was based on and why they decided to increase the level to moderate, which they did not after the first. However, PST contributes with qualitative statements that give the impression of an imminent terrorist threat. Jam Hohne, the current Director of PST, claims that it is just a matter of time before terrorists strikes Scandinavia (Jam Holme, Director of PST, in Aftenposten 15.12.2005). 

The terrorist threat as a change stimulus for the Defence s mandate before 9/11 In the media discussions about the mandate of the Norwegian Defence no concrete description of the terrorism threat is seen. However, terrorism has been an important argument for changing of mandate, reorganization, and purchase of new equipment. 

When Norway was mentioned by Al-Qaeda as a terrorist target, the situation was also seen as an argument for the Defence in terrorism prevention The terrorism threat against Norway this week illustrates what tasks the Defence now faces. .. Norway is no longer an outpost when it comes to terrorism. Terrorism has no boarders. We can see that our security now is contingent upon situations far away, to what happens in the rest of the world. (Thorstein Skiaker, Lieutenant General and leader of National Joint Headquarters, in VG 24.05.2003)... 

The Defence did not provide any specific public assessments of the terrorism threat similar to the PST. The communication on the terrorism threat was mainly liamed through more general descriptions of terrorism as a part of the new threat landscape. Terrorism was mentioned as one of the threats that the Defence had to be able to bandle ... 

---