Future Threats to

the United States

by

Jeffrey Chang

Brian Sinay

World power: The United States has the most powerful military in the world. But can it defeat the world? A watchful eye is kept on America, forcing it to consider all the effects of its policies, especially those policies concerning other countries.

            Ever since man has begun living together, there has always been conflict and strife. At times, man has been able to settle his disputes through an organized and compromising fashion; however, in other instances, man has resorted to violence and force to get his way. Many wars have been fought and tons of blood has been shed, and yet the strife still continues.

            The nature of war has evolved over the years from primitive handheld stone weapons to sophisticated, scientifically engineered weapons of mass destruction. The threats and future wars that the United States currently faces is truly very different from those of the past. Past wars that the United States has been involved with have relied on enormous man power and ground troops; however, the new face of war is now weapons of mass destruction. For example, the United States faces bombs that can wipe out entire cities if not countries, biological weapons that can infiltrate our very homeland, cyberterrorism that can cripple our technological advances and methods of communication, and economic wars that can devastate our globally dependent economy.

            The amount of nuclear weapons present on earth, if detonated all at once, has the capability to destroy the entire planet. The United States much deal with this nuclear threat and countries who might be likely to use the weapons against us. Though the United States does keep tabs on countries with nuclear launch capabilities, it is getting harder to track those who are developing nuclear weapons that may be transported in forms other than the traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles.

            Biological weapons, though not on as great a destructive scale as nuclear weapons, still pose a formidable threat. Biological weapons are inherently easier to develop and cultivate (as in the case of Anthrax), and are also easily transmitted. The United States needs to confront this issue and analyze just how big of a threat biological weapons are, what countries may be likely candidates for developing these weapons and using them on us, and what we can do to stop any damage from happening.

            Cyberterrorism is a relatively new form of attack that while, is not a life endangering threat, can cripple the functioning of the United States in the form of communication and financial transactions. It is clear from the high rates of hacking that this sort of terrorism is certainly not out of the question, and is something that the United States (once again) needs to evaluate the potential damage that such attacks may wreak.

Economic warfare is another very real threat to the United States. Being the strongest economic power, yet also a very globally dependent economic power, much of our financial stability relies on trade with other nations. Moreover, many American businesses rely on international sales and even production in other countries. Countries that American businesses rely on can easily boycott American products if they so choose. Additionally, what handicaps our ability to fight this sort of “war” is the fact that we cannot stop a country’s unfavorable economic policies toward the United States without bringing negative criticism from other countries around the world.

            Clearly, the face of war for the United States has changed a great deal from the wars of the past. It is crucial that we recognize this and prepare accordingly to ensure the greatest long-term longevity and financial viability of our nation.

Atomic Bomb: The mushroom cloud above shows the explosive power of an atomic bomb, seconds later, the impact of such a blast can flatten an entire city.

Nuclear Warfare:

History

On July 16^th, 1945, the world saw the first atomic bomb explode. The culmination of thousands of years of scientific “progress” and innovation finally brought a weapon powerful enough to destroy cities at a time. Soon after, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, quickly ending the second World War.

Splitting the atom: The Manhattan Project produced an atomic bomb in less than three years after it was assigned. While the feat was a technological phenomenon, the invention of nuclear technology saw the first possibility of humankind created its own ruin.

The invention of the first atomic bomb was not spontaneous or accidental; rather, it was a project deliberately brought forth by the United States in order to gain an edge over its enemies in WWII. In less than three years, the Manhattan Project, led by Brigadier General Leslie Groves[1], created the world’s first atomic bomb. Ironically, the world’s most powerful weapon came from the world’s smallest know particles, the atom. Scientists discovered that splitting atoms, a process known as nuclear fission, produced massive amounts of energy. The Manhattan Project team quickly discovered how to harness this reaction. On August 6^th and August 9^th of 1945, the United States dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing roughly 200, 000 people. The nuclear era was born.

The abrupt end of the second World War motivated all countries with the capabilities to make their own nuclear weapons. Without these newfound weapons of mass destruction, a country simply could not compete with one who had them. The United States was the new world power and other countries would need to find a way to catch up. The world began a nuclear arms race.

The U.S.S.R and Britain soon created their first nuclear bombs about five years after WWII ended. Weapons of mass destruction were being produced at an alarming rate. What would happen if countries went to war and began using nuclear weapons on each other? And while the United States was still the leader of nuclear technology in 1960, many began to fear what all of these technological “advances” would lead to. A few months after stepping into office, President John F. Kennedy wrote a letter to the nation in Life Magazine. The issue’s headline read “How You can Survive Fallout.” Kennedy’s letter gave advice to Americans on how to deal with a nuclear attack. He explained that “Nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war are facts of life we cannot ignore today.” Unfortunately, president Kennedy was right; the world would now have to deal with these powerful weapons.

A message to you from the president

The White House
September 7, 1961

My Fellow Americans:

Nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war are facts of life we cannot ignore today. I do not believe that war can solve any of the problems facing the world today. But the decision is not ours alone.

The government is moving to improve the protection afforded you in your communities through civil defense. We have begun, and will be continuing throughout the next year and a half, a survey of all public buildings with fallout shelter potential, and the marking of those with adequate shelter for 50 persons or more. We are providing fallout shelter in new and in some existing federal buildings. We are stocking these shelters with one week's food and medical supplies and two weeks' water supply for the shelter occupants. In addition, I have recommended to the Congress the establishment of food reserves in centers around the country where they might be needed following an attack. Finally, we are developing improved warning systems which will make it possible to sound attack warning on buzzers right in your homes and places of business.

More comprehensive measures than these lie ahead, but they cannot be brought to completion in the immediate future. In the meantime there is much that you can do to protect yourself -- and in doing so strengthen your nation.

I urge you to read and consider seriously the contents in this issue of LIFE. The security of our country and the peace of the world are the objectives of our policy. But in these dangerous days when both these objectives are threatened we must prepare for all eventualities. The ability to survive coupled with the will to do so therefore are essential to our country.

John F. Kennedy[2]

Less than a year later, President Kennedy had to deal with what was and is still the closest two countries have come to engaging into nuclear warfare. In October of 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis showed the world how scary nuclear weapons can be. Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev took Kennedy to be a soft leader who would crumple at the threat of a nuclear attack.[3] Kennedy proved him wrong, demanding that the Soviet Union remove its weapons from Cuba. The 13 days in October of 1962 shook the United States and the Soviet Union, forcing future powers to reconsider using nuclear weapons as a way of threat or attack.

Protection:

Fortunately, there has been a trend towards moving away from and disarming nuclear weapons. The only two that have been used in war were the first two. While the creators of the atomic bomb had calculated every last physical outcome that the bomb would yield, no one could predict the emotional effect of such a blast. The bombs dropped on Japan made a lasting impression on everyone who was involved. And while there have been thousands of nuclear weapons created since then, none have been used in haste . Currently, nuclear weapons seem to represent something more than what they practically function as; they represent world power. However, the United Nations and has attempted to protect the world from nuclear warfare, to serve as some sort of a mediator between countries that have conflicts. Further, there have been many attempts as disarmament treaties in the last decade that hope to begin to phase out nuclear weapons. Many countries have cooperated, and , while not all of these treaties have been carried out, are moving the world in the right direction, away from nuclear weapons. While nuclear warfare seems less plausible than in past decades, the threat still exists and must be dealt with.

Stealth Bomber: The United States military has technologically superior fighters, the Stealth Bomber above, in preparation for worldwide conflicts.

To evaluate what where nuclear threats might come from, we must first look at what countries have nuclear weapons. Below is a table that show rough estimates of how many nuclear weapons each country has.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What

HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WARHEAD STOCKPILES -- 1945-1995

NOTE: Totals are estimates. Lists include strategic and non-strategic warheads, as well as warheads awaiting dismantling

1945

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

UNITED STATES

6

3,057

31,265

26,675

22,941

14,766

SOVIET UNION

0

200

6,129

19,443

39,197

27,000

BRITAIN

0

10

310

350

300

300

FRANCE

0

0

32

188

360

485

CHINA

0

5

185

425

425

Source: National Resources Defense Council

[4]

While the above statistics are important and should be kept in mind, how many nuclear bombs a country has and how advanced they are is not the best way to find the nuclear threats the united states faces. Rather, America must watch countries who have the capability of obtaining such weapons and who motivation, while merited or not, to use them on the United States. If obtained, how could nuclear weapons be detonated on American soil?

One place to look when evaluating the possibility of nuclear weapons infiltrating our borders is the American sea ports. The United States has hundred of ports along its coast lines that are potentially vulnerable. While there may be a solid security system that detects unwelcome boats and ships from entering our ports, is our port security thorough enough to carry out a detailed inspection of all boats and ships that enter its ports? Being thorough may not even be enough to prevent an undetected nuclear warhead from entering our country. With thousands of ships sailing in and out of our ports daily, it may not be possible to fully protect such an event from occurring. Inspecting every item shipped to us may not be feasible. The reality is, the United States may not be able to stop a disguised nuclear weapon; countries or radical groups with enough motivation and resources could sneak a weapon into our ports undetected.

September 11^th: The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States was realized on September 11^th of 2001. It abruptly changed the face of war for the United States and the rest of the world.

Interestingly, nuclear warfare may not be the United States’ biggest threat. Unfortunately, this was realized on September 11^th of 2001. While America was not at war, it suffered civilian casualties from an unexpected source. Knowing that war with the United States is foolish, countries may choose to “surprise” attack America whenever possible. The frequency of these surprise attacks, known as terrorism, has had a disturbing increase in the past decade.

Targeting America: Being the most powerful nation in the world doesn’t come cheap, many countries have targeted America in hopes of bringing them down. How will America respond?

Terrorism:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The United States has faced many incidents of terrorism, domestic and foreign, in the past decade. Such incidents can devastate the morale of a country. Manhattan’s World Trade Center was bombed in February of 1993, foreshadowing the attack on America on September 11^th of 2001. The first attack on the World Trade center came from Omar Abdul Rahman, the former leader of the Afghan Guerrillas, who was allowed entry in to the US in 1989. Allegedly, Rahman had hoped to crash the 100-plus story tower into its twin. While the bomb planted in the garage of the World Trade Center failed to bring it down in 1993, less than ten years later, America watched the indelible images of the twin towers falling after two commercial airplanes crashed into them. That same day, the Pentagon in Washington took a blow to its side from another commercial plane. Still another plane, doubtlessly on track for another American icon, crashed before reaching its target; reports say a group of heroic Americans received word of the day’s earlier events and forced the plane to crash rather reach its intended destination.

Domestic Terrorism: By no means is terrorism strictly foreign-tied. In fact, the FBI reports that a significant portion of terrorism comes from US citizens. Above is the result in Oklahoma City of Timothy McVeigh’s outrage at the United States government. Can these tragic events be stopped?

            Surprisingly, acts of terrorism is more often domestic rather than foreign-tied. In 1995, one of Oklahoma City’s federal offices was hit by a tuck bomb detonated by Timothy McVeigh, a Desert Storm Veteran. The blast killed 168 and injured an estimated 850 more. Countless other acts of domestic terrorism have occurred, prompting questions of where the motivations of the terrorists come from.

While the motives of different acts of terror are not always the same, they usually seem from a deep-seeded hatred for the United States’ government. Naturally, Americans have been and still seek to prevent these events from occurring. However, the United States and other countries around the world cannot effectively “defend” themselves against such acts in the traditional way. For example: the Unites States cannot decide to “stop” all terrorism by only taking military action.   Rather, attempts need to be made to restore peaceful relationships with its enemies, internal or external, if at all possible. As the world’s most powerful country, the United States has an eye on them at all times. Policies are constantly under scrutiny by other countries, especially when the motives behind appear different than what they are claimed to be. Essentially, careful consideration needs to go into decisions a government makes. As the self-proclaimed global peacekeeper, America constantly put itself in the middle of situations that other countries never face. Further, there the difference between good and evil is not as objective as it might seem. Unfortunately, the United States must decide on one side when making decisions, which doesn’t appease all parties. Regardless, America need to put care and consideration in the policies we carry out.

Biological Weapons

A biological terrorist attack -- the magnitude of its potential impact, the risks and uncertainties for the public and the panic that could ensue -- is unlike any other threat we may encounter. The need for specialized scientific and medical resources presents a sobering challenge to federal, state and local emergency planners -- those individuals first on the scene as well as those who must provide the essential back-up expertise and capabilities. The national security agencies that must protect the country against foreign adversaries likewise face formidable problems for threat assessment and response. Senator John Kyl, opening statement to the joint hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism and Technology, entitled “Biological Weapons: The Threat Posed by Terrorists", March 4, 1998.

Cleary, another current and futuristic threat that the United States faces is biological weapons; though arguably not on the same destructive capacity level as nuclear weapons, the damaging effects of such scientifically crafted attacks are issues that cannot be shrugged off, but rather, topics that the United States must confront and evaluate.

Definition

What exactly is biological warfare? Below is CNN’s definition of what constitutes this method of attack:

From a military perspective, it is the intentional use of diseases to affect an adversary’s military force, population, crops, or livestock. Certainly, a terrorist biological campaign could target those same kinds of objectives, depending on the perceived purpose of the terrorist. There are two basic categories of biological warfare agents. Microorganisms are living organic germs, such as anthrax (bacillus anthrax). Second, toxins are the byproducts of living organisms, or effectively natural poisons, such as botulism (botulinum toxin) which is a byproduct of growing the microorganism clostridium botulinum. These are only two examples of biological warfare agents, although these are especially prevalent and virulent examples. There are many other natural and man-made agents that have been used throughout history. Kathleen C. Bailey, ed., Director’s Series on Proliferation (Springfield, Va.: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, May 23, 1994), 2.

History

As the CNN definition alluded to at the end, biological weapons certainly are not a new concept; they have been used time and time again. As early as 1346 A.D., Tartars held the walled city of Kaffa under siege and catapulted plague-infested bodies into the city[5]. Not only did illness cause Kaffa to capitulate, but some medical historians speculate this event resulted in the bubonic plague epidemic that spread across medieval Europe between 1347 and 1351, killing 25 million people[6]. From the Roman poising of water sources with dead animal corpses, to the smallpox infested blankets during the French and Indian war, to the spreading of the plague with flea-infested debris over China during the Japanese Chinese war, history has certainly been rampant with instances of biological warfare. And these tactics have certainly continued through today, with the recent Gulf War involving Iraq and the United States bringing these issues yet again into the limelight. By the time of the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait, it was widely acknowledged that Iraq had a biological warfare program, concentrated on very toxic botulinum toxin and very resilient anthrax[7]. An Iraqi microbiologist, who was a defector, gave this alarming account: There were many strains, botulism, salmonella, and anthrax. Friends told me they had found a way to make anthrax even more toxic. I know they experimented on sheep with Clostridium Botulinum type C (the source of botulinum toxin)[8]. After the Gulf war ended, though it appeared that Iraq did not use biological weapons, there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence that an offensive biological warfare production and weaponization program did exist[9]. Clearly, the threat of biological warfare is real issue that the United States must evaluate and prepare for accordingly.

Development

One problem that biological weapons pose that is unlike that of nuclear weapons is that these agents are, for the most part, relatively easy to develop. For example, the marquee weapon known as anthrax can be easily cultivated by technology about as sophisticated as the average beer brewing technology[10]. This makes biological weapons development not only very difficult to track down and stop, but also makes it a very viable alternative for countries with less financial strength.

Moreover, naturally occurring agents such as anthrax or botulism can, with minor molecular changes, spawn more toxic, quicker spreading, more resistant strains, which can pose problems for known vaccinations. Even more harmful still is the possibility of using genetic engineering to develop a new strain of disease that can only be cured by one unique vaccine, a vaccine that the United States may lack in time of outbreak.

Potential Liabilities

It is clear then that the United States must be aware of countries that are likely to be developing biological weapons and may use them against the United States. Some of the countries suspected in open sources of having or wanting a biological warfare program include Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Israel, Egypt, Cuba, Taiwan, China, Romania, Bulgaria, Pakistan, India, and South Africa[11]. This list is significant since some of these countries have been associated in the past with state-sponsored terrorism, others are in unstable or destabilizing regions, and some fall in both categories.

Quarantine it! : Scares of biological warfare have increased as the face of war has turned to terrorism. Biological warfare is realistic in the weapons it includes are not difficult to produce, even for countries or groups with little financial backing. Are we prepared for such an attack?

Defense

            As is obvious that biological weapons are certainly feasible to create, and that there are many countries that the United States suspects has a biological weapons program, defense against these biological weapons is clearly an important issue; this general topic of defense can be roughly broken up into five categories: prevention, protection, detection, treatment, and decontamination.

            Prevention can come about through several methods; politically, prevention comes in the form of international disarmament and inspections, much like those of the nuclear inspections and disarmament programs. Additionally, by increasing intelligence, biological weapons hotspots can hopefully be identified, and if necessary, the appropriate action undertaken to halt the production of threatening agents. On the home front, vaccination programs can provide fairly substantial protection against natural-occurring agents, as evidenced by the containment of anthrax and smallpox outbreaks. However, genetically engineered mutations resistant to vaccinations can still pose a serious threat.

            The second type of defense against biological weapons is protection. Other methods of protection excluding vaccinations are quite limited; recently, companies have begun marketing equipment to the general public for protection, gear that includes gas masks, designed to guard against airborne attacks. However, the truth is that protective suits, clothing, and filters only provide limited protection, and this defense lasts only for a

short period of time. In fact, according to a report by the BBC, “Gas masks could offer some protection in the event of an airborne attack, but only if advance warning is given. Incorrectly-used masks may do more harm than good”(http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/biochemicalweapons/protection.shtml).

              Detection is the third element of defense against these weapons, and although we have come far in our detection techniques, we do still have a ways to go. As recent as the Gulf War, the United States still lacked reliable biological weapons detection systems; since then, we have developed several programs which include the SMART (Sensitive Membrane Antigen Rapid Test), JBPDS (Joint Biological Point Detection System), BIDS (Biological Integrated Detection System), and the IBAD(Interim Biological Agent Detector) tests[12]. However, we still need to refine our current methods and prepare for any possible new agents that may be undetected by our existing systems. Moreover, detection is not solely up to the government, but in fact is a necessary obligation of every American citizen. The average person should constantly remain aware of their surroundings; diligent vigilance can help spot suspicious activity and/or any suspect packages and tools used as instruments to disperse biological weapons, bringing attention to possible dangers and helping to curb the damage that may otherwise be wreaked.

            The fourth aspect is treatment in the event that infection has occurred. Of course, the capability for treatment does come with the requirement that the weapons agent is identified. For example, Anthrax can be treated with Penicillin, administering two million units every two hours intravenously. Unfortunately, if the agent is not known, then not much can be done besides giving the patient massive doses of antibiotics.

            The final aspect is decontamination. Biological weapons, over time, may burgeon, grow, and multiply. For example, Anthrax can remain in the soil for at least forty years and is highly resistant to eradication. Therefore, the proper techniques for being able to kill of any remaining agents is important, not only to ensure that no one else gets sick from it, but to also make certain that no one tries to sneak into the contaminated site to get a culture of the agent and cultivate it once again.

Reality, or Just Hype?

Just how dangerous biological weapons are has been a topic of heated debate. Many claim that bio-weapons are extremely vicious, immensely destructive weapons that, in the right environment, can multiply and self-perpetuate. Couple the immense danger of these agents with an ease of creation, and this becomes a recipe for a successfully devastating attack on the United States.

However, if these weapons are so dangerous and so easily created, why then haven’t attacks already occurred? Or if attacks occurred, why hasn’t everyone already been decimated? These loaded questions elicit an implication that maybe all the fears that have been perpetuated are just that: perpetuated, and falsely so. In the September 11 aftermath, a huge Anthrax scare gripped the United States after several people received anthrax-laced letters through the mail. Widespread panic erupted, with people refusing to check their mail for fear of getting contaminated. The eventual outcome of the anthrax “attack”: five deaths. Moreover, this anthrax was later traced back to the United States CIA headquarters, not some extremist Islamic fundamentalist group hell-bent on destruction of America. The White House divulged the domestic source of the anthrax on December 17, 2001.

Other outbreaks of anthrax have happened as well, and each one has been contained without an atrocious number of deaths, which implies that maybe the widespread images of population genocide with bio-weapons may be more of media hype than reality. Of course, this is not to say that these agents are not dangerous, but that they should not be cause for mass hysteria.

Cyberterrorism

We are at risk. Increasingly, America depends on computers. They control power delivery, communications, aviation, and financial services. They are used to store vital information, from medical records to business plans to criminal records. Although we trust them, they are vulnerable - to the effects of poor design and insufficient quality control, to accident, and perhaps most alarmingly, to deliberate attack. The modern thief can steal more with a computer than with a gun. Tomorrow’s terrorist may be able to do more damage with a keyboard than with a bomb. National Research Council, “Computers at Risk” National Academy Press, 1991.

This statement was made in 1991, and now more than ten years later, this statement has an even sounder ring to it. The heavy dependency that the United States has on technology in order to maintain its normal functionality makes our technology prime targets for terrorism.

Hacking: While computer hacking may not strictly endanger lives, it can severe communication lines and economic transactions temporarily. It may even be a ploy to divert the United States and soften their defense to launch some sort of an attack.

Definition

            There is actually no clear cut definition of the word cyberterrorism. The concept of it is a premeditated attack, motivated politically, against information systems, computer systems, computer programs, or data. These attacks usually aim to bring about violence or havoc. The FBI defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

            Cyberterrorism involves a process known as hacking, which Miriam Webster defines as “gaining access to a computer illegally.” Hacking can spam the entire gamut, from trying to guess someone’s AOL screen name password, to trying to breakthrough the Pentagon’s firewall and retrieve classified information. Clearly, there is a difference in severity between lots of the hacking that goes on today, the most damaging of which falls into the terrorism category.

Enemies

            The problem with cyberterrorism is that anyone with access to a computer and the internet can begin to learn how to hack. Although hacking the most elite and precious information that the United States has is extremely tough, stories about teenagers from the Middle East hacking the Pentagon demonstrates that it is not impossible, and therein lies America’s vulnerability. Moreover, this terrorism cannot be pinned down to one country or one group of people; hacking can come from anywhere, especially from within. When a computer is hacked, beside any login information like their Internet Address, routers, and network connections used, the hacker is a faceless enemy.

Damage

            Cyberterrorism can come on innumerable forms, and therefore it is difficult to put into writing all the possibilities. However, there certainly are possibilities that stand out.

One attack that can occur is the hacking of a news site and the subsequent falsification of news; for example, on July 12, 2002, hackers broke into USA Today’s Web Site and replaced several of the newspaper’s legitimate news stories with phony articles riddled with spelling errors[13]. Though that attack was merely a prank, it brings to mind questions as to what havoc may occur if the articles had not been so clearly phony, if pieces had been crafting bellowing sensational stories about war/terrorism scares or anything for that matter that could create mass hysteria. Although some may argue that this hysteria would eventually die down, it is those pivotal moments that the nation is under confusion that other attacks (in the non cyberterrorism sense) could occur and take America off guard.

            Communications is also another big target for attack. If America’s communication systems were crippled, once again, it would take the United States a certain recovery time to get back on its feet, and it is in this down time that America could be vulnerable to more attack.

            Certainly, stealing of data is always another goal of hackers, and if terrorists can get behind complicated firewalls at places like the Pentagon or the Department of Defense, classified information could suddenly become public and leave us vulnerable.

            Finally, the strength of the United States is heavily derived from its financial superpower status, and many of the financial transactions that happen on a daily basis, be it through America’s stock exchanges or banking system, are another huge attack point for terrorists[14]. An interruption in stock exchange data could cause a worldwide panic and loss of faith in the American dollar, which could easily cause the economy to tank. Moreover, destroying the validity of data in our banking systems could cause additional internal panic and may cause people to rush to the bank to withdraw all their money, hence causing an ensuing bank system failure.

Defense

            Defense against these attacks is difficult because it is nearly impossible to predict how, when, and with what tools the next hacker may use to try to attack. The government does have a cyber-security task force that is constantly monitoring what is going on in cyberspace, but really all they can do is brainstorm possible attack methods and prepare plans to deal with such attacks. Backup systems are crucial, and thicker firewalls are necessary. Moreover, all government agencies, industry companies, and American citizens must be made aware of the vulnerabilities there are in being wired, and do their part to be vigilant and report any problems of which they become aware. Cyberterrorism is a never-ending threat, since technology is here to stay, and therefore America must do its best to minimize damage and protect itself.

Money, money, money: Economic and financial stability is something can be taken for granted. However, the new age economy is more global than ever, which means that countries rely on other countries for goods and revenues. One method to soften the United States might be an economic one; that is, the boycott of American goods or halting trade with America.

Economic Warfare

            Extraordinary efforts made by the United States aimed at remaining the world’s military powerhouse has not kept it safe. No military can fully protect a country from all harm, as the United States is beginning to realize. While it is doubtful that any other country could mount any king of successful attack on America, this fact may not be of significance.   Because the United States is so far ahead of other countries in terms of military dominion, countries have stopped trying to keep up. In other words, the United States cannot “win” any fights if no one will fight them. As an alternative, other countries are opting to improve in other areas in order to increase the power of their nation.

            In place of military power, countries, like China for example, are attempting to boost their economic status in hopes of gaining an edge over the United States.[15] While the United States the most powerful country in the world, it is not self-sufficient.   American businesses are located in foreign countries and rely heavily on international revenues. Further, the United States trades with many other countries, some to sell it products, but more to buy products from countries that can produce them cheaper. Thus, the United States needs to keep relations with other countries as good as possible, to avoid revenue losses at the international level.

            Many countries have American businesses, like Mcdonald’s, oversees that provide a significant portion of their products oversees. However, these profits can quickly decrease in the event that other countries become angry at the United States. For instance, there have been recent reports that most other countries do not agree with America’s foreign policy with Iraq. Because they obviously cannot beat America in a war, they may choose to negatively affect our economy by choosing not to buy the Big Macs at the American Mcdonald’s in their country.[16] While these actions may initially have little or no impact on the American economy, long term effects could be significant.

Solutions

            Again, the United States is in a unique position of power, prompting other countries to want to bring them down when they falter. Foreign countries can choose not to trade with America and force it to be self sufficient. The difficult thing about these potential actions is that America cannot force any country to buy our products or trade with them. To earn economic support abroad, the United States must first seek out the respect of other countries. The consumer has a choice in what he buys and will not hesitate to boycott things produced by countries or companies that have policies that they disagree with. This type of action is taken by American consumer constantly when choosing between similar products. If a company is said to, for example, be cruel to its employees, a consumer may take that into consideration when purchasing products that that business sells. If there are two products side by side in the store, barring a significant price difference, a person will have to use something to decide which product to buy.

            Economically, the United States faces a huge trade deficit. While still an economic powerhouse, this problem will only get worse if foreign consumers decide that they won’t buy American products. The United States cannot become powerful enough to overcome their economic dependency on other countries. There is no better defense from this than the improvement of relationships the other countries around the world.

Conclusion

            It is clear that the face of war that the United States is confronting in this day and age has changed significantly from the past. War is a far cry from the days of ground troops and primitive weapons technology; it has evolved into an age of weapons of mass destruction, scare tactics, terrorism, biological warfare, economic and technological attacks. It is important for the United States to cater its defense to these new threats, doing everything it can to either mollify the situation or protect itself to the best of its ability. It is by tailoring itself to a changing world that America can ensure its long term longevity and strength, securing a bright future for the generations to come.

Bibliography

Bailey, Katherine C. Director’s Series on Proliferation, Springfield, Va.: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, May 23, 1994.

Biological Warfare and Detection Capabilities. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_biologic_5jun.htm. December 4, 2002.

Deutch, John, Brown, Harold and John P. White, “National Missile Defense: Is There Another Way?” Foreign Policy, Summer 2000, pp. 91-100.

Gray, John. False Dawn: Delusions of Global Capitalism. New York: New Press, 1998.

Gearing Up for the War Against Cyberterrosim.

http://www.aushomepage.com.au/Article/616/. October 3, 2001.

Harris, Robert and Jeremy Paxman, A Higher Form of Killing, New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.

Hot Topics, Biochemical Weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/biochemicalweapons/protection.shtml, June 8, 2001.

Kyl, John. Biological Weapons: The Threat Posed by Terrorists, opening statement to the joint hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee on Terrorism and Technology, March 4, 1998.

Lusginan, Bruce. Personal comments, EDGE Section, November 5, 2002.

Lusginan, Bruce. Personal comments, EDGE Section, November 19, 2002.

National Research Council. Computers At Risk. National Academy Press, 1991.

Rodrik, Dani. "The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work." Washington, D.C.: Overseas Development Council, 1999

Salinger, Pierre. John F. Kennedy: Commander in Chief, A Profile in Leadership, New York: Gramercy Books, 2000.

Tucker, Jonathan B. Lessons of Iraq’s Biological Warfare Programme Arms Control, Dember 1993, 237.

United States Department of Defense (DOD), Office of the Secretary of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Final Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, April 1992.

USA Today’s Site Hacked.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTechNews0207/12_usatoday-ap.html. July 12, 2002.

Waters, Malcolm. Globalization. New York: Routledge, 1995

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/deployment/whohas.html

http://www.un.org/terrorism/

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/index.cfm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/jfk.essay/

http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

[1] http://www.atomicmuseum.com/index.cfm

[2] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/jfk.essay/

[3] http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/

[4] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/deployment/whohas.html

[5] Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman, A Higher Form of Killing (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), 74.

[6] Ibid 9.

[7] United States Department of Defense (DOD), Office of the Secretary of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Final Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, April 1992), 15.

[8] Jonathan B. Tucker, “Lessons of Iraq’s Biological Warfare Programme” Arms Control, December 1993, 237.

[9] Ibid, 250–59

[10] Professor Bruce Lusginan, EDGE Section 11/19/02

[11] Defense Nuclear Agency, 46.

[12] http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_biologic_5jun.htm

[13] http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTechNews0207/12_usatoday-ap.html

[14] http://www.aushomepage.com.au/Article/616/

[15] Lusginan, Bruce. Personal comments, EDGE Section, November 5, 2002.

[16]

Lusginan, Bruce. Personal comments, EDGE Section, November 5, 2002.