The Pros And Cons Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Will Weapons of Mass Destruction constitute a likely prospect in the future? Terrorist attacks loom in the minds of people. The attacks on September 11, 2001 caused a riveting and escalating concern that terrorist organizations may resort to weapons of mass destruction to achieve a higher level of destruction and casualties in the future. Even though the idea of Weapons of Mass Destruction may seem inevitable to some people, I pose that it is not a likely prospect in the future due to the history of unsuccessful attempts, difficulties in the production of the weapons, and the risks and technical skills needed to accomplish the feat.
To begin, in 1996 Walter Laqueur, (as cited 1996:34) a terrorism, “top guru,” asserted that there would be “some terrorist groups ‘almost certainly’ will use weapons of mass destruction ‘in the foreseeable future’ commented Mueller (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012) (p. 84). However, that prediction was set off after the deadly gas incident in the Tokyo subway in the previous
84). Furthermore, the events of 9/11 caused more terror to emerge about the WMD, even though the “al-Qaeda terrorists used weapons no more sophisticated than box-cutters,” according to Mueller. (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012). (p. 84). At first glance, it was expected that terrorists would succeed in uncovering successful attempts in weapons of mass destruction, but evidence has pointed to the fact that, “terrorist groups thus far seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic,” maintained Mueller (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012) (p. 85). Therefore, I agree with Mueller’s statement “terrorists are likely to continue to find that a WMD attack remains exceedingly difficult to pull off,” (Jackson and Sinclair, 2012) (p.