Abstract
Since weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are typically thought of as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons, the designation of conventional bombings as WMD terrorism under US law has generated controversy and can affect how policymakers plan for future attacks. Using quantitative data on terrorist attacks, federal planning documents, and the academic literature, we argue that placing the conventional terrorist bombings in the same legal category as CBRN terrorism confuses two distinct terrorist threats with different risks of occurrence, casualty profiles, consequences, and emergency response requirements. We explore the logical and practical reasons why such threat conflation could create policy problems. We conclude that the current definition of WMD terrorism under US law that aggregates conventional terrorist bombings with CBRN terrorism should be revised.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
