World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism download epub

Good read and study guide.

2016 review makes some of this dated. Book says WMD use is most likely if nothing is done by the world governments. Timeline is before 2016,so this may become dated from that aspect.

This was required reading as a study guide for a WMD regulation class I took. Great from that standpoint, and gives decent history on Chemical Weapons Convention, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and Bio Weapons Convention. Good primer for those that need to know an overview of regulations and sanctions against North Korea.

Makes the world seem pretty bleak when reading this, recommendations have been made and governments either assist terrorist states or our own politicians do the same, all in the name of making money. North Korea,Syria, and Iran have violated everything in this book. Yet we loosen money and sanctions on Iran, allow China to money launder for North Korea, and Syria is in ruin.

Good book though. An updated introduction or addendum could help this for future sales.

This dire warning from a non-partisan group predicts a 50% chance of a major terrorist incident, probably a biological attack, before 2014. This book is primarily helpful as a warning and call to action, and not as a strategy to prevent terrorism. Their warning is worth repeating verbatim: "Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used somewhere in the world by the end of 2013". Unfortunately, this scary warning is probably true, and unfortunately again, it is unlikely leading governments will act decisively to thwart this risk.

This exploratory group headed by Senator Bob Graham has done considerable homework by making numerous site visits, conducting interviews with leading experts (over 250 governmental and non-governmental thinkers), and deliberated extensively on risks. It's written in terse, business-style, with an executive summary at the front for busy officials with little time to read; the writing style is understandably bureaucratic and drab. But their conclusions are sobering. And while their main conclusion is little more than a highly educated political guess, I applaud them for this leap because I think the risk is real, and a specific conclusion of this sort was necessary to generate media attention which did happen.

Surprisingly, the panel dismissed the risk of chemical or radiological attacks since, in their view, these attacks were highly difficult to execute and unlikely to cause significant damage. Instead, they urge world governments to focus on preventing nuclear and especially biological terrorism.

Why is biological terrorism such a risk? Biotechnology has spread widely with many facilities poorly secured (security guards posing as terrorists got easy access to dangerous labs), particularly in nations like Pakistan. And while the world has experienced the catastrophes of cities devastated by a nuclear attack, there has never been a biological equivalent to Hiroshima. So perhaps large swaths of the public are not scared enough to prompt serious prevention steps by government officials.

Biological dangers are (1) disease-causing microbes such as bacteria and viruses and (2) toxins (poisonous substances). They vary in terms of infectivity or catchiness, virulence (the power to kill quickly), transmissibility (ability to hop from person to person), and persistence (how long it hangs around before ceasing to be dangerous). The worst possible bio-weapon would be highly infectious, a fast killer, especially contagious, and which lasted; luckily, few bio-weapons have all four traits. Anthrax, for example, is highly deadly and easy to grow but not contagious. Plague or smallpox, however, is highly transmissible. DNA can be synthesized; synthetic genomics mean scientists can engineer life at the molecular level. There are difficulties converting toxins and pathogens into real killers, or "weaponizing" them. In 2001, an anthrax letter attack killed several people and caused considerable economic damage (one Rutgers scientist estimated the "economic damage" from this one incident to have been $6 billion which seems exaggerated in my opinion). The worst possible biological attack? A truck spraying anthrax moving through a city might cause 328,000 exposures, 13,000 fatalities (I was not clear about their terms "untreated fatalities" versus "total casualties"). Further, world governments are not united in confronting a biological threat -- the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention mainly between the US and the USSR is not signed by nations such as Egypt, Syria, and Israel. The US shouldn't be concerned that terrorists will become biologists, but rather than biologists will become terrorists, and this provides a helpful way to concentrate meager resources. The USSR secretly violated the 1972 treaty with a facility employing up to 50,000 scientists and technicians, and this cadre of former scientists poses a particular risk.

Nuclear terrorism, as well, remains a danger, although the risk of an attack seems less likely than a biological attack, according to this study. Experts such as Sam Nunn believe the risk of a nuclear weapon being misused is climbing. While almost all nuclear bomb making material is well guarded, the amount of material has climbed from six to ten times over the past twenty years, making the logistical task of locking up large quantities of this material more difficult. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections per facility have been declining. The report agreed with recommendations by experts such as Graham Allison that it makes sense to try to keep new nations from getting nuclear weapons. Currently, the US and Russia have 95% of the world's stockpile of nuclear material. Still, nations such as Iran and North Korea have been trying to get these materials.

Understandably, the report lists a number of preventive steps which the US government can do which will help reduce the threat. But these steps all work within the current framework, and as such, are bound to failure, in my opinion, because I see the framework as being a part of the problem. Nevertheless, let me list many of their recommendations: penalize violations of the non-proliferation treaty; give access to nuclear fuel to nations that abide by the treaty; strengthen the IAEA; prevent new states from enriching uranium or plutonium; support a moratorium on nuclear testing; support cooperative nuclear security programs; have one advisor reporting to the president instead of separate NSC and HSC commands; encourage a moratorium with India & China & Pakistan; reform Congressional oversight; build a "national security workforce" for the 21st century (whatever this means -- where will the money come from?); use "soft power" to counter terrorist ideology; encourage "citizen power" meaning governments should work "openly and honestly" with citizens in a participatory approach; eliminate terror safe havens by military/economic/diplomatic means; secure nuclear & biological materials in Pakistan; counter & defeat extremist ideology; work with Russia; reduce excess stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

I have numerous difficulties with their laundry list of "strategies": it's wishful thinking, scattered suggestions based on numerous and faulty assumptions. Perhaps these suggestions are the best ones possible given America's current structure, but I think that's the problem -- America's current structure -- as I've suggested. I think America's problems are deeper, systemic, structural -- the political process is broken, government gridlocked by excessive partisanship, the foreign policy function is distorted and absurd. To speak of "citizen power" is borderline absurd, because citizenship in America is non-existent. Americans are not "citizens" but really consumers, investors, workers who belong in this entity called America, who have practically no influence on politics with the dubious exception of voting every four years for president (see Dana D. Nelson's excellent "Bad For Democracy"). Congress has rigged the rules of re-election by gerrymandering, franking privileges, and access to cash so that over 90% of incumbents are re-elected. And a big part of solving the problem of terrorism, in my view, is for Americans to regain a role in self-governance at the local level. These are major, substantive reforms requiring a Second Constitutional Convention, and under my authority as a private citizen, I have summoned this body to meet in Philadelphia at Independence Hall beginning July 4, 2009, to craft a revised Constitution.

The realistic conclusion is that by 2014, a nuclear or biological attack will happen, and these well-meaning but naive suggestions will have little effect.

I recommend readers check out tough non-partisan critiques; email me for a list (Amazon doesn't allow multiple books mentioned in their reviews.)

Thomas W. Sulcer
Author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web; google title + Sulcer)

You will need Coffee for this book.