One of the biggest security issues that the U.S. has to deal with is asymmetrical warfare. Our focus was on nation state fighting nation state in the last century but in the last few decades we have been dealing with attacks by organizations or lone individuals. This makes responding to attacks more difficult because we don’t necessarily have a readily identifiable foe in a known geographic location to counter attack. We are constantly debating proper ways of dealing with such attacks and one big problem is matching our response to the level of attack. If the attackers are dug in in civilian areas, there is a big problem of collateral damage and the death of bystanders if we use the full power of our military.
Evolution of weaponry has also aggravated the problem. With the development of every more powerful weapons we are now at a point where a single person can bring down a passenger plane or blow up a building. High capacity magazines in assault rifles allow individuals to kill dozens of people in minutes. Chemical weapons deployed by individuals could threaten thousands and biological weapons could threaten millions.
Perhaps the most serious scenario is one in which a single individual obtains and detonates a nuclear bomb. I have spent a lot of time in this blog discussing big nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles. However, a lot of research and development has been done on tactical nuclear weapons in the kiloton range that could be deployed by small teams or even single soldiers on a battle field. A series of small nuclear missiles as well as nuclear mortar shells have been designed and, in cases built.
Some work has been done on what have been called suitcase nukes. This would be a nuclear bomb small enough for one person to carry. The U.S. and Soviet Union develop nuclear bombs that one person could carry in a special backpack. There are reports that Israel has created nuclear bombs that could fit into a suitcase. This type of nuclear weapon has been popular in movies, television and novels because it would be so difficult if not impossible to defend against. What we have is the prospect that one person could bring such a bomb into a densely populated area and kill hundreds of thousands of people. This is scenario is perhaps the culmination of asymmetrical warfare.
I have never been a fan of Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia. Although touted as a brilliant legal scholar by the Bush administration, I find his grasp of the Constitution weak, his legal reasoning confused and his recall of history often mistaken. On the bench and in his written opinions he is arrogant, sarcastic, and vicious against those who disagree with him. The reason that I mention Scalia is that in a recent discussion of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, he said that obviously it was referring to personal weapons and did not extend to such things as cannons, mortars and artillery pieces. Then he said, on the other hand, there are shoulder fired rocket launchers that could bring down planes. They did fall into the category of personal weapons and would have to considered and debated. Not sure if he was serious or just thinking out loud. However, in the current debate over the Second Amendment, some of the extremists admit that they want to own enough power weapons and ammunition to take on the U.S. Federal government. I am afraid that some of them would love to get their hands on a suitcase nuke.
(BTW, I feature suitcase nukes in the novel that I am currently writing – Tripod of Saints.)
Container to carry the U.S. Mk-54 Special Atomic Demolition Munition:
