Terrorist Attack: Consequences

Terrorism has obvious direct impacts on human life, but it also has lasting implications on international politics, civil liberties, and the economy.

Some scholars theorize that the next terrorist attack will be more devastating, Professor Yonah Alexander has described the modern era to be one of "Super Terrorism" with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons available for the use of terrorists. Others such as Amy Smithson of the Stimson Center have argued against the validity of claims of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), saying that effective nuclear and biological are too complicated for terrorists to construct and disperse.

Some scholars theorize that the next terrorist attack will be more devastating.

The last major terrorist attack on the United States, the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, has shaped United State’s foreign policy and global politics in almost every aspect. Its War on Terrorism is the controversial direct response to the attacks. Some have theorized that an attack on the United States with WMDs described above will result in nuclear retaliation "on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries."

The "pendulum swing" phenomenon describes the constant trade off and delicate balance between national security and civil liberties.

In times of war, civil liberties are often curtailed. In the Post-9/11 world, the United States government overwhelmingly passed the now controversial USA PATRIOT Act, which includes provisions for "Sneak and Peek" (delaying notice of the execution of a warrant) and increased authority to search electronic communications records. The “pendulum swing” phenomenon describes the constant trade off and delicate balance between national security and civil liberties.

Finally, terrorist attacks could have potentially devastating impacts on the global economy. Terrorist attacks hurt business confidence and stunts investment growth. The September 11 attack contributed to the U.S. recession of 2001. Further, a major attack in midtown Manhattan on a typical workday can inflict more than US$1 trillion in damage.

Sources Consulted

Sources

  • Art, Robert. "Grand Strategy for America." 2003. Cornell University.
  • Bunn, Matthew. "Preventing a Nuclear 9/11." Science and Technology, Vol. 21, Iss. 2. Winter 2005. Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  • Chomsky, Noam. "The Resort to Force." 19 Sept. 2004. Global Policy Forum. <http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0919force.htm>.
  • Easterbrook, Gregg. "AMERICA'S NEW WAR: NUCLEAR THREATS." CNN. 2 Nov. 2001. <http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html>.
  • Frost, Robin. "An Assessment of the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism," Canadian American Strategic Review. October 2003. <http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-frost1.htm>
  • Lynch, Timothy. "Breaking the Vicious Cycle, Preserving Our Liberties While Fighting Terrorism." Cato Institute. 26 June 2002. <http://cato.org>.
  • "Patterns of Global Terrorism." 29 Apr. 2004. U.S. Department of State. 12 Mar. 2006 <http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31711.htm>.
  • Smithson, Amy E. "Frequently Asked Questions: Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons," Henry L. Stimson Center. <http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB2001121259>
  • "The 9-11 Commission Report." GPO Access. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html>.
  • Whitehead, John and Steven Aden. "'ENDURING FREEDOM' FOR 'HOMELAND SECURITY': A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES," American University Law Review. 51 Am. U. L. Rev. 1081. 2002.
  • Wu, Gordon. "Quantitative Terrorism Risk Assessment." Risk Management Solutions. 2002. Risk Management Solutions, Ltd. 11 Mar. 2006 C.