Preparedness and Environmental Hazards

3. Typical Methods of Terrorism Firearms Explosive and Incendiary Devices Chemical Agents Biological Agents Nuclear Weapons

4. Added Dimension =Environmental Terrorism� Based in deep ecology theory, the professed aim of eco-terrorists is to slow or halt exploitation of natural resources and to bring public attention to environmental issues such as unsustainable logging or wildlife habitat loss through development. Earth First! is the organization that first brought eco-terrorism to the public debate. Founded in 1980, Earth First! is known for tree-spiking in the Pacific Northwest (although they have since repudiated this tactic5), protests against old-growth logging, road building in wilderness areas, and dam construction, and many other actions. Their furor wound down under pressure from law enforcement groups and when the environmentally-friendly Clinton Administration took office, they believed that their agenda would receive positive attention6. The modern inheritor of the eco-terrorist mantle is the Environment Liberation Front (ELF), an Earth First! splinter group formed in 1993 in England. In an action purportedly aimed at saving lynx habitat, the American wing of ELF burned down a ski lodge in Vail, Colorado in October 1998, resulting in $12 million in property damage, an act ironically repudiated by Earth First! itself7. ELF made headlines in January 2001, when they set fire to newly built homes on Long Island to protest what they view as humans� unceasing encroachment on nature, and again in March 2001, when they set fire to a warehouse containing transgenic cotton seed8 and a biogenetic research facility at the University of Washington.9 Because they are decentralized and ideologically motivated, and thus extremely difficult to catch, the FBI considers ELF its No. 1 domestic terrorist threat.10 At first glance, the distinction between environmental terrorism and eco-terrorism might seem academic. However, operationally there is a significant difference. Terrorism experts have opined that in the last decade, the nature of terrorism has changed from professional, politically-motivated acts to amateur acts motivated by any number of grievances: religious, social, political, or personal2. There are well known ambiguities in defining �terrorism� and specifically �environmental terrorism.� Yet there are also real risks facing governments and the public and that an effort must be made to better understand these risks and appropriate responses. An examination of environmental terrorism adds a new dimension to these definitions, identifying the target as a natural resource or environmental feature. At a time when populations all over the world are increasing, the existing resource base is being stretched to provide for more people, and is being consumed at a faster rate. As the value and vulnerability of these resources increases, so does their attractiveness as terrorist targets. The destruction of a natural resource can now cause more deaths, property damage, political chaos, and other adverse effects than it would have in any previous decade. Based in deep ecology theory, the professed aim of eco-terrorists is to slow or halt exploitation of natural resources and to bring public attention to environmental issues such as unsustainable logging or wildlife habitat loss through development. Earth First! is the organization that first brought eco-terrorism to the public debate. Founded in 1980, Earth First! is known for tree-spiking in the Pacific Northwest (although they have since repudiated this tactic5), protests against old-growth logging, road building in wilderness areas, and dam construction, and many other actions. Their furor wound down under pressure from law enforcement groups and when the environmentally-friendly Clinton Administration took office, they believed that their agenda would receive positive attention6. The modern inheritor of the eco-terrorist mantle is the Environment Liberation Front (ELF), an Earth First! splinter group formed in 1993 in England. In an action purportedly aimed at saving lynx habitat, the American wing of ELF burned down a ski lodge in Vail, Colorado in October 1998, resulting in $12 million in property damage, an act ironically repudiated by Earth First! itself7. ELF made headlines in January 2001, when they set fire to newly built homes on Long Island to protest what they view as humans� unceasing encroachment on nature, and again in March 2001, when they set fire to a warehouse containing transgenic cotton seed8 and a biogenetic research facility at the University of Washington.9 Because they are decentralized and ideologically motivated, and thus extremely difficult to catch, the FBI considers ELF its No. 1 domestic terrorist threat.10 At first glance, the distinction between environmental terrorism and eco-terrorism might seem academic. However, operationally there is a significant difference. Terrorism experts have opined that in the last decade, the nature of terrorism has changed from professional, politically-motivated acts to amateur acts motivated by any number of grievances: religious, social, political, or personal2. There are well known ambiguities in defining �terrorism� and specifically �environmental terrorism.� Yet there are also real risks facing governments and the public and that an effort must be made to better understand these risks and appropriate responses. An examination of environmental terrorism adds a new dimension to these definitions, identifying the target as a natural resource or environmental feature. At a time when populations all over the world are increasing, the existing resource base is being stretched to provide for more people, and is being consumed at a faster rate. As the value and vulnerability of these resources increases, so does their attractiveness as terrorist targets. The destruction of a natural resource can now cause more deaths, property damage, political chaos, and other adverse effects than it would have in any previous decade.

5. Environmental Terrorism ? Eco-Terrorism � Based in deep ecology theory, the professed aim of eco-terrorists is to slow or halt exploitation of natural resources and to bring public attention to environmental issues such as unsustainable logging or wildlife habitat loss through development. Earth First! is the organization that first brought eco-terrorism to the public debate. Founded in 1980, Earth First! is known for tree-spiking in the Pacific Northwest (although they have since repudiated this tactic5), protests against old-growth logging, road building in wilderness areas, and dam construction, and many other actions. Their furor wound down under pressure from law enforcement groups and when the environmentally-friendly Clinton Administration took office, they believed that their agenda would receive positive attention6. The modern inheritor of the eco-terrorist mantle is the Environment Liberation Front (ELF), an Earth First! splinter group formed in 1993 in England. In an action purportedly aimed at saving lynx habitat, the American wing of ELF burned down a ski lodge in Vail, Colorado in October 1998, resulting in $12 million in property damage, an act ironically repudiated by Earth First! itself7. ELF made headlines in January 2001, when they set fire to newly built homes on Long Island to protest what they view as humans� unceasing encroachment on nature, and again in March 2001, when they set fire to a warehouse containing transgenic cotton seed8 and a biogenetic research facility at the University of Washington.9 Because they are decentralized and ideologically motivated, and thus extremely difficult to catch, the FBI considers ELF its No. 1 domestic terrorist threat.10 At first glance, the distinction between environmental terrorism and eco-terrorism might seem academic. However, operationally there is a significant difference. Terrorism experts have opined that in the last decade, the nature of terrorism has changed from professional, politically-motivated acts to amateur acts motivated by any number of grievances: religious, social, political, or personal2. There are well known ambiguities in defining �terrorism� and specifically �environmental terrorism.� Yet there are also real risks facing governments and the public and that an effort must be made to better understand these risks and appropriate responses. An examination of environmental terrorism adds a new dimension to these definitions, identifying the target as a natural resource or environmental feature. At a time when populations all over the world are increasing, the existing resource base is being stretched to provide for more people, and is being consumed at a faster rate. As the value and vulnerability of these resources increases, so does their attractiveness as terrorist targets. The destruction of a natural resource can now cause more deaths, property damage, political chaos, and other adverse effects than it would have in any previous decade. Based in deep ecology theory, the professed aim of eco-terrorists is to slow or halt exploitation of natural resources and to bring public attention to environmental issues such as unsustainable logging or wildlife habitat loss through development. Earth First! is the organization that first brought eco-terrorism to the public debate. Founded in 1980, Earth First! is known for tree-spiking in the Pacific Northwest (although they have since repudiated this tactic5), protests against old-growth logging, road building in wilderness areas, and dam construction, and many other actions. Their furor wound down under pressure from law enforcement groups and when the environmentally-friendly Clinton Administration took office, they believed that their agenda would receive positive attention6. The modern inheritor of the eco-terrorist mantle is the Environment Liberation Front (ELF), an Earth First! splinter group formed in 1993 in England. In an action purportedly aimed at saving lynx habitat, the American wing of ELF burned down a ski lodge in Vail, Colorado in October 1998, resulting in $12 million in property damage, an act ironically repudiated by Earth First! itself7. ELF made headlines in January 2001, when they set fire to newly built homes on Long Island to protest what they view as humans� unceasing encroachment on nature, and again in March 2001, when they set fire to a warehouse containing transgenic cotton seed8 and a biogenetic research facility at the University of Washington.9 Because they are decentralized and ideologically motivated, and thus extremely difficult to catch, the FBI considers ELF its No. 1 domestic terrorist threat.10 At first glance, the distinction between environmental terrorism and eco-terrorism might seem academic. However, operationally there is a significant difference. Terrorism experts have opined that in the last decade, the nature of terrorism has changed from professional, politically-motivated acts to amateur acts motivated by any number of grievances: religious, social, political, or personal2. There are well known ambiguities in defining �terrorism� and specifically �environmental terrorism.� Yet there are also real risks facing governments and the public and that an effort must be made to better understand these risks and appropriate responses. An examination of environmental terrorism adds a new dimension to these definitions, identifying the target as a natural resource or environmental feature. At a time when populations all over the world are increasing, the existing resource base is being stretched to provide for more people, and is being consumed at a faster rate. As the value and vulnerability of these resources increases, so does their attractiveness as terrorist targets. The destruction of a natural resource can now cause more deaths, property damage, political chaos, and other adverse effects than it would have in any previous decade.

6. Environmental Terrorism� History shows that access to resources has been a proximate cause of war, resources have been both tools and targets of war, and environmental degradation and disparity in the distribution of resources can cause major political controversy, tension, and violence.History shows that access to resources has been a proximate cause of war, resources have been both tools and targets of war, and environmental degradation and disparity in the distribution of resources can cause major political controversy, tension, and violence.

7. Environmental Terrorism Hypothesis � Environmental Change predicates social effects�.these social effects may cause instability and violent conflict Environmental Terrorism utilizes this modality Vulnerabilities to terrorism are embedded in our natural and built environments, such as�.. ~ Air � Water � Food � Agriculture � Waste ~ �Just as certain forms of infrastructure can be used as delivery vehicles for terror (such as the postal service and air transportation), water and agricultural systems and other natural structures may present threat opportunities that have not been assessed. We need to examine ways in which these vulnerabilities may affect urban and regional planning and development. Even assuming such a scenario, however, the ability of environmental extremists to proceed to the level of mass destruction remains extremely limited, lacking as they do both the resources and expertise necessary to overcome the technical hurdles associated with chemical, biological or radiological weaponisation. Constructing even a crude nuclear device would require skill and precision equipment of the sort that generally only states have access to. � Chemical weapons, while easier to construct, require enormous quantities of toxic materials (which most non-state actors neither possess nor have the ability to acquire), if they are to affect large, open areas. Although very small amounts of bacterial and viral agents may theoretically be able to kill hundreds and thousands of people, realising this in any meaningful operational sense is highly problematic, largely because microbes have to be dispersed in an aerosolised form - an expensive and technically demanding task. � Should an actual attempt be made by environmental (or animal) extremists to engage in an act of unconventional terrorism, it would almost certainly manifest itself as a limited, small-scale and possibly anonymous operation. While not as immediately threatening as a true WMD release, an assault of this sort would still retain significant psychological and coercive potential, perhaps serving just as well (in terms of provoking fear and panic) as a larger weapon or more ambitious attack with massive casualties. �Just as certain forms of infrastructure can be used as delivery vehicles for terror (such as the postal service and air transportation), water and agricultural systems and other natural structures may present threat opportunities that have not been assessed. We need to examine ways in which these vulnerabilities may affect urban and regional planning and development. Even assuming such a scenario, however, the ability of environmental extremists to proceed to the level of mass destruction remains extremely limited, lacking as they do both the resources and expertise necessary to overcome the technical hurdles associated with chemical, biological or radiological weaponisation. Constructing even a crude nuclear device would require skill and precision equipment of the sort that generally only states have access to. � Chemical weapons, while easier to construct, require enormous quantities of toxic materials (which most non-state actors neither possess nor have the ability to acquire), if they are to affect large, open areas. Although very small amounts of bacterial and viral agents may theoretically be able to kill hundreds and thousands of people, realising this in any meaningful operational sense is highly problematic, largely because microbes have to be dispersed in an aerosolised form - an expensive and technically demanding task. � Should an actual attempt be made by environmental (or animal) extremists to engage in an act of unconventional terrorism, it would almost certainly manifest itself as a limited, small-scale and possibly anonymous operation. While not as immediately threatening as a true WMD release, an assault of this sort would still retain significant psychological and coercive potential, perhaps serving just as well (in terms of provoking fear and panic) as a larger weapon or more ambitious attack with massive casualties.

8. Terrorism in an Environmental Context is Not New 14th c. � Kaffa (City on Crimean Peninsula) Hurled plague infested corpses over walls of city to infest it 18th Century French and Indian War - British Officers gave blankets from smallpox victims to Indians aligned with French The history of bioterrorism goes back a very long time. The first record of bioterrorism was 600 years ago. World-wide biologic warfare is not new. As early as the 14th century, plague infested corpses were used as weapons. Caused an epidemic in tribes Effective means of incapacitating group The history of bioterrorism goes back a very long time. The first record of bioterrorism was 600 years ago. World-wide biologic warfare is not new. As early as the 14th century, plague infested corpses were used as weapons. Caused an epidemic in tribes Effective means of incapacitating group

9. Terrorism � Environmental or Other� Terrorism is an ancient tactic. Terrorism is a mode of communication. Terrorism is a special type of violence and Asymmetrical warfare. Terrorism is used in times of peace, conflicts and war. Terrorism is designed to make a point, through psychological means, fear. Terrorism is a political act. We were surprised on Sept. 11. However, it is very important to recognize that terrorism is not new, and its primary goal is not to kill, but to communicate a message. Terrorism is a form of violence, and has been used throughout history. Terrorism most certainly has a psychological impact, and is a very powerful political act. It gets people heard. Arthur H. Garrison, How the World Changed: a History of the Development of Terrorism, presented at Delaware criminal Justice Council Annual Retreat, Oct 28-29, 2001 http://www.state.de.us/cjc/history.ppt We were surprised on Sept. 11. However, it is very important to recognize that terrorism is not new, and its primary goal is not to kill, but to communicate a message. Terrorism is a form of violence, and has been used throughout history. Terrorism most certainly has a psychological impact, and is a very powerful political act. It gets people heard. Arthur H. Garrison, How the World Changed: a History of the Development of Terrorism, presented at Delaware criminal Justice Council Annual Retreat, Oct 28-29, 2001 http://www.state.de.us/cjc/history.ppt

10. Anthropology supports that: Mankind is a herd animal Highly social Congregates in large units This creates an ideal environment for: spread of diseases asymmetrical warfare In ecological terms, mankind is a herd animal. Like many other species, we are highly social and tend to congregate into large units. Such congregations provide ideal environments for the spread of herd diseases, that is, microorganisms which rely on such high-density populations in order to spread. These pathogens rely on the mathematical fact that, once they've infected one organism, there will be a sufficient set of others nearby to infect as well. In this fashion the pathogen can spread and not die out with its host. From the viewpoint of the virus or bacteria, it's a statistical issue. Such situations can be very precisely modeled. For example, computer simulations indicate that measles requires a population of at least 10,000 people living within a few square miles, in order to be viable. A population less than that would be insufficient, resulting in the eventual extinction of the virus. Therefore, before the dawn of civilization humans suffered relatively little from epidemic disease. Since our population was low and dispersed, there was insufficient environmental kindling in which to start the fires of an epidemic. Further, given Homo sapiens was a relatively rare animal, few pathogens had yet bothered to adapt themselves to our species. So not only did our lack of population prevent large-scale infectious disease, but there were few candidate pathogens that could even make the attempt. From the standpoint of epidemic disease, we simply weren't worth it yet. This is not to say that prehistoric man had an easy life, or was never exposed to illness. Certainly insect-born diseases often afflicted some individuals. And it was always possible to get a one-off infection from an animal source. For example, rabies contracted via animal bite has certainly been with humanity from the beginning, given that rabies is a very ancient virus linked to a variety of mammals. But the specific herd diseases, those that relied on the proximity of larger populations, did not yet exist for mankind. Thus virtually all the diseases we take as given, ranging from the common cold to measles to smallpox did not exist until fairly recent times. In ecological terms, mankind is a herd animal. Like many other species, we are highly social and tend to congregate into large units. Such congregations provide ideal environments for the spread of herd diseases, that is, microorganisms which rely on such high-density populations in order to spread. These pathogens rely on the mathematical fact that, once they've infected one organism, there will be a sufficient set of others nearby to infect as well. In this fashion the pathogen can spread and not die out with its host. From the viewpoint of the virus or bacteria, it's a statistical issue. Such situations can be very precisely modeled. For example, computer simulations indicate that measles requires a population of at least 10,000 people living within a few square miles, in order to be viable. A population less than that would be insufficient, resulting in the eventual extinction of the virus. Therefore, before the dawn of civilization humans suffered relatively little from epidemic disease. Since our population was low and dispersed, there was insufficient environmental kindling in which to start the fires of an epidemic. Further, given Homo sapiens was a relatively rare animal, few pathogens had yet bothered to adapt themselves to our species. So not only did our lack of population prevent large-scale infectious disease, but there were few candidate pathogens that could even make the attempt. From the standpoint of epidemic disease, we simply weren't worth it yet. This is not to say that prehistoric man had an easy life, or was never exposed to illness. Certainly insect-born diseases often afflicted some individuals. And it was always possible to get a one-off infection from an animal source. For example, rabies contracted via animal bite has certainly been with humanity from the beginning, given that rabies is a very ancient virus linked to a variety of mammals. But the specific herd diseases, those that relied on the proximity of larger populations, did not yet exist for mankind. Thus virtually all the diseases we take as given, ranging from the common cold to measles to smallpox did not exist until fairly recent times.

11. Population Explosion : Population growth increased through history Often in ecological areas ill-suited for maintaining large populations. Environmental degradation increased at a similar exponential rate � Ecological Disruption & Population Growth: �.An engine of epidemic illness ��.Evolution is the Fuel �.Can modern terrorism provide the Ignition? Driven by a historic upsurge in technology, improved food sources and a basic scientific understanding on how to deal with disease, human populations swelled. From just 1 billion in 1800, populations grew to 2 billion in 1940, to 3 billion by 1970, to 6 billion by 2000. Much of this growth was in ecological areas ill-suited for maintaining large populations. And throughout the world the environmental degradation increased at a similar exponential rate. Forests vanished, deserts spread, agricultural land grew increasingly impoverished and fisheries collapsed. Mankind kept ahead of this negative curve through increasing inputs of technology and capital. Like the tuna fish - which is warm blooded so that it can swim faster, and swims faster so that it get enough oxygen to keep it warm blooded - Homo sapiens found itself on a technological treadmill, just one step ahead of contracting environmental constraints. Even so, among most people there was, and is, great confidence. After all, we've come this far, haven't we? Hasn't technology always saved us? Isn't the direction of the future ever-upward? Such people are not aware of history. Nor are they aware of how deeply embedded and dependent mankind is on the environment. Already the warning signs are apparent. As in the past, ecological dislocation and population growth are the two great engines of epidemic illness. Thus as mankind's herd increases and as the environment deteriorates, pathogens increase in novelty and virulence. Already, public health is going backwards for large proportions of the world's population, as infectious diseases reassert their historic dominance. Already, new epidemics, such as AIDS, are making their mark on our ever-upward future. Already, old diseases thought defeated, such as smallpox, are casting dark shadows on daily headlines. And then, for the ultimate irony, man's technology itself is being turned against him in the form of genetically engineered pathogens specifically designed to cause his extinction. One way or another, new and extraordinarily lethal plagues are heading in mankind's direction. This is what history teaches. This new century will be indeed by pivotal and historic for humanity. But not in the way most people envision. Driven by a historic upsurge in technology, improved food sources and a basic scientific understanding on how to deal with disease, human populations swelled. From just 1 billion in 1800, populations grew to 2 billion in 1940, to 3 billion by 1970, to 6 billion by 2000. Much of this growth was in ecological areas ill-suited for maintaining large populations. And throughout the world the environmental degradation increased at a similar exponential rate. Forests vanished, deserts spread, agricultural land grew increasingly impoverished and fisheries collapsed. Mankind kept ahead of this negative curve through increasing inputs of technology and capital. Like the tuna fish - which is warm blooded so that it can swim faster, and swims faster so that it get enough oxygen to keep it warm blooded - Homo sapiens found itself on a technological treadmill, just one step ahead of contracting environmental constraints. Even so, among most people there was, and is, great confidence. After all, we've come this far, haven't we? Hasn't technology always saved us? Isn't the direction of the future ever-upward? Such people are not aware of history. Nor are they aware of how deeply embedded and dependent mankind is on the environment. Already the warning signs are apparent. As in the past, ecological dislocation and population growth are the two great engines of epidemic illness. Thus as mankind's herd increases and as the environment deteriorates, pathogens increase in novelty and virulence. Already, public health is going backwards for large proportions of the world's population, as infectious diseases reassert their historic dominance. Already, new epidemics, such as AIDS, are making their mark on our ever-upward future. Already, old diseases thought defeated, such as smallpox, are casting dark shadows on daily headlines. And then, for the ultimate irony, man's technology itself is being turned against him in the form of genetically engineered pathogens specifically designed to cause his extinction. One way or another, new and extraordinarily lethal plagues are heading in mankind's direction. This is what history teaches. This new century will be indeed by pivotal and historic for humanity. But not in the way most people envision.

12. � Ecological Disruption ? Population Convergence ? Population Growth ? Social Conflict ? Evolving pathogens ? �.An engine of epidemic illness ��.Evolution is the Fuel �.Can modern terrorism provide the Ignition? Driven by a historic upsurge in technology, improved food sources and a basic scientific understanding on how to deal with disease, human populations swelled. From just 1 billion in 1800, populations grew to 2 billion in 1940, to 3 billion by 1970, to 6 billion by 2000. Much of this growth was in ecological areas ill-suited for maintaining large populations. And throughout the world the environmental degradation increased at a similar exponential rate. Forests vanished, deserts spread, agricultural land grew increasingly impoverished and fisheries collapsed. Mankind kept ahead of this negative curve through increasing inputs of technology and capital. Like the tuna fish - which is warm blooded so that it can swim faster, and swims faster so that it get enough oxygen to keep it warm blooded - Homo sapiens found itself on a technological treadmill, just one step ahead of contracting environmental constraints. Even so, among most people there was, and is, great confidence. After all, we've come this far, haven't we? Hasn't technology always saved us? Isn't the direction of the future ever-upward? Such people are not aware of history. Nor are they aware of how deeply embedded and dependent mankind is on the environment. Already the warning signs are apparent. As in the past, ecological dislocation and population growth are the two great engines of epidemic illness. Thus as mankind's herd increases and as the environment deteriorates, pathogens increase in novelty and virulence. Already, public health is going backwards for large proportions of the world's population, as infectious diseases reassert their historic dominance. Already, new epidemics, such as AIDS, are making their mark on our ever-upward future. Already, old diseases thought defeated, such as smallpox, are casting dark shadows on daily headlines. And then, for the ultimate irony, man's technology itself is being turned against him in the form of genetically engineered pathogens specifically designed to cause his extinction. One way or another, new and extraordinarily lethal plagues are heading in mankind's direction. This is what history teaches. This new century will be indeed by pivotal and historic for humanity. But not in the way most people envision. Driven by a historic upsurge in technology, improved food sources and a basic scientific understanding on how to deal with disease, human populations swelled. From just 1 billion in 1800, populations grew to 2 billion in 1940, to 3 billion by 1970, to 6 billion by 2000. Much of this growth was in ecological areas ill-suited for maintaining large populations. And throughout the world the environmental degradation increased at a similar exponential rate. Forests vanished, deserts spread, agricultural land grew increasingly impoverished and fisheries collapsed. Mankind kept ahead of this negative curve through increasing inputs of technology and capital. Like the tuna fish - which is warm blooded so that it can swim faster, and swims faster so that it get enough oxygen to keep it warm blooded - Homo sapiens found itself on a technological treadmill, just one step ahead of contracting environmental constraints. Even so, among most people there was, and is, great confidence. After all, we've come this far, haven't we? Hasn't technology always saved us? Isn't the direction of the future ever-upward? Such people are not aware of history. Nor are they aware of how deeply embedded and dependent mankind is on the environment. Already the warning signs are apparent. As in the past, ecological dislocation and population growth are the two great engines of epidemic illness. Thus as mankind's herd increases and as the environment deteriorates, pathogens increase in novelty and virulence. Already, public health is going backwards for large proportions of the world's population, as infectious diseases reassert their historic dominance. Already, new epidemics, such as AIDS, are making their mark on our ever-upward future. Already, old diseases thought defeated, such as smallpox, are casting dark shadows on daily headlines. And then, for the ultimate irony, man's technology itself is being turned against him in the form of genetically engineered pathogens specifically designed to cause his extinction. One way or another, new and extraordinarily lethal plagues are heading in mankind's direction. This is what history teaches. This new century will be indeed by pivotal and historic for humanity. But not in the way most people envision.

13. Environmental Health Professionals - Modern Sentries to Global Threats Since WMDs are still extremely difficult to obtain and deploy successfully, terrorists may increase their destructive potential by directing conventional methods against environmental targets, where they are likely to cause more human health and economic damage with less risk to themselves. Since WMDs are still extremely difficult to obtain and deploy successfully, terrorists may increase their destructive potential by directing conventional methods against environmental targets, where they are likely to cause more human health and economic damage with less risk to themselves.

14.  Secret deficiencies, or deficiencies that do not compel public outrage, will remain deficiencies because there is no constituency able to demand political action. As stated at the beginning, policy about intelligence in America has not changed, nor do any of the other nations yet seem serious about innovation within or among intelligence entities. We must educate the people quickly, or see enough of them die soon so as to inspire change. Ethics and intelligence are at an all-time low because threats have out-paced bureaucracies. Secret deficiencies, or deficiencies that do not compel public outrage, will remain deficiencies because there is no constituency able to demand political action. As stated at the beginning, policy about intelligence in America has not changed, nor do any of the other nations yet seem serious about innovation within or among intelligence entities. We must educate the people quickly, or see enough of them die soon so as to inspire change. Ethics and intelligence are at an all-time low because threats have out-paced bureaucracies.