A Brief Overview of Terrorism Since the 1970s

Transnational Crime and Terrorism

Aug 9, 2009

Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction have changed from time to time and with some of the profound political changes since the 1970s.

Before 9/11

The Americans did not believe there to be much threat of attacks in the USA despite previous attacks on their interests and forces abroad and even FBI reports played down the risks. The theme of weapons of mass destruction has certainly being topical in recent years but mainly in relation to their potential development or use by states such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as opposed to terrorist organisations.

In Western Europe terrorist organisations such as the IRA and the Basque separatists ETA have tended to target police and security forces or their civilian contractors. Their attacks were aimed at gaining or forcing concessions from the British or Irish and Spanish governments respectively. During the' Long War' with Britain, the IRA found that attacks that resulted in higher civilian casualties such as those at Guildford or Birmingham did not promote their cause but only strengthened the resolve of the British government. Not every nationalist movement has been prepared to compromise and some have combined armed struggle with religious or political fanaticism. A prime example would be the Chechen rebels that have been fighting for independence from Russia since 1991. Despite the best efforts of Presidents Yeltsin and Putin they have not been defeated and have carried out large-scale terror attacks that had killed up to 300 people in Moscow.

In marked contrast is the mentality of Islamic inspired groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas that are virulently anti-Western, and anti-Israeli and resisted Israeli occupation in Lebanon and Palestine. Hamas and Hizbollah may have rocket and suicide attacks but did obtain weapons of mass destruction. They view their struggle as a jihad that must be continued. However most notably of all, there is Al Qaeda that aims to carry out the most deadly attacks possible with the most destructive weapons at their disposal. These groups will often carry out deadly suicide bombings whether on the World Trade Center with jet airliners, on packed buses in Israel or on US led coalition forces in Iraq. These attacks have proved particularly effective, destructive, and deadly.

One must not doubt that Al Qaeda would use chemical or nuclear weapons of mass destruction if it were able to obtain them. It must be remembered that bin Laden is not interested in compromise or achieving objectives but only in total victory or getting vanquished in the attempt. It is the concept of jihad or armed struggle that fires these groups and aids their recruitment of fighters / terrorists but their capabilities are enhanced by financial support, use of technology and training facilities.

As September 11 proved it can be easier to obtain control of jet airliners and crash them into buildings than producing or obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Why bother with the relatively high cost of developing weapons of mass destruction when bombs and suicide bombers are a cheaper more readily available alternative? For the deaths of 19 suicide bombers Al Qaeda managed to destroy the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon and unleash the deadliest assault the United States had ever suffered.

A smaller scale attack with a bomb in a van had killed six people in February 1993 but had not caused any major damage to the Twin Towers themselves. Although the World Trade Center was designed to withstand being hit by a jet airliner in an accident, despite the Pentagon being protected from bomb blasts those safeguards turned out to be inadequate.

Conversely instead of worrying about terror organisations using weapons of mass destruction it would be more beneficial to reduce the scope, funding and membership of these groups were possible and cutting off all potential sources or components for weapons of mass destruction. This has been a strategy used in the past with some success, but that depends upon the commitment of the particular terrorist groups to their armed struggle and the means they are prepared to use to further that cause. Given the technological ability of some of these groups it would not be difficult for them to produce their own weapons of mass destruction if they can get hold of all the parts needed.

Of as much importance of the power of conventional or weapons of mass destruction can be the timing of their use and the threat of further attacks. For instance the attacks on Madrid in March 2004 were intended not only to kill as many commuters as possible but also cause as much damage to the Spanish government in the week of a general election. As a result of the bombs 200 people died. And one that did not support it replaced the Spanish government that supported the invasion of Iraq. Thus weakening the coalition against Al Qaeda.

Baxter J & Downing, M. The Day That Shook The World Understanding September 11th (2001) BBC News, London

Eatwell, R. & Wright, A. Contemporary Political Ideologies (2003) 2nd Edition, Continuum, London

Service, R. A History of Modern Russia – From Nicholas II to Putin (2003) New Edition, Penguin Books, London

The copyright of the article A Brief Overview of Terrorism Since the 1970s in Global Security is owned by Barry Vale. Permission to republish A Brief Overview of Terrorism Since the 1970s in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.