The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction

Its always a pleasure to read a Walter Laqueur book, not only are you promised a well written book but some interesting discussions. In this book he discusses terrorism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. Something that I am sure is coming but not fortunately not yet. The problem with weapons of mass destruction is that chemical warfare is not very effective. Biological is unclear. No one has done much in it and it can effect everyone. Nuclear is probably out of the reach of a terrorist organization unless it can steal a bomb. What response would a nuclear blast give if released? Who knows? Look at the response that 911 caused. Anyway to use nuclear weapons you need a safe house to keep them. Once the authorities know you have one they will be looking for it. You also probably need a few. One to blow up to show that you have a bomb and can use it. Another to maybe use. If they use it what would be the result? Not to say a terrorist who wants a bomb is not be feared as it has been stated, "I don't fear a person that wants many nuclear bombs but I do fear the person that wants only one bomb." Interestingly Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are not mentioned at all although he was already active. The book just came out just a bit to early in 1998. One point I wished he had discussed more, is what motives would a terrorist organization have to use such weapons. Many countries today have such weapons and yet they don't use them. Maybe terrorist would be similarly affected for example before 911, the leaders of al Qaeda discussed but rejected attacking a nuclear power station as a target. The reason is that it would have a unclear result. It was seen as too dangerous. Anyway in this book we are given some interesting history and is certainly a good read.

I keep thinking I've fread a different book than the ones that other people review. The History of Terrorism is one of those books. This book was fantastic, and it suffered from few to none of the problems attributed to it below. I admit to being baffled by one other review in particular. Being fairly well versed in Baader-Meinhoff lore, and I couldn't find a single un-superficial problem with Laqueur's account of them, although I did like Laqueur's 1987 book "The Age of Terrorism" better than this book as far as the Red Army Faction goes. But these are small potato problems, and don't lead me at all to the conclusion our German friend had. I think it very significant that he did not bother to note a single "innacuracy". The other criticisms are either utterly beside the point or approaching the absurd. The worst were the spurious definitional demands. Until it was taken up by dogmatists, terrorism clearly meant non-state, irregular violence. It was only the needs of left-rhetoric that expanded the view of terrorism to include what states do, which intelligent people might think is called "war" and "repression". I can think of no reason to include The US and Isreal except for dogmatic purposes: if we were to include Isreal, why would our German friend not include Cuba? The clear answer is this is an ideological agenda and not a serious rejoinder for an expansive notion of terrorism. Essentially, the other reviewer doesn't like the US or Isreal from political contacts and is saddened from a lack of political agenda on the part of Mr. Laqueur. And if by some possibility our other reviewer friend does not mean some simple anti-American or anti-Isreali bias, then his main problem is that this book is an American writer writing from an American perspective on terrorism. Contrary to what mister Colberg believes, it is not a crime to have an American perspective. The last point is most substantive, and wqhere Mr. Laqueur is most right and his other rewviewer is most wrong- the vast majority of terrorists throughout ages have clearly been unremarkable people. This is what makes the phenomenon so interesting- the notion that terrorism is part of some corner in human nature. I give to you the 19 unremarkable folks who took down the World Trade Center as an example. I don't think our other reviewer friend realizes quite how well Joseph Conrad defined the standard terrorist or why his characterization has survived so long in the minds of people who think about terrorism. This was a fine book. Please buy it.