The author’s 1998 white paper (completed for the US Department of Defense as a result of Presidential Decision Directive 39) applied the research literature on behavioral and organizational response to outline what might occur in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. It argued that it presented the best model available and should be applied when developing mitigation, preparedness, and response plans in anticipation of possible domestic nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism.The terrorism events of September 11, 2001, have provided a basis for assessing this argument. The current article reviews the earlier argument by using updated disaster research to describe the behavioral and organizational response challenges a community or nation would likely encounter in a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Anecdotal evidence from the events of 9/11 is included to assess the efficacy of the literature as a model.
This chapter examines the title of the ATT which is covered by Article 2(1) and Article 2(2). The title of the treaty reflects the title and the mandate of UN General Assembly Resolution 64/48. Article 2(1) states that the treaty ‘shall apply to all conventional arms’ within the categories set out in that provision. Conventional arms are understood to include all arms other than weapons of mass destruction. In turn, weapons of mass destruction are usefully defined by the United States (US) Department of Defense as ‘chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon’. Article 2(2) meanwhile contains the definition of trade and transfer used in the ATT.
The Role of the Department of Defense in Domestic Weapons of Mass Destruction Consequence Management