Sociology

The collapse in 1991 of the largest Communist block, the USSR, and its disintegration into several states was welcome news for the United States and other anti-Communist states all over the world. The break-up however presented a great challenge which many states had not foreseen. In its heydays, the USSR had produced nuclear weapons which were positioned in the modern-day Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. The U.S. helped return most of the nuclear weapons and material to Russia which had the infrastructure to protect the weapons from terrorists and middlemen who could steal the material and sell it to terrorist organizations. International terrorist organizations including the AlQaeda and the Taliban have loudly expressed their desire to access and use nuclear weapons on their enemies, and there are strong fears that such groups will actually use these weapons should they get enough material to produce a nuclera weapon. This paper discusses some possible mitigation measures which can reduce or prevent the impact of nuclear attacks, and challenges to the implementation of these mitigation measures.

Mitigation measures to prevent or redce impact on nuclear attacks
A most important mitigation meansure is the acquisition and use of information technology to prevent attacks before they occur (OHanlon, 2002). Continuous collection, analysis and sharing of information across countries would make it easy to follow the movements of terrorists to prevent their access to nuclear materials, weapons, and potential targets.

Closely related to the collection and use of information technology is the need to strengthen investigative and law enforcement agencies to facilitate the work. National and interational security agencies including the Interpol, Europol and the FBI should be strengthened and allocated more resources to ensure that they are able to keep up with or to outpace the terrorists. This would ensure that nuclear attacks are arrested before they are launched.

The destruction or disposition of nuclear weapons which are no longer needed would reduce chances of terrorists acquiring the weapons. The fewer nuclear weapons there are, the lower the chances of the weapons landing into the hands of terrorists. Excess weapons should thus be dismantled and put to safer use or disposed.

Government policies are important in regulating and controlling the entry of aliens into countries. Good immigration rules and proper enforcement of the same ensures that terrorist elements are arrested at the entry points or they do not attempt to enter the potential target states for fear of arrest.

The construction of stronger buildings which are more resistant to explosions can reduce the impact of a terrorist attack. While it may be too expensive too bring down existing buildings, building codes can be revised to ensure that new buildings are constructed to resist as much of the impact as possible. Stadiums, arenas and other structures frequented by large numbers of people, and which may be prime choices for terrorists should be tough.

The construction of better-protected structures for the storage of nuclear weapons is crucial to minimizing chances of terrorists accessing weapons or nuclear material. Reducing the number of storage sites for such weapons also makes it easier to protect the weapons. For instance, Russia has reduced the number of such sites to 100 from 600 in 1989 (Holdren, 1996).

To eliminate chances of terrorist using force to steal nuclear weapons and material during transit from one storage site to another, states need to use armoured vehicles and water vessels which can resist gunfire and violent collisions. The presence of armed guards also discourages attacks and thus prevent terrorist from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Barriers to implementation of mitigation strategies
An important barrier to the implementation of the mitigation measures is the financial cost of the implementation. Bringing down tall buildings to build stronger ones, building new storage facilities for nuclear weapons, transporting the weapons from the old sites and providing sufficient security in new storage sites and during transit are all undertakings which can cost billions of USA dollars to implement, and may therefore not be top priority for some countries (OHanlon, 2002).

Suspicion among states and countries which should be working together to combat terrorism hinders the sharing of crucial security information which would help in pre-empting an attack. For instance, Russia and the United States, though seemingly working together to keep the world safe from nuclear attacks, are deeply suspicious of each other and may therefore keep from each other information which would be crucial to anti-terror efforts.

Strategies to overcome these barriers
Wealthy countries such as the United States, Britain and Germany should give financial and technological support to less endowed countries whose inability to fund anti-terrorism machinery makes them more prone to attacks. The U.S. for instance, has supported Russia to the tune of millions of dollars, support which has made the entire world, and not jjust Russia, safer.

Bringing down the walls of suspicion between countries is most challenging because many countries are unwilling to share some of information for national security concerns. Most concerns may be unwilling tosome of their weaknesses known to other countries. Attempts towards reducing these suspicions can be made through the establishment of regional security agencies whose jurisdiction empowers them to collect and share information from the entire regions. Member countries are therefore assured that while they are giving away some crucial security information, they too receive information from the other members. Free exchange of information will gradually reduce the inter-state suspicions.

Effectiveness of the Europol
The European Police Office is an international police organization established in the European Union. The Counter-Terrorism Task Force is one wing of the Europol and was created following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S (Deflem, 2006). While the Europal has the advantage of having wider support base and source of information which is crucial to counter-terrorism mechanisms, Europol may not become as efficient as the system developed in the U.S. There can be no denying that although member states of the EU share their need for better a economic, security and political future. However, each of these countries pursues its own political and security agenda at the national level. Political differences are therefore sure to affect the operations of the Europol. The wealthier European nations such as Britain are also unlikely to reveal much security information to Europol while the poorer states may be suspicious of the wealthier states.

Conclusion
The fight against terrorism can only be won if countries combine their efforts and focus them on combating the problem. They however have to scale the myriad of problems standing in the way of victory against terrorists. The success of the counter-terrorism is heavily pegged on the willingness of interested countries to contribute as much as they can to the effort.