U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Defending the U.S. Homeland: Strategic and Legal Issues for DOD and the Armed Services

NCJ Number
190335
Author(s)
Fred C. Ikle
Date Published
January 1999
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This document presents strategic and legal issues for defending the United States homeland.
Abstract
A fundamental shift in U.S. strategy against enemies has become necessary because of the continuing global spread of technology and the possible acquisition of chemical and biological weapons by other countries or terrorist organizations. The Department of Defense (DOD) is not prepared to develop, deploy, or operate a wide range of defensive measures for the protection of the homeland. The government is now addressing the possibility that terrorists might use a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) within the United States. Questions have been raised about the legal authority for U.S. military operations within the country in defense of the homeland. This poses a significant national security risk. The procedures for detecting, interdicting, or rendering harmless any clandestinely introduced WMD have not yet been developed in sufficient quantities. The primary purpose of further research and development in this area is to give the United States a mobilization capability to respond rapidly to a sudden increase in the threat. Before the threat is seen as truly imminent, the procurement of defensive systems in full quantities is not suggested because of the risk of obsolescence and the political and budgetary backing for such an undertaking might not be available. An effective way to ensure long-term funding would be to establish a biotechnology and chemical defense center. Such a center would play a role comparable with that of the nuclear laboratories at the beginning of the nuclear age. The basic difference would be the shift to a defensive strategy.