It is understandable that Americans focus their attention on the Middle East. The media supplies a daily stream of news about America’s continued war with the Islamic State, or ISIS. And the recent attacks in Europe and San Bernardino, have made terrorism a major issue in this year’s election, whether initiated by Jihadists recruited from at home or abroad.
Poll numbers at the end of last year suggested that a majority of Americans think that President Obama is not taking the threat from ISIS seriously enough. They believe that an overwhelming use of force would end the threat. Indeed, a more recent poll suggested that a plurality of those questioned believe the United States is losing the war on terrorism.
But is this where Americans should be focusing their attention if they are looking for large-scale threats? As someone who studies security issues, I believe that a recent cluster of events—North Korea’s missile and nuclear tests, China’s uncharacteristic reaction and the comments of G7 officials—provides us with some clues.
Existential Threats Must Be … Well, Existential
The fact is that ISIS does not pose what has fashionably been termed an “existential” threat to the United States.
The word existential is increasingly used by politicians and analysts with little regard for its meaning beyond a large-scale threat. But Ted Bromund, a foreign policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, offers this more comprehensive definition:
An existential threat is one that would deprive the United States of its sovereignty under the Constitution, would threaten the territorial integrity of the United States or the safety within U.S. borders of large numbers of Americans, or would pose a manifest challenge to U.S. core interests abroad in a way that would compel an undesired and unwelcome change in our freely chosen ways of life at home.
Clearly, Jihadism as an ideology can’t do that to Americans. And despite the recent concerns expressed by President Obama, there is little chance that groups like ISIS can detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States.
Even the admittedly terrifying release of a dirty bomb wouldn’t kill casualties on a massive scale. As the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission succinctly phrased it,
A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.
The Very Long Struggle With North Korea
The American public, particularly Republican voters, may continue to focus attention on terrorism, but they should be focusing their attention on developments in North Korea. Arguably, the events unfolding there far more threatening.
The United States has a long and violent history of struggle with North Korea, dating back to the bloody war that took place in the early 1950s and cost 36,574 American lives.
