Surgical Strikes

Result. Successful surgical strike across the Line of Control, terrorist bases neutralised (Indian claim). Skirmishes along the Line of Control, Line of Control not crossed by Indian troops (Pakistani claim). Start ofBelligerents.(Indian claim)(Indian claim)(Indian claim).Commanders and leaders(Director-General of Military Operations)UnknownGen.Malik Zafar IqbalUnits involved.UnknownCasualties and losses1–2 wounded (Indian claim) 8 killed (Pakistan claim)35–70 killed (Indian claim)None Killed (Pakistan claim)2 killed, 9 wounded (Pakistani claim)2–9 killed (Indian claim).

This clinical surgical strike was conducted by Israel’s Defense Force and it was a hostage rescue mission in Entebbe airport of Uganda. This strike was carried by almost 100 Israeli commandos in the year 1976 to save the hostages when Air France’s plane was hijacked and Ugandan leader, Idi Amin did nothing to rescue them, so in that case, IDF had to step in. Surgical strikes are military operations undertaken by forces across the world to move on the offensive, hit enemy targets and installations, and return to primary positions - all with lightening.

Border skirmishes. Strikes.On 29 September 2016, India announced that it conducted ' against militant launch pads across the in Pakistani-administered, and inflicted 'significant casualties'. Indian media reported the casualty figures variously from 35 to 70. Partial footage of the strikes was released to the Indian media on 27 June 2018 as proof to the strike.Pakistan rejected India's claim, and instead claimed that Indian troops did not cross the Line of Control and had only skirmished with Pakistani troops at the border, resulting in the deaths of two Pakistani soldiers and nine wounded. Pakistan rejected India's reports of any other casualties. Pakistani sources reported that at least 8 Indian soldiers were killed in the exchange, and one was captured. India confirmed that one of its soldiers was in Pakistani custody, but denied that it was linked to the incident or that any of its soldiers had been killed.

Pakistan said India was hiding its casualties.Media outlets noted that the details regarding the 'attack' were still unclear. Earlier that month, four at on 18 September in the Indian state of, and killed 19 soldiers. India's announcement of the claimed raid on 29 September marked the first time that the government had publicly acknowledged its forces crossing the Line of Control, amidst skepticism and disputing accounts.

In the succeeding days and months, India and Pakistan continued to exchange fires along the border in Kashmir, resulting in dozens of military and civilian casualties on both the sides. Contents.Background On 18 September 2016, a was made by four armed militants on an army base near the town of. Nineteen Indian Army soldiers were killed. India accused, a Pakistan-based terrorist organisation. Having come after similar fidayeen attacks in and, the Uri attack gave rise to high degree of concern in India.

The following day, the Indian army said that it had displayed considerable restraint in the wake of the attacks, but it reserved the right to respond 'at the time and place of our own choosing'.The Guardian said that Indian patience had run out due to Pakistan's inaction in curbing the activities of terrorist organisations such as. On 21 September, India summoned the Pakistan High Commission Abdul Bassit and gave a protest letter detailing the involvement of a terrorist group based in Pakistan. Pakistan later said that India had provided no evidence that the Uri attack was launched from Pakistan. Pakistan's defence minister suggested that India had carried out the Uri attack to deflect attention from the popular protests in. The Hindustan Times reported that the minister's comments made up an 'inflection point', after which India decided to respond militarily.Indian officials said that the cross-border infiltration across the had surged since the unrest began in Kashmir. The persons crossing the border showed evidence of military training.

According to a government source close to Home Minister, a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security was held on 24 September, at which 'broad details of targeting terrorists' were discussed. Surgical strikes On 29 September, eleven days after the Uri attack, the conducted surgical strikes against suspected militants in. Lt Gen, Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), said that it had received 'very credible and specific information' about 'terrorist teams' who were preparing to 'carry out infiltration and conduct terrorist strikes inside Jammu and Kashmir and in various metros in other states'. The Indian action was meant to pre-empt their infiltration.

India presented its operation as preemptive self-defence against terrorism, striking against terrorist infrastructure along with 'those who are trying to support them.' Columnist Ankit Panda thought the latter included Pakistani soldiers or the elements of Pakistani state. On 30 September, Indian minister for information and broadcasting said that there had been no aerial strikes and that the operation had been conducted 'on the ground'.Ranbir Singh said that his Pakistani counterpart had been informed.

The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications discussed only the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.Pakistan denied that such surgical strikes occurred. The said that there had been only 'cross border firing'. But, Pakistan Prime Minister condemned the 'unprovoked and naked aggression of Indian forces', and said that Pakistani military was capable of thwarting any attacks by India.UN Secretary General said that the in Pakistani Kashmir did not directly observe any 'firing across the Line of Control' relating to the incident.

The Indian envoy at UN dismissed this statement, saying 'facts on the ground do not change whether somebody acknowledges or not.' Analyst Sandeep Singh, writing in The Diplomat, said that the operation is better characterised as a cross-border raid because 'surgical strikes' involve striking deep into the enemy territory and typically using air power.

Shaun Snow writing in The Diplomat questioned whether India had the capacity to conduct a 'surgical strike', noting that Pakistan has a very comprehensive and modern air defence system. A cross border raid, if it occurred 1 km into Pakistani administered territory, is routine on either side with over a dozen incidents having occurred both ways, and does not qualify as a 'surgical strike' which by definition requires deep striking and air power as Sandeep Singh, cited earlier, attests to.Indian version Indian officials said the strike targeted areas close to the Line of Control (LoC), where it believes militants congregate for their final briefings before sneaking across the LoC. An Indian security source said the operation began with Indian forces firing artillery across the frontier to provide cover for three to four teams of 70–80 soldiers from the 4th and 9th battalions of the to cross the LoC at several separate points shortly after midnight IST on 29 September (18:30 hours UTC, 28 Sep). Teams from 4 Para crossed the LoC in the Nowgam sector of, while teams from 9 Para simultaneously crossed the LoC in. IST, according to army sources, the special forces teams had travelled 1–3 km on foot, and had begun destroying terrorist bases with hand-held grenades and 84 mm rocket launchers. The teams then swiftly returned to the Indian side of the Line of Control, suffering only one casualty, a soldier wounded after tripping a land mine.The Indian Army said the strike was a attack on militant bases, claiming that it had received intelligence that the militants were planning 'terrorist strikes' against India. India said that, in destroying 'terrorist infrastructure' it also attacked 'those who are trying to support them', indicating it attacked Pakistani soldiers too.

India later briefed opposition parties and foreign envoys, but did not disclose operational details.Some Indian media claimed that the Indian army infiltrated 2–3 km into Pakistani territory, but the Indian Army did not say whether its troops crossed the border or had simply fired across it. India said that none of its soldiers were killed though two soldiers were injured. It also stated that one of its soldiers, from 37, was captured by Pakistan after he 'inadvertently crossed over to the Pakistan side', though not during the 'surgical strikes.' Initially, Indian media claimed that the army used helicopters during the skirmish. On 30 September, an Indian minister denied that there were any helicopters used, stating the operation was conducted 'on the ground'. Pakistani version Pakistan rejected claims that any surgical strikes occurred. Pakistan's said the claim as 'baseless' and said India was 'deliberately' escalating conflict.

The claimed that there had only been 'cross border firing'. Pakistan warned that it would respond militarily should any surgical strike actually occur.

The two soldiers killed were identified as Naik Imtiaz and Jumma Khan.Pakistani sources claimed that hours after the strike, up to fourteen Indian soldiers were killed in retaliatory firing across the LOC and one was captured, Chandu Babulal Chavan. It further stated that India was concealing its casualty figures from the cross-border firing. It was later reported that the captured India soldier had wandered across the border in a different sector of the Line of control, where no conflict was reported. He was later returned to India. Media reports Lieutenant general Ranbir Singh, the Indian Army DGMO, only stated during his press conference on 29 September that the number of casualties inflicted had been 'significant.' Most accounts in the Indian media varied as to the number of militants killed, with most publications giving estimates of 35 to 50 killed. On 9 October, the Indian army said that it had intercepted radio messages of the Pakistan army and claimed that 'around 20' Lashkar-e-Taiba militants had been killed, including at least 10 during the surgical strikes and nine killed at Balnoi (opposite of ).On 1 October, the Pakistani army gave international media outlets including, and a tour of the sites which India claimed to have hit on 29 September.

The Pakistan army claimed that had there been a 'surgical strike', there would have been more damage. The journalists confirmed that the 'area seemed intact', but added that they only saw what the Pakistani army showed them. Remarked that they were taken to the border 'under strict supervision, naturally'.On 5 October, stated it had managed to conduct covert interviews with eyewitnesses living across the Line of Control (LoC).

The Express claimed that eyewitnesses corroborated the Indian account by describing fire engagements with militants and the destruction of some makeshift buildings that housed militants; but that there was little damage to infrastructure. However, the Express said that according to eyewitness accounts, and classified documents, the number of militants killed was lower than the 38–50 number reported by Indian officials; there were reports that 'five, perhaps six' bodies had been trucked out the morning after the raids from Dudhnial (4 km from the LoC), while three or four militants were killed near Khairati Bagh. The Express said that the militants, many of whom belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, were caught by surprise. Other accounts reported 'fire and explosions' from the east bank of the in.On 5 October, India's claimed that it conducted a 'sting operation' where their news correspondent posing as an Inspector General of Police made a phone call to a Superintendent of Police (SP) Ghulam Akbar in. In an audio conversation aired on the news channel, a voice claiming to be Akbar reveals details about the military action of 29 September including the places of strikes and the number of Pakistani casualties, quoted as 12 people including 5 military personnel.

The voice says that the bodies were said to have been carried away in coffins and buried in the villages, and that an unknown number of militants ('jihadis') had also died. On 6 October, Pakistan's said that the voice in the audio conversation did not belong to Ghulam Akbar, and that Akbar had denied the alleged phone conversation. The ministry called the story a fabrication, and hoped that would take action against its Indian affiliate.On 23 October, a article by M. Ilyas Khan quoted unnamed police officials and locals stating the Indians appeared to have crossed the LoC, in some cases by more than a kilometer, to attack Pakistani border posts.

The article said the Indian Army had conducted a ground assault in the Pooch sector, destroying a Pakistani post and killing a soldier; setup their guns on a ridge in Leepa valley, hitting three posts and killing four Pakistani soldiers; and advanced in the Dudhnial sector injuring a Pakistani soldier, but were beaten back after their movements were detected. The report also took statements from villagers at Madarpur and and Dudhnial who confided that Indian troops directed heavy fire at several Pakistani border posts. The BBC News could not verify if any militants were hit.

Villagers in Dudhnial said that they saw one or two damaged structures close to a Pakistani border post. The villagers in Leepa Valley said that, following the attack, there was an increased influx of militants to the valley.wrote that by interviewing eyewitnesses and anonymous officials, journalists in both Pakistan and India have pieced together an account of what happened:it appears that small teams of Indian commandos had slipped across the line to strike at safe houses believed to be used by Islamist guerrillas. The number killed was estimated at a dozen or fewer, rather than the 38–50 initially claimed by India. None of those killed were Pakistani army personnel. And since the Pakistani government has no wish to inflame domestic opinion and so be forced to escalate matters, it preferred to pretend that nothing had happened. Aftermath Indian intelligence sources claimed that, immediately after the raid, the Pakistan military had buried the corpses of the slain terrorists to erase any evidence and to maintain Pakistan's version of a 'skirmish' along the Line of Control. However, Pakistan rejected that any such casualties occurred, questioning: 'Where did all the dead bodies go?'

Pakistan's military also pointed to the lack of damage or losses in the site, and welcomed UN observers and journalists to conduct an independent inquiry. Increased firing along the Line of Control was reported the following day.A senior Indian Home Ministry official subsequently claimed that in the wake of the raid, at least 12 training camps belonging to, and had been swiftly moved from their locations at Pir Chanasi, Aksha Maskar and Tabuk near Muzaffarabad in. Based on satellite images, inputs from foreign intelligence agencies and unnamed 'sources in Pakistan,' according to the official, the training camps had been relocated 'near crowded towns deep inside Pakistan,' in the provinces of and Punjab, to 'minimise casualties to their assets.' According to the Indian official, the camps had housed around 500 militants, 300 of whom belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba alone.An Indian newspaper, Indian Express, alleged that they had covertly interviewed five people across the LoC. One of the five eyewitness reported that on 30 September, a day after the surgical strikes, several members of Lashkar-e-Taiba had met for Friday prayers at a Lashkar-affiliated mosque in Chalhana. 'The Lashkar men gathered there were blaming the Pak Army for failing to defend the border', he said, 'and were saying they would soon give India an answer it would never forget.' Several days after the raids, a leading Indian security official who had been closely involved in their planning said that Pakistan's continued denial that any surgical strikes took place was a 'stance that suits us.'

He further stated – 'The surprise element in such an operation is key to its success and there will be no predictable repetition. If provoked yet again, we will amend our operational tactics.' Both Indian Defence Minister Parrikar and National Security Advisor Doval were shown original, unedited footage from the military raids on 1 October. After viewing it, Parrikar informed Prime Minister Modi that he was satisfied with what he had seen, and that there was no need to publicly release any footage.

In response to calls from members of opposition parties to release the footage, a senior government official stated, 'The Opposition should understand the difference between a covert and overt strike. And it is not incumbent on the Indian Army to release video footage every time they do their duty.' On 5 October, two senior ministers in the Indian government said the Indian Army had submitted the footage to the government, but that the government, with the concurrence of the army, felt there was no need to release it to the public. The Indian Express.

3 October 2016. From the original on 3 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016. ^ Miglani, Sanjeev; Hashim, Asad (29 September 2016). From the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

^. The Indian Express. 1 October 2016. From the original on 1 October 2016.

Retrieved 1 October 2016. 29 September 2016.

^ Ratheesh, Renu (30 September 2016). India Live Today. Archived from on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. 29 September 2016.

^ Abbas, Syed Sammer (29 September 2016). From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. services, Tribune news.

29 September 2016. The Economic Times.

12 July 2018. ^. Hindustan Times. 29 September 2016. From the original on 2 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.

^. 29 September 2016. From the original on 2 October 2016.

^. 29 September 2016. From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. The Times of India. Retrieved 28 June 2018.

Republic World. Retrieved 28 June 2018. The Indian Express. 28 June 2018. Retrieved 28 June 2018.

This sequel is even more ambitious than its predecessor in all aspects of the game, with numerous extra features and the highest production values. Its brand new graphic engine has been specifically developed for this sequel and displays the game's high-quality visuals and superb graphics and sound effects that raise the license to the next level.Blood Bowl 2 also includes a host of new features in both Solo and Multiplayer mode that also make the game more accessible. The ambitious Solo campaign puts players in charge of one the most famous teams in the world of Blood Bowl to compete in some unconventional and truly unique matches to take their team to the top, while 'League' mode allows you to manage your own team, club and even stadium! Blood bowl 2 guide.

^ Perry, Juliet. From the original on 1 October 2016. ^ Masood, Salman (1 October 2016). New York Times. Bubble witch saga 3 download. From the original on 5 October 2016.

Retrieved 1 October 2016. ^ Haider, Abrar (29 September 2016).

From the original on 30 September 2016. Retrieved 29 September 2016.

29 September 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. ^. 30 September 2016.

From the original on 30 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. ^. The Express Tribune. 1 October 2016.

From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016. ^. 29 September 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. ^ Ellen Barry; Salman Masood (29 September 2016), The New York Times, from the original on 2 October 2016, retrieved 1 October 2016. ^ Marszal, Andrew (30 September 2016). The Telegraph.

From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. Express Tribune. 1 October 2016.

From the original on 2 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016. Sameer Yasir (21 September 2016), Firstpost. Ankit Panda (19 September 2016), The Diplomat. 19 September 2016. From the original on 19 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. ^ Jon Boone; Michael Safi (28 September 2016), The Guardian, from the original on 1 October 2016. ^. The Hindustan Times. 3 October 2016.

From the original on 7 October 2016. Retrieved 8 October 2016. Jon Boone; Michael Safi (29 September 2016), The Guardian, from the original on 2 October 2016.

The Indian Express. 1 October 2016. From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. ^ Ankit Panda (29 September 2016), The Diplomat, from the original on 30 September 2016, retrieved 1 October 2016. ^. 30 September 2016.

From the original on 2 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016. ^. Express Tribune. 30 September 2016. From the original on 1 October 2016.

Retrieved 2 October 2016. 29 September 2016. From the original on 18 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016. Annie Gowen; Shaiq Hussain (29 September 2016), The Washington Post, from the original on 1 October 2016, retrieved 1 October 2016. 2 October 2016 at the, Hindustan Times, 1 October 2016.

^2 October 2016 at the, The Indian Express, 2 October 2016. Sandeep Singh (5 October 2016), The Diplomat, from the original on 18 October 2016, retrieved 15 October 2016. Diplomat, Shawn Snow, The. The Diplomat. Retrieved 19 February 2019. 29 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. Khan, M. Ilyas (30 September 2016).

Retrieved 14 December 2018. 21 January 2017.

Retrieved 14 December 2018. 9 October 2016. From the original on 10 October 2016. Farooqui, Tashkeel Ahmed (3 October 2016). Express Tribune. From the original on 4 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016.

From the original on 2 October 2016. ^, The Economist, 8 October 2016. ^. 5 October 2016.

From the original on 5 October 2016. 6 October 2016 at the, Firstpost India, 5 October 2016., 5 October 2016, from the original on 5 October 2016. 6 October 2016 at the, CNN News18, 5 October 2016. From the original on 9 October 2016. M. Ilyas Khan (23 October 2016), BBC News, from the original on 25 October 2016, retrieved 23 October 2016.

Indian Express. 1 October 2016. From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. 1 October 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 1 October 2016. ^. Hindustan Times. 6 October 2016. From the original on 6 October 2016. Retrieved 6 October 2016.

The Indian Express. 3 October 2016. From the original on 4 October 2016.

Retrieved 3 October 2016. Indian Express. From the original on 9 March 2017. Retrieved 9 March 2016. Hindustan Times.

From the original on 2 May 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017. Economic times. From the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 2 June 2017.

From the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2017. From the original on 20 July 2017.

Retrieved 19 July 2017. From the original on 25 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. From the original on 9 October 2017. Retrieved 31 July 2017. 16 September 2017. Archived from on 18 September 2017 – via www.thehindu.com.

From the original on 7 September 2017. Retrieved 1 September 2017. Indian Express. From the original on 25 August 2017. Retrieved 25 August 2017. From the original on 22 September 2017.

Retrieved 22 September 2017. (23 November). By Roshan Mughal and Asif Shahzad.

Archived from on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. 14 February 2017.

From the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2017. 16 July 2017. From the original on 5 August 2017.

Retrieved 4 August 2017. Naqash, Tariq (19 July 2017). From the original on 5 August 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2017. Zaidi, Mubashir (20 July 2017). Retrieved 16 September 2017. From the original on 1 October 2017.

Retrieved 1 October 2017. 11 July 2018 – via The Economic Times.

^. The Express Tribune. 1 October 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 1 October 2016. Hindustan Times. 30 September 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. Khan, Sanaullah (30 September 2016). From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. Akbar, Ali (25 November 2016). From the original on 28 November 2016.

Retrieved 28 November 2016. The Statesman. 30 September 2016.

Archived from on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. The Statesman. 30 September 2016. Archived from on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. The Indian Express.

18 October 2016. From the original on 31 October 2016. Retrieved 14 February 2017. The Indian Express. 1 October 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016.

The Indian Express. 5 October 2016. From the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016. Jacob, Jayanth (5 October 2016).

Hindustan Times. From the original on 6 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016. Hindustan Times. 30 September 2016.

From the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016. Russian Embassy. 3 October 2016.

From the original on 12 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016. Hindustan Times. 30 September 2016. From the original on 30 September 2016.

Retrieved 30 September 2016. Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. 3 October 2016. From the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016. Daily News & Analysis. 24 November 2016.

Retrieved 3 December 2016. Times of India. 2 December 2016. From the original on 3 December 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.

Daily Excelsior. 28 November 2016. From the original on 29 November 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2018.

Retrieved 1 May 2018. 19 January 2018. Retrieved 21 April 2018. History TV18.

Retrieved 21 April 2018. The Indian Express. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2019.Further reading. M. Ilyas Khan (23 October 2016), BBC News, retrieved 23 October 2016., The Economist, 8 October 2016., CNN News, from the original on 2 October 2016, retrieved 2 October 2016., The Express Tribune, 4 October 2016, from the original on 5 October 2016, retrieved 5 October 2016.

Nitin A. Gokhale, The Diplomat, 23 September 2017. Ankit Panda, The Diplomat, 29 September 2017.

A surgical strike is a military attack which is intended to damage only a legitimate military target, with no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities.^[1]

Description[edit]

A swift and targeted attack with the aim of minimum collateral damage to the nearby areas and civilians is a surgical strike. Neutralization of targets with surgical strikes also prevents escalation to a full-blown war. Surgical strike attacks can be carried out via air strike, airdropping special ops teams or a swift ground operation or by sending special troops.

Precision bombing is another example of a surgical strike carried out by aircraft – it can be contrasted against carpet bombing, the latter which results in high collateral damage and a wide range of destruction over an affected area which may or may not include high civilian casualties. The bombing of Baghdad during the initial stages of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by US forces, known as 'shock and awe' is an example of a coordinated surgical strike, where government buildings and military targets were systematically attacked by US aircraft in an attempt to cripple the Ba'athist controlled Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.

Examples[edit]

Israel[edit]

Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak is considered a prime example of a surgical strike.^[2]Its 1976 commando operation at Entebbe in Uganda, through which Israeli passengers were freed from a hijacked plane, is also mentioned as a successful surgical strike. Even though it did not involve taking out targets, striking deep inside foreign territory, covering 5,000 miles from start to finish without engagement with any other forces, qualified it to be 'surgical'.^[3]

United States[edit]

The United States carried out numerous surgical strikes against Al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan using cruise missiles. It also used the same technology against a purported chemical weapons facility in Sudan.^[4]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^Shultz, Jr., Richard H.; Pfaltzgraff, Robert L., eds. (1992). The Future of Air Power: In the Aftermath of the Gulf War. DIANE Publishing. ISBN1-58566-046-9.
2. ^Weeks, Albert L. (25 November 2009), The Choice of War: The Iraq War and the Just War Tradition: The Iraq War and the Just War Tradition, ABC-CLIO, pp. 54–, ISBN978-0-313-08184-2
3. ^Sandler, Stanley (2002), Ground Warfare: An International Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, pp. 264–265, ISBN978-1-57607-344-5
4. ^Cilluffo, Frank J.; Cardash, Sharon L.; Lederman, Gordon Nathaniel (2001), Combating Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Terrorism: A Comprehensive Strategy : a Report of the CSIS Homeland Defense Project, CSIS, pp. 13–, ISBN978-0-89206-389-5