The promotion of power and control becomes one of the vital goals for many nations. Politicians, international researchers, world-known philosophers, and engineers devote their lives to create the best and safest conditions for people. However, as well as the necessary resources are found, the unlawful use of force is possible, which gives birth to violence and terrorism. Today, terrorism remains a complex social problem with a number of definitions (Horgan, 2017). This issue may be introduced as a specific strategy on the basis of public violence to promote social or political change (Horgan, 2017). Bø and Wolff (2019) explain it as a silent risk source for modern society. Many American citizens and a large part of the globe admit 11 September 2001 as one of the most influential terrorist attacks that changed people and underline the need to examine the future of terrorism. The exploration of this topic is commonly discussed in many scholarly articles, including the peculiarities of modeling terrorist attacks, the development of countermeasures, and the prevention of negative consequences. This literature review aims at reflecting on the problem’s background, research methods, hypotheses, and gaps in terrorism management.
Background
To understand the future trends of terrorism, one needs to clearly define the main historical events and contributions. According to Millington (2018), it is high time to stop trying to define the phenomenon of terrorism but focus on learning the background of terrorist violence. The history of terrorism should be traced back to the French Revolution in the 1700s and its well-known “régime de la terreur” implemented by the revolutionaries against their enemies. The Jacobines chose fear-based methods to govern people and killed the opponents to remove the monarchy and promote democracy (Chojnowski, 2017). From that moment, the concept of terrorism was accepted as a purely negative activity when society was abused by the power grown in the wrong hands.
In the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s, terrorism was closely related to wars and the activities of fascist organizations. Terrorist groups relied on the idea of nationalism and separatism to resist unwanted authoritarian and totalitarian standards (Chojnowski, 2017). At the end of the 1900s, terrorism gained the form of liberation and was sponsored by different nations or individuals (Millington, 2018). The notion of new terrorism emerged after the events of 11 September in New York. Compared to previous cases when terrorists were the representatives of the same nations, and their intentions were explained by idealistic ideas, the September attacks took a new stance. Terrorism was strengthened by religious beliefs, cultural differences, and excessive violence against civilians (Millington, 2018). That year was the most devastating period for Americans when extremist malevolence was well planned and coordinated (Gupta et al., 2020; Okoye, 2018). Lack of imagination and the inability to predict such outcomes were used to explain failures, as no one could guess that an airplane may become a weapon against people (Howcroft, 2018). Those attacks served as the main catalyst to study terrorism and define its trends and methods.
Within a short period of time, people could see a threat in many objects, devices, and even each other. The necessity to protect native countries against foreign cultures and religions was an expected decision promoted by radical and anti-immigrant groups (Howcroft, 2018). Psychologists were interested in understanding the reasons for possible terrorist attacks and relied on systematic reviews to learn why a person wanted to become a terrorist (Horgan, 2017). Politicians and countries’ leaders wanted to predict threats and began wars with Afganistan and Iraq as a respond to the September attacks (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). Theories of terrorism were developed to identify organizational approaches and management details. Spinzak’s theory explained the radicalization process through conflict of legitimacy, crisis of confidence, and legitimacy crisis (Ravndal & Bjørgo, 2018). Modern theories, based on social learning perspectives and collective strain ideas, introduce social media and online communication as triggers of delinquent behaviors (Nivette et al., 2017). With time, terror online or cyber terrorism became hard to control, creating a new era of the study of terrorism.
In addition to predicting terrorism or discovering dangerous groups, more attention was paid to protection, namely to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense. The first well-known case of using biological weapons was reported in 1995 when four anti-governmental extremists delivered castor beans to extract pure ricin and kill a deputy U.S. marshal (Koehler & Popella, 2018). Despite the threats related to CBRN terrorism, not many policymakers and academics are interested in developing statements and control the incidents of this form of terrorism. Koblentz (2020) underlines that the progress of the Fourth Industrial Revolution should serve as a serious reason for paying attention to CBRN defense because scientific breakthroughs are not easy to control and predict. Although CBRN terrorism alone is considered small in scale, its promotion through technologies may become a real threat to many Western countries (Koblentz, 2020; Koehler & Popella, 2018). Therefore, the gravity of the terrorism issue and its various forms cannot be ignored by the US leaders and citizens.
At this moment, the Code of Laws of the United States of America remains the main legal document that contains 53 titles with clear obligations and responsibilities. According to Title 22, Section 2656f, the Department of State has to introduce annual reports on terrorism (Bureau of Counterterrorism, 2019). There are many effective statements about how to control and investigate terrorist attacks in different countries. For example, a National Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism was implemented in 2018 to disrupt various CBRN capabilities (Bureau of Counterterrorism, 2019). Against Hate Task Forces were formed in many American states to counter terrorist radicalization, reduce misinformation, and develop new practices for citizens (Bureau of Counterterrorism, 2019). Cybersecurity has also become a serious theme for discussion because today’s economic, political, and social activities mostly depend on the quality of the cyber environment (Carroll & Windle, 2018). New protection programs are promoted under the guidance of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to defend the nation against cyber attacks. Regarding the offered policies, the future of terrorism should be studied through the prism of potential purposes and reasons, technological advancement, and prevention methods.
Dominant Theories/Hypotheses
Despite a variety of opinions about the future of terrorism in the United States, almost all researchers and policymakers admit the necessity to better understand threats to homeland security. There are many terrorist organizations, domestic terrorists, and extremists with the purpose of challenging the quality of life and the government. Koehler and Popella (2018) and Koblentz (2020) state that the risks related to the proliferation of CBRN weapons and technologies. They consider CBRN terrorism as a long-actor phenomenon that involves well-educated individuals motivated by non-religious ideologies (Gupta et al., 2020; Koehler & Popella, 2018). The major hypothesis in relation to biological and chemical weapons is that not many people are able to use these methods correctly. Still, some right-wing terrorists can become more capable and provoke negative consequences even if their attempts fail.
Cyberterrorism is another area of the chosen topic that unites different thinkers and practitioners in their hypotheses and opinions. Koblentz (2018) relates cyber and CBRN threats because they result in the creation of malicious software, also known as malware, to create cyber attacks and deprive the government of control over different systems. The number of people (either terrorists or civilians) continues growing, and it is easy to get access to a program developed by professional organizations and use it for personal purposes, sabotage power grids, and disable energy systems (Gupta et al., 2020; Koblentz, 2020). Compared to CBRN attacks, cyber threats are characterized by a large scale and the possibility of returning (Carroll & Windle, 2018). This type of terrorism aims at raising money, controlling people, demonstrating superiority, or even entertaining the public. In the chosen realm, terrorists may threaten governments or particular organizations due to overall access to the Internet (Howcroft, 2018; Schuurman, 2019). Due to the impossibility to stop using technologies and services online, cyberspace is constantly under terrorist threats that are out of legal control.
In addition to the level of education of potential terrorists, some scholars and practitioners choose religious beliefs and special interests as a serious threat to the United States. According to Okoye (2018) and Nivette et al. (2017), people are ideologically motivated to coerce the government or civilians and make them change policies or behaviors. The danger of such groups is the possibility to use different methods, either kidnapping, bombing, or physical threats, to destroy properties, take lives, or impose injuries (DeLeeuw & Pridemore, 2018; Okoye, 2018). The religious background of terrorism is not a new trend, and many extremists followed their beliefs to torture populations in the 19th and 20th centuries (Chojnowski, 2017; Millington, 2018). Many people agree that religious and social reasons for terrorist acts are associated with the most unpredictable and risky outcomes for non-military citizens. Religious fundamentalism has to be thoroughly studied to predict crimes again the innocent population (Coccia, 2018; González, 2020). Therefore, this argument has to be recognized in the discussion as well because it upon human thinking abilities and decision-making.
The future of terrorism also depends on how effective anti-terrorist policies and statements are developed and distributed in society. The report by the Bureau of Counterterrorism (2019) proves that international cyber terrorism and CBRN threats are thoroughly analyzed by many countries, including the United States, China, and Germany. Counter-terrorism policies are not only a governmental need to identify the characteristics of terrorists but an obligatory measure to reduce radicalization (Horgan, 2017; Okoye, 2018). Other hypotheses about the future of terrorism are connected to the impact of population growth, access to information about terrorism, and cultural differences (Bø & Wolff, 2019; Coccia, 2018). All these arguments and explanations prove that terrorism is an open problem for the United States, as well as other countries around the globe, and its future poses certain dangers and unpredictable consequences for people.
Methods
To answer the main research question about the future of the United States in its intention to mitigate domestic terrorism and rely on available technologies and knowledge, scholars use different methods. In the majority of cases, researchers prefer systematic reviews of qualitative information and literature-review based methods (Coccia, 2018; DeLeeuw & Pridemore, 2018; Gupta et al., 2020; Horgan, 2017; Kluch & Vaux 2016; Koehler & Popella, 2018; Okoye, 2018; Schuurman, 2019). The analysis of mixed qualitative and quantitative data facilitates the comparison of cases over time and places and provides the necessary insights on the topic (Ravndal & Bjørgo, 2018). This methodological approach is beneficial for future researchers as it represents the findings based on different sources that are proved to be credible and relevant to the chosen theme.
In some cases, the authors prefer to use specific methods to achieve their goals. For example, a grounded theory approach on the basis of open-ended interviews may be applied to analyze the rise of specific terrorist attacks and their promotion in the country (Carroll & Windle, 2018). This method helps develop an understanding of terrorism from a new point of view. It is possible to verify what actually happens in the country and adapt changes that affect human behaviors and decisions. Although it is hard to work with large amounts of data, researchers have to set their rules and standards. Prospective methods and the analysis of scenarios allow determining the impact of different factors on the decision to initiate a terrorist attack and the relationships between variables of terrorism (González, 2020; Nivette et al., 2017). Similar experimental studies are developed to understand how specific policies and activities may predict or enhance terrorism in the future (Bø & Wolff, 2019; Walters et al., 2018). Despite the possibility to work with a small sample, this method is chosen to identify specific conditions of the case and offer effective solution.
Sample/Unit of Analysis
The choice of sample for a study is an integral step that helps to develop effective research project. It is important to find participants in regard to the established purposes and be sure to have appropriate sources of information. Today, there are many sampling methods to which researchers may address, including random (systematic, stratified, or cluster) and non-random (purposive or snowballing). Sometimes, it is possible to focus on particular individuals and answer research questions, relying on interviews and questionnaires. Some scholars find it necessary to invite organizations and communities to obtain general data. In the current project, the theme of terrorism touches upon the citizens from different countries; therefore, international samples are preferred to gather, compare, and analyze data. Global and local samples are both effective in contributing to understanding the future of terrorism in the United States because this country establishes relationships with different nations.
A systematic review is proved to be a preferred research method in scholarly articles. However, one report of the U.S. Department of State, namely the Bureau of Counterterrorism (2019), is based on the largest sample where information from many African, Asian, European, Middle East, and Western countries is gathered. In many cases, terrorism incidents are analyzed in particular countries. For example, the Global Terrorism Database was examined in relation to the United States, Ireland, and the United Kingdom to define terrorists’ targets, types of attacks and weapons, and outcomes (DeLeeuw & Pridemore, 2018). The same database was applied by Coccia (2018), but attention was paid to more countries from Middle East, Africa, North America, and Europe, and Kluch and Vaux (2016), who worked with 208 countries. Quantitative and qualitative data from Europe and the United States served as a basis for Ravndal and Bjørgo’s review (2018) to use concepts and define the best theoretical arguments for global terrorism. A similar approach was developed by Okoye (2018), but the author used Nigeria as the country to compare with the United States. All these reviews are large by their nature and impact.
In addition to national and international perspectives of the topic, several articles contain the historical and conceptual evaluation of terrorism. For example, Chojnowski (2017) and Millington (2018) represent their research into history and focus on how people interpret past events to predict mistakes and negative consequences in the future. Horgan (2017) addresses the psychological aspects of terrorism and investigates the findings from more than 20 scholarly articles. The scenario-based analysis by González (2020) and the keyword analysis in 3442 articles by Schuurman (2019) help define the main trends of terrorism in particular countries (i.e., Africa and the United States). Carroll and Windle (2018) interviewed four subject matter experts and indicated that small samples are common in terrorism research. However, their worth lies in the possibility of choosing one particular topic and investigating everything in detail to create a background for future research.
Depending on the nature of their studies, scholars find it necessary to specify the number of participants and their roles in research. Nivette et al. (2017) developed their stratified random sampling method by inviting children from 56 primary schools in Zurich. Although the offered sample is a small country-level indicator and considered as a limitation of the study, the researchers were able to analyze the impact of collective strain on extremist attitudes (Nivette et al., 2017). Bø and Wolff (2019) also used a small sample (277 participants) to discuss a terrible future of terrorism through manipulations. The impact of terrorism on tourism in the United States made Walters et al. (2018) invited 471 people who agreed to answer the questions in an online questionnaire. Although this random sample is small, it proves the presence of doubts among tourists due to terroristic attacks. The offered samples and units of analysis prove the credibility of findings and explain why certain gaps still exist in research.
Findings
Regarding the gravity of the chosen topic – the future of terrorism – it is expected that researchers might share different opinions and recommendations on how to predict the development of negative consequences. At the same time, one should admit that terrorism is a complex social problem that introduces a number of challenges to the government, policymakers, and civilians (Horgan, 2017). Therefore, most studies are united by the intention to predict its growth in the future and offer the policies with an overall positive impact. The goal of the current research project is to identify what counterterrorism measures and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies may be applied to mitigate future domestic terrorism in the United States. Besides, it is necessary to find out if modeling activities and manipulations in relation to the causes and types of terrorist attacks are beneficial. The findings of the studies reviewed in this paper do not contradict one another but represent different approaches in dealing with the problem.
The main idea of the policies offered in the articles is to focus on the history of terrorism in the United States and examine the quality of the relationships with other countries. For example, the Global Terrorism Database served as a reliable source of information about incidents in different countries. The authors who use this method conclude that terrorism is usually concentrated geographically, and most countries experience low levels of terrorism (Coccia, 2018; DeLeeuw & Pridemore, 2018; Kluch & Vaux, 2016). Therefore, one of the main findings for this study is that the future of terrorism in the United States can be stabilized and controlled if clear geographical boundaries are established.
The sources of terror vary between countries, and the task of the American government is to define the scope that can be properly managed. The failure of predicting crimes against citizens is usually predetermined by two mistakes – inflated assessment and the adoption of aggressive military strategies (Thrall & Goepner, 2017). For example, the aftermath of the September attacks was the decision of the president to punish all potential terroristic groups around the globe. Many sources agree that Al-Qaeda was the major perpetrator of those events (Millington, 2018; Okoye, 2018; Thrall & Goepner, 2017). However, Bush aimed at destroying all potential threats and covered a large scope of possibilities. The guilt of Al-Qaeda was evident, but instead of resolving the origins of this particular threat, the boundaries were extended, and minimal outcomes were achieved. Other mistakes like increased attention to military power and response without investigating are also poorly discussed, and Gupta et al. (2020) admit loss time, missed flights, and false alarms as the possible reasons for new sabotages. In other words, the future of terrorism can be improved if the existing mistakes and management shortages are eliminated.
Many scholars also agree that domestic terrorism remains an unresolved question in the United States. Business, military, and social targets may be challenged by such perpetrators as nationalists, separatists, right- and left-wing representatives (Chojnowski, 2017; DeLeeuw & Pridemore, 2018). According to González (2020), certain countries play the role of “sponsors” of terrorism in order to approve international pressure and improve internal affairs. An understanding of the goals of each country in relation to the United States is obligatory. Therefore, the Bureau of Counterterrorism (2019) continues observing the possibilities of different nations and analyzing their domestic terrorist statuses to define if a county may be a threat to American citizens. It is correct to say that international cooperation with the purpose of observing what other countries can do to predict terrorism is an important policy with a positive effect.
The development of technologies, AI, and the Internet is another critical aspect of terrorism discussion. Many authors choose the same position to control cybercrimes and attacks online. Attention to cyberspace helps recognize how primitive the thoughts of predicting terrorism and neglecting the Internet impact can be (Carroll &Windle, 2018). Cyber-skilled terrorists create a serious threat to the nation’s security and the safety of every individual who shares personal information online (Howcroft, 2018). Some people may not even imagine how they make themselves vulnerable; so, looking to the future means understanding a variety of online operations. The progress of AI technologies is a step forward to the improvement of terroristic groups and the enhancement of their possibilities as it is easy to use the Dark Web and increase criminal activities (Carroll & Windle, 2018). On the other hand, AI is a contribution to counterterrorism operations and the prevention of terrorist threats. The authors agree that terrorism may be expected to increase in the future through technological enforcement in regular activities and manipulation (Coccia, 2018; González, 2020). These findings prove the importance of policies in regard to terrorism in the United States.
The last aspect of the discussion touches upon the improvement of technologies in relation to CBRN terrorism. Several researchers agree that this type of terrorism is rare, but its impact should not be diminished as it remains a serious threat to many nations (Gupta et al., 2020; Kooehler & Popella, 2018). The main CBRN weapons include drones, the Dark Web, 3D printing, and malware (Koblentz, 2020). When terrorists start using drones for their manipulation purposes, they challenge national security. However, the threat is not only the possibility of using this technology but the intention to develop and improve its scope of services by miniaturization and programming that cannot be detected at the national or international levels at once (Howcroft, 2018). Another problem related to CBRN terrorism is the involvement of far-right perpetrators who are motivated by non-religious ideas and use their knowledge to demonstrate superiority, not logic (Koehler & Popella, 2018). The results of this review show that while technological attempts are made to predict terrorism, the same improvements are observed to develop new terrorist attacks and weapons.
Gaps & Avenues for Future Research
Despite a variety of possibilities to discuss the future of terrorism in the United States, several limitations and literature gaps cannot be neglected. For example, it is evident that, in most cases, terrorism is associated with the cultural and religious beliefs of Muslims and their intention to resist the American government and international impact. However, domestic terrorism is not only about jihadi and other extremist activities. Terrorism is a social, biological, political, and even psychological concern that has to be discussed from different perspectives (Bø & Wolff, 2019; Coccia, 2018; Nivette et al., 2017). In addition, the chosen problem highly depends on advanced technologies and people’s scientific knowledge. Therefore, the future of terrorism may be related to different motivational factors and environments in a new study.
Another weakness of the recent studies is a sample and the possibility to work with different countries only through the literature review and online reports. The choice of the context plays an important role in any study. In order to better understand the future of terrorism, direct communication with political leaders and counterterrorism agencies may be required. However, none of the articles’ authors use this method of gathering information, which provokes another gap in the study and defines a new prospect in future research. Certain improvements in samples and the context have to be made, and the application of qualitative and quantitative approaches is recommended.
Finally, the avenues for future research are defined by a solid background created by the scholars. The chosen articles demonstrate how to explain terrorism in the current context, focus on the most frequent types of attacks, and understand the level of terrorists’ knowledge. The United States continues facing certain challenges from domestic terrorists and has to manage criminal acts relying on the existing policies and laws. There are many organizations that aim at predicting crimes, protecting national security, and developing new approaches. Although the articles contain much helpful information, there is still a lack of a comprehensive study that unites all the elements of domestic terrorism. Therefore, to justify the importance of a dissertation, it is necessary to create a project that successfully combines past achievements and lessons, present policies, and future steps. It is not enough to use one research method and instrument but work with multiple sources and give a clear explanation to each research question.
Conclusion
In general, the purpose of this review of literature is to learn what has already been known on the topic of the future of terrorism in the United States. In addition, it is important to understand how to apply the existing research to a new project. In the majority of cases, the authors share the same findings and underline the necessity to investigate domestic terrorism regularly. Each time a new method to predict a terrorist attack is introduced, a new option for terrorists also emerges. Therefore, it is wrong to believe that the problem of terrorism may be solved for good. However, the development of new policies, the analysis of attacks in different countries, and the creation of a structured report are the main steps to mitigate terrorism in the United States. Certain mistakes have already been made, which resulted in the September 2001 attacks and unfair responses. It is time to learn the lessons and show a high level of professionalism in dealing with terrorism threats.
References
Bø, S., & Wolff, K. (2019). A terrible future: Episodic future thinking and the perceived risk of terrorism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10.
Bureau of Counterterrorism. (2019). Country reports on terrorism 2019. U.S. Department of State. Web.
Carroll, P., & Windle, J. (2018). Cyber as an enabler of terrorism financing, now and in the future. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 13(3), 285-300.
Chojnowski, L. (2017). The origins and waves of terrorism. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej, 4, 167-182.
Coccia, M. (2018). The relation between terrorism and high population growth. Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 5(1), 84-104.
DeLeeuw, J. G., & Pridemore, W. A. (2018). The threat from within: A conjunctive analysis of domestic terrorism incidents in the United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland. Perspectives on Terrorism, 12(4), 26-54.
González, Y. S. (2020). Main trends of terrorism in Africa toward 2025. Brazilian Journal of African Studies – Porto Alegre, 5(9), 53-83.
Gupta, S., Starr, M. K., Farahani, R. Z., & Ghodsi, M. M. (2020). Prevention of terrorism – An assessment of prior POM work and future potentials. Production and Operations Management.
Horgan, J. G. (2017). Psychology of terrorism: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 72(3), 199-204.
Howcroft, J. (2018). The future of terrorism: The practitioners’ view. Connections: The Quarterly Journal, 17(2), 77-81.
Kluch, S. P., & Vaux, A. (2016). The non-random nature of terrorism: An exploration of where and how global trends of terrorism have developed over 40 years. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39(12), 1031-1049.
Koblentz, G. D. (2020). Emerging technologies and the future of CBRN terrorism. The Washington Quarterly, 43(2), 177–196.
Koehler, D., & Popella, P. (2018) Mapping far-right chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism efforts in the west: Characteristics of plots and perpetrators for future threat assessment. Terrorism and Political Violence.
Millington, C. (2018). Were we terrorists? History, terrorism, and the French Resistance. History Compass, 16(2).
Nivette, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2017). Developmental predictors of violent extremist attitudes: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(6), 755-790.
Okoye, I. E. (2018). Trends in terrorism incidents in Nigeria and the United States: Analysis of data from 1980–2013. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 13(1), 200-211.
Ravndal, J. A., & Bjørgo, T. (2018). Investigating terrorism form the extreme right: A review of past and present research. Perspectives on Terrorism, 12(6), 5-22.
Schuurman, B. (2019). Topics in terrorism research: Reviewing trends and gaps, 2007-2016. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 12(3), 463-480.
Thrall, A. T., & Goepner, E. (2017). Step back: Lessons for U.S. foreign policy from the failed war on terror. CATO Institute. Web.
Walters, G., Wallin, A., & Hartley, N. (2018). The threat of terrorism and tourist choice behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 1-13.