Southern Polytechnic State University professor Dr. Bill Sadler, a retired CIA intelligence officer, spoke recently at a University Roundtable on the threat of terrorism in Atlanta. While he believes Atlanta has world-class icons that may be of interest to terrorists, he feels Atlanta is not a prime target compared to other cities.

Sadler, from SPSU's Social and International Studies program, defines terrorism as the use or threat of violence to create fear, intimidate a government or the civilian population, or further political, religious or social objectives. "Terrorist acts are usually planned to attract widespread publicity and are designed to focus attention on the existence, cause or demands of the terrorists," he said. " Terrorists today, though, have become far more sophisticated. Anthrax and other attack techniques have become familiar."

Sadler served for six years as an intelligence officer with the CIA, with assignments in Korea, east Asia and Washington, D.C. He also served in the U.S. Army and Air Force.

He sees three potential Atlanta icons of interest to terrorists: Hartsfield International Airport, The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and CNN. "While the icon status of Hartsfield is open to question, the CDC, with its worldwide role in fighting epidemics, and CNN, with its international daily news reporting, certainly have recognition."

While he was preparing to teach a class in terrorism last August, he simulated a fictional Atlanta attack. "I quickly dismissed 'effective' biological attacks as too difficult to implement," he said. "A chemical attack seemed easier and more effective, but still not likely to meet terrorist goals. A conventional attack - using truck bombs - would be most likely. Because of Atlanta's open geography such an attack would require four or five simultaneous attacks by suicide bombers. Based on previous performances by the likely organizations, I considered such an attack as beyond these groups' capability."

The events of September 11th, however, changed his mind. " The terrorist organizations demonstrated that they were more than a ragged group of religious fanatics. It became obvious within hours that we were confronted with a sophisticated, worldwide network dedicated to doing great harm to our society and nation," he said.

While Sadler feels Atlanta is capable of being attacked, he does question the suitability of the city as a target.

"Ten cities have larger populations and higher densities than does Atlanta, and many of those cities have equal or better icon value - such as The U.N. headquarters in New York, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Capital in D.C., and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco."

Atlanta's urban sprawl is a significant factor in lessening the likelihood of terrorism. "Urban sprawl is a pretty good defense against terrorism," he said. "If you have everything all compact together it's easier to hit. If you spread it out all over like Atlanta does, it becomes a much more difficult target. Several cities are geographically more compact and are easier targets."

Nonetheless, Sadler feels there are several reasons beyond world-class icons that could make Atlanta an attractive target. "Atlanta is 11^th of 48 metropolitan areas in population. Atlanta may also be complacent and might be perceived as a less secure city. The balance sheet appears about even in regard to the probability of attack," he said.

Sadler feels that the recent terrorist attacks have shown the country that it needs to be better prepared. "It has become obvious in the days following the attacks that we had made the dangerous mistake of failing to take threats against targets in the U.S. seriously. In essence, Atlanta has already been attacked. It was attacked on September 11^th, as were all American communities. The attack continues when the economy suffers the effects of terrorist induced slowdowns."

"The intriguing question remains 'Will Atlanta be a target?' I believe that the answer is a very high probability of a conventional attack, a lower possibility of a chemical attack, and a very low possibility of an effective biological attack. In a real sense, the question is somewhat irrelevant, because no matter what the probability, we increase the probability and effectiveness of an attack if we are not prepared."