Cass Sunstein: Traitors in High Places?

If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or the distribution of a deadly pathogen, the chaos and devastation would have gone far beyond our meager ability to describe it.1

[...]

Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.

Wikipedia's excerpt from Catastrophic Terrorism is slightly different, and includes the mention of "draconian measures scaling back civil liberties":

they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

Zelikow's article proposes the creation of a new institution to deal with the threat of terrorism:

We believe the U.S. needs a new institution to gather intelligence on terrorism, with particular attention to the threat of catastrophic terrorism. We call this new institution a National Terrorism Intelligence Center. This Center would be responsible for collection management, analysis, dissemination of information, and warning of suspected catastrophic terrorist acts. The Center would need the statutory authority to: [...]

That new institution was created 5 years later with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and on the Wiki page for 'Homeland Security' it's written that the phrase actually has its origins in Zelikow's essay:

The term became prominent in the United States following the September 11, 2001 attacks; it had been used only in limited policy circles prior to these attacks. The phrase "security of the American homeland" appears in the 1998 report Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy by Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch, and Philip D. Zelikow.

The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" appears 20 times in the essay, well before 2002 when the American Dialect Society voted it word of the year. Zelikow was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) from 2001-2003, and wrote most of the "National Security Strategy of the United States" document [.pdf] in 2002 which set out the preemption doctrine used the next year to justify war on Iraq. And, of course, he famously admitted in 2002 that Iraq was no threat to the U.S., but had to be smited because it posed a threat to Israel.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel."