Nuclear Terrorism and the 2008 Democratic Candidates
Page January 13th, 2008
“Terrorism” is:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
“Terrorism” is most easily committed using weaponry, such as:
- Conventional explosives, e.g. the July 2005 London bombings and the September 11 attacks (airliners as conventional explosives).
- Biological weapons, e.g. the 2001 anthrax attacks
- Chemical weapons, e.g. the use of Sarin (a nerve agent) by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Tokyo
- Nuclear and radiological devices. Experts point out that [pdf]:
There have been zero cases of nuclear terrorism—neither nuclear nor radiological. There are no known cases of theft or purchase of an intact nuclear weapon, so a terrorist attack with one is more than unlikely. There has not been any documented theft of enough fissile material for a crude nuke—although there have been attempts. There has never been a dirty bomb attack. There has never been a case of nuclear plant sabotage.
[Link inserted.]
“Terrorism” is a staple of empty political rhetoric. “Terrorism” is a GOP candidate’s ultimate buzzword; it been redefined as a vague, derogatory term to describe “something that perceived bad guys do”.
“Terrorism” is a real threat that requires actual solutions. Fortunately, the top three Democratic candidates are offering those solutions as part of their rhetoric.
Despite the fact that there has not been any acts of nuclear terrorism, the probability is increasing. Back in July 2007, Jeff Lindemeyer of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation wrote an excellent piece worth reading in its entirety. I’ll quote part of it here:
Connect the Dots: Likelihood of Nuclear or Radiological Attack by al Qaeda Growing
Dot one: Prepared earlier this year but disclosed only last week, a classified National Counterterrorism Center report entitled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West” indicates that al Qaeda is gaining strength, despite nearly six years of the so-called War on Terror. Flying in the face of President Bush’s insistence that al Qaeda has been considerably weakened, the report says that the group is as strong as it was in 2001.
Dot two: A declassified summary of the authoritative National Intelligence Estimate released on Tuesday states that “al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population.”
Significantly, the report, which represents the consensus of the intelligence community, also states that “al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.”
The Center recommends that:
[A] comprehensive approach is needed to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. Top priorities should include:
- Securing existing nuclear weapons and materials
- Creating the position of “Nuclear Terrorism Czar” at the level of deputy national security advisor in order to coordinate nuclear nonproliferation efforts
- Disrupting terrorist finances
- Developing a contingency plan in case of attack
Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations an expert on WMD proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and national security, elaborates, saying that securing nuclear materials is essential but by no means a solution by itself; he, too, recommends an integrated approach to preventing nuclear terrorism, including a “[A] lead senior official reporting directly to the president” coordinating these efforts.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate whose nuclear terrorism policy comes closest to both the Center’s recommendations, as well as those of Levi. Sen. Clinton introduced the Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1705). Jeff Lindemeyer breaks it down here; basically, the bill:
“…would establish the position of Senior Advisor to the President for the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism,” with the “sole focus” of the position being “to develop and coordinate the implementation of a strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism.” Working under the direction of the National Security Advisor, the post would be responsible for overseeing and improving current programs, identifying new initiatives, and overseeing and coordinating the development of budget requests relating to nuclear terrorism.
…the bill would also “require the President to work with the international community to establish a specific minimum standard for nuclear security and to work with other countries in meeting and maintaining this minimum standard.”
The President would be required to submit an annual report to Congress that included a list of all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade fissile materials sites worldwide, including an analysis of which sites had the most urgent security requirements, as well as details regarding diplomatic and technical measures needed to secure such sites, as well as a timeline for these measures. The president would be required to include a progress report on the measures, among other things (please read Jeff’s piece for more).
Barack Obama has addressed the issue of securing nuclear materials, which he describes in this speech:
Make no mistake: we must always be prepared to use force to protect America. But the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons - it’s to keep nuclear weapons and nuclear materials away from terrorists. That’s why I’ve worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. And that’s why I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials during my first term in office.
[Link inserted.]
It’s a start. However, he does not take the next step, which would be following Levi’s advice, as well as the Center’s (and other experts), i.e. the “integrated approach” they describe.
John Edwards’ proposal is more detailed. His article in Foreign Affairs includes the vow to secure nuclear materials as well as a “unified” security strategy with regard to nuclear proliferation:
We should create a new Global Nuclear Compact to bolster the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and nuclear facilities are not being misused. We must also halt the trade of the most dangerous technologies by the most dangerous states and increase the amount of money we spend on cooperative threat-reduction programs in the former Soviet republics. Finally, we should strengthen our nation’s capacity to identify and respond to WMD threats by reforming the ways the U.S. government collects and analyzes intelligence and by giving the intelligence community the resources it needs.
… There are nuclear nonproliferation programs in the Defense, State, and Energy Departments and more than 15 different security assistance programs running out of both the State Department and the Pentagon. As president, I will create a national security budget that will include all security programs at the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, as well as our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies. The national security budget will eliminate wasteful and counterproductive overlaps and gather all of our resources behind a unified strategy.
Of the three, Clinton’s bill (which is currently in the Committee on Foreign Relations) is the soundest and most complete proposal. It’s a good start. Edwards comes close. But Obama needs to flesh things out a bit, to say the least.
What’s important is that any of the three would make a fine president. Any of the three beats the hell out of their counterparts, who can’t even think beyond actually using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran.