Dr. Matthew Bunn has released what the "Nukes of Hazard" blog calls "the Bunn Bible" at the NTI site. At first, I thought this was one of those typical egg-head overreactionary studies that thrash around trying to make the case that nuclear terrorism is just the be-all and end-all of society. He does start off with all the usual horror stories about lost or stolen nuclear material over the decades, but he ends well.
There are crucial pieces of good news in this story as well:
- First, the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb do not occur in significant quantities in nature, and making them is so difficult as to be well beyond the plausible capabilities of terrorist groups. Hence, if the world community can effectively guard all of the existing stockpiles, it can prevent nuclear weapons terrorism from ever occurring: no material, no bomb.
- Second, there is no evidence that either nuclear weapons or the materials needed to make them have fallen into the hands of terrorists or hostile states, or that al Qaeda has yet put together the expertise that would be needed to turn such materials into a bomb – though again, we do not know what has not been detected.
- Third, the evidence from the materials seized in Afghanistan suggests that al Qaeda’s overall focus remains overwhelmingly on the conventional tools of terror: nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons appear to be a small part of their overall level of effort, though a dangerous one.
- Fourth, the technology exists to secure and account for the world's nuclear stockpiles, and dramatically reduce the risk that they could be stolen and fall into the hands of terrorists or hostile states. This is a big job, and a complex job, but it is a doable one. It is a matter of putting the resources and the political will behind getting the job done.
It is clear that terrorist interest in weapons of mass destruction includes chemical and biological as well as nuclear possibilities, and it is important that the nuclear-weapon threat not be exaggerated in relation to the other WMD terrorism threats or indeed in relation to threats of terrorism by more conventional means. The nuclear-weapon threat is probably the most difficult of all for terrorists to implement and to that degree might be regarded as the least likely. But the massive, assured, instantaneous, and comprehensive destruction of life and property that would result may make nuclear weapons a priority for terrorists despite the difficulties. The almost unimaginable devastation that would result if they succeeded means that everything practical should be done to reduce this risk, and that is the focus of these pages.
I should have known that I could trust someone who believes that closing Yucca Mountain's nuclear waste repository would be a tragic mistake. Check out his CV. He's written a few things...
I will only take exception to the tone in the last paragraph there, where he calls for "everything practical should be done to reduce this risk." This is how conservatives trap the progressives - they point to statements like this and say, "How can you not be for attacking and/or invading (fill in the blank) to stop its WMD program? Even your own side says this is needed." The difference, of course, is what conservatives and progressives see as fulfilling the definition of "everything practical." To progressives, this means "keep this topic on top of the national security issues and work with the international community, with a range of diplomatic-information-military-economic options, to address the challenge." To conservatives, this means "crush them with military power before they become a potential threat."
We need to avoid being overly dramatic when addressing nuclear terrorism issues. What you say can and will be used against us, if and when a conservative Republican administration comes into power.
Comments