Th Cold War ideas about deterrence are irrelevant to coping with an enemy like Al Qaeda, since its members fear no earthly punishment and lack a “return address” at which to direct a retaliation. It becomes necessary for the US to rely on nuclear forensics to determine the origin of nuclear material and threaten retaliation against any state that transfers nuclear material, weapons, or knowledge to terrorists.
Many steps must precede a successful nuclear attack by a nonstate party. Many of these steps depend on assistance from people and organizations that are not so impervious to deterrence by retaliation as individual terrorists are. If the US can identify the actors cooperating with the terrorists and convince them that such complicity is not in their interests, it may be able to reduce the likelihood of an attack substantially.
Producing plutonium requires sophisticated, expensive reactors, as well as reprocessing facilities. Enriching uraniun requires large buildings, a large, scientifically expert labor force, significant industrial resources, and time. It is extremely likely that states would have to be involved in the provision of nuclear material to terrorists, and the U S does have targets against which it can direct threats of retaliation. The identity of states involved in a process ending with the provision of nuclear material to terrorists is determined through the process of attribution – the choice of one material over another and the processes used to make that weapons-grade uranian reveal clues about the origin of weapon itself.
If the US develops a credible nuclear attribution capability, states that wish to protect their interests are more likely to refrain from providing assistance to terrorists in the first place.
We can deter the possibility of them controlling their influence on our culture by dropping nuclear bombs on them and burning all their history books. Deterrence can be employed in many different strategies. We may not be able to deter them from particular behaviors which contradict our interests, but we can deter the consequences of any such behavior by killing them all with nuclear bombs. You get the same result either way I suppose give or take a few humanitarian gripes.
There is no real threat. I’m serious here, it is the same game as during the Cold War with a different enemy.
I mean, honestly, if the “terrorists” were serious about doing some damage, they would have already. Developing rather damaging biological weapons costs next to nothing – with a fully functioning facility it would cost a couple of thousand dollars, tops. And the facilities are already all over the Middle East and other countries, but if they needed to build them from scratch they would only cost a couple hundred-thousand dollars. That is for the really high-grade stuff too, someone with sufficient training could make something rather nasty in his kitchen for next to nothing with the only side-effect of it being a suicide weapon (something the extremists have no qualms with).
But that isn’t the game that is being played – it is the same old nuclear one-upsmanship because that is what is sexy on the international stage. If our enemies were serious the damage would have already been done. It’s all a bunch of peacocks and paper tigers.
I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but no one agrees with your position that has any knowledge of the current status of this country.
This isn’t a new thing, there were reporters in the eighties questioning the FBI about why they weren’t doing anything about Islamic extremists running rallies calling for the destruction of America.
There are terrorists everywhere in this country, 100 different mosques preaching hatred and destruction from within our borders.
The question is whether they have the ability to operate in the nuclear realm unseen, and to meet the ends they desire.
That is just it, these terrorists are already here. They have and have had access to this technology for ages. The nuclear weapon topic is sexy because it is a weapon of fear so it makes for powerful rhetoric. That is all they are serious about: rhetoric, and weapons of fear not actual weapons of the flesh.
As for people in authority, they swore up and down on a Bible Saddam had WMDs and failed to even be competent enough to plant some, so my trust in the people talking about this nuclear threat is severely compromised.
So I guess the semi-driver from Columbus attempting to procure radioactive materials is just a myth?
Interesting. Perhaps he was just looking for it for academic reasons.
Anyone with half a wit of sense knows that the Saddam scenario was on the back end of 9/11, and that it was about nothing more than resources. That example doesn’t come out in the wash, and we both know it.
Terrorists have no return address to which to aim our bombs, Scott. That’s why we need to Develop our forensic capabilities to the point that we can determine which state actors to attribute the steps in making and delivering the bomb into terrorists hands. Apparently the science is refined enough to read a state;s “signature” om any process of bomb manufacture or delivery. With that knowloedge the state actors who aid terrorists can be deterred by the threats of punishment.
I never said they weren’t trying to get atomic materials. I just doubt that they will actually use them. If they were serious about using WMDs, they already would have developed and deployed the cheapest option possible with the greatest amount of damage.
If they get the bomb, they’ll just parade and say, “look at us, we’ve got atomic weapons aren’t we deadly!” and maybe have a token explosion somewhere and maybe take out a couple million people. But they aren’t serious about actually killing as many people as possible or some fantasy scenario where they will take over America. They just want America to shit its pants, which they’ve accomplished admirably.
Most experts agree that the number one threat facing the country is the threat of nuclear terrorism. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrow Building in Oklahoma City, it occurred to me that it is just a matter of time until someone like him uses a Nuke. The scale of the 911 attacks drove the point further home. Terrorists can turn their backyards into nuclear bomb factories, according to an article by Jeffrey Lewis in Foreign Policy magazine. In the hands of terrorists, even a small bomb could kill multitudes and render portions of cities uninhabitable. Activist groups have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to strengthen safeguards at power plants. But, last time I checked the NRC decided not to require plants to build additional defenses.
Of course, such a catastrophe may be preventable. Some steps at prevention are being taken. Some scientists are pushing for a worldwide registry of all nuclear materials. They argue that it would help officials identify the source of a nuclear bomb if one was ever used in an attack. Some think a registry could also deter terrorists wary of traceable materials.
Germany’s plans to phase out nuclear power by 2021 are under review due to concerns about energy security. Presidential candidate Barach Obama says he will lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials at vulnerable sites within four years. In June of this year the FBI and various international counterparts are staged a mock “suitcase nuke” attack in Miami’s Orange Bowl on Wednesday. Obviously law enforcement officials hope to be able to head off such an attack and avoid having to use their response strategy. CIA officials say agency staff are focused on the core missions - fighting terrorism, tracking nuclear threats. But Al Qaida remains determined to attack the U.S. and would like to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to do so. So the nagging question is: Are we doing enough?
That’s what I’ve been trying to say: they aren’t determined at all, if they were determined we’d already have been exposed to a biological WMD. Easiest thing in the world to make! I’m half tempted to make one in my kitchen and take out Indianapolis to prove my point (note to the feds reading this: yes, I am being facetious).