Dear Toohootz,
Thank you for your interesting question.
The issue of proliferation, arms control and development of nuclear
weapons was born alongside the technological developments in the
field. The global initiatives to control the usage of these weapons
began just after the evidences of the effect the bombing of Japan
made.
In the latest years, the issue becomes more and more important, as
several countries, which had no nuclear power before, began to develop
a nuclear plan, as well as with the danger of nuclear terrorism, from
parties, which would have access to these weapons through purchase
(from illicit parties, such as the Russian "mafia") or through other
acts of terrorism. This was referred to by Mohammed El Badarei, IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Commission) Director General, as the
three great challenges - the control of the weapons, the proliferation
(spread) of the weapons, and the nuclear terrorism(1).
These parties and organisations mentioned before are not interested in
keeping the treaties(2). Actually, there is a view that these treaties
are not worth the paper they are printed on - because those who adhere
to the treaties are not the "Rogue States" and organisations that pose
a danger while getting a hold of nuclear energy (3). Just as an
example, Iraq, which developed (and used - against its own
population!) ABC (Atomic, Biological and Chemical) weapons before, is
undersigned in all the treaties that ban its development,
proliferation and usage. An opposite example is Israel, which wouldn't
admit to the nuclear power it has, but refuses to sign the treaty,
claiming that it has no power to enforce itself on countries like Iraq
or Iran. Moreover, some countries view the whole NPT policy as
American/colonialist hostility towards them (4).
The countries now suspect of developing nuclear weaponry are neither
democratic, nor in peace with their neighbours. India and Pakistan
develop both such weapons, as measures of promoting a "balance"
between them, that would deter each country from attacking the other.
Unofficially, that is also the reason why Israel develops these
weapons: in case of danger to its existence, it would prefer to use
it. Thus, it creates the balance in which its enemies have yet to
attack it in a way that would imply that they would be attacked with
atomic weapons(5).
Accept for the "Rogue States" (those countries, which don't adhere to
the international law and treaties - and proliferate atomic weapons,
ABC weapons, terrorism, etc.), there is the problem of nuclear
terrorism. Nuclear terrorism could appear in several forms - an attack
with a nuclear bomb, an attack on a nuclear facility, and Diversion of
Nuclear Material or Weapons (6). That means, that several different
counter-terrorist means should be taken - the first is intelligence
and the supervision on proliferation to non state actors, the second
is tightening the security measures on nuclear power plants and on
nuclear shipments. The third is, of course, the defence of the
population and of strategic targets against possible terrorist attack.
According to a research of the CNS, "The first and only reliable line
of defence against the acquisition or use of "suitcase nuclear
weapons" by terrorists lies in the countries that possess such devices
or have the capability to produce them.". Thus, the CNS reviewed the
information known on the proliferation of "suitcase nuclear
weapons".(7)
They concluded, that "First, the probability that any portable nuclear
devices were lost prior to or after the breakup of the Soviet Union
appears low; the scenarios of loss offered by the special commission
in 1996 are actually the least plausible among other possible
scenarios. This does not mean that the threat does not exist, but
rather that at this moment, it is probably not the most immediate
threat to the home security of the United States or to U.S. armed
forces abroad.
Second, even if any devices were lost, their effectiveness should be
very low or maybe even non-existent, especially if the loss occurred
during the period of the greatest risk, in the early 1990s. Without
scheduled maintenance, these devices apparently can produce only
minimal yield and eventually possibly no yield at all, and can only
serve as a source of small amounts of weapons-grade fissile materials.
That being said, open-source information has limited usefulness and
can only yield probabilistic analysis instead of definitive answers.
Consequently, it is necessary to continue efforts aimed at acquiring
better and more reliable information about the status of
Soviet/Russian portable nuclear devices, as well as about the
parameters of threat they might pose in the hands of terrorists"(7).
Albright et al. are a bit more frightening: "Following extensive
analysis of open source information and interviews with knowledgeable
officials, the Institute for Science and International Security found
no credible evidence that either bin Laden or Al Qaeda possesses
nuclear weapons or sufficient fissile material to make them. However,
if Al Qaeda obtained enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium, we
believe it is capable of building a crude nuclear explosive, despite
several difficult steps... If Al Qaeda were to build nuclear weapons,
it would likely build relatively crude, massive nuclear explosives,
deliverable by ships, trucks, or private planes. Stopping such an
attack would be extremely difficult.". They recommend to begin
immediately with means to obstruct such an intention (8).
The scientific analysis, thus, indicates that the threat of nuclear
terrorism is not as high as the press reports indicate. However, it
should be remembered that terrorists always seek new methods that
would over-shed their last "victory". It could be estimated, thus,
that nuclear terrorism, especially with lack of resources to control
proliferation of nuclear means in the "Rogue States", is likely to
occur, at least as an attempt. One of the ways to do that, might be to
expend the nuclear Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond Russia
to newly emerging nuclear states like India and Pakistan - that is the
suggestion of Senator Lugar(9).
Sources
=======
(1) Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, "Some Major Challenges: Nuclear Non-
Proliferation, Nuclear Arms Control and Nuclear Terrorism" Statement
to the Symposium on International Safeguards: Verification and Nuclear
Material Security, Vienna, 29 October 2001
<http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Statements/2001/ebsp2001n011.shtml>.
(2) A good example of such a treaty is the NPT (Non Proliferation
Treaty) http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Documents/Legal/npttext.shtml
(3) Read further on on the subject in "Legal Norms in the Real World"
by Peter Weiss, presented at Conference on Legal Perspectives of the
Nuclear Debate:
Global Concerns 2000 March 4, 2000
http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/policypractice/legal%20norms.htm
(4) Richard Butler "Fatal Choice" Boulder: Westview Press
(5) John Simpson "Core Non-Proliferation Regime Problems -
Non-Compliance and Universality"-
http://www.mcis.soton.ac.uk/Annecy2002March/SIMPSON-Annecy.pdf ; also
see Tracking Nuclear Proliferation: A Guide in Maps and Charts, 1998,
by Rodney W. Jones, Mark G. McDonough, Toby Dalton, and Gregory
Koblentz
(6) Bruce G. Blair, "What if the Terrorists Go Nuclear?", Oct. 1,
2001, http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/nuclear-pr.cfm ; see also
http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm ; "Nuclear Terrorism - How to Prevent
it" http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm ;
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Terrorism/Nuclear_Terrorism/?tc=1
links on nuclear terrorism.
(7) Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies, ""Suitcase Nukes": A
Reassessment" http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm
(8) "Bin Laden and the Bomb" by David Albright, Kathryn Buehler, and
Holly Higgins. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February
2002- http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02albright.html
(9) Senator Richard Lugar Globalising the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programme _Council on Foreign Relations_ March 01, 2002
http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0203/doc06.htm
I hope that answered your question. I must admit that your question
was a bit unclear in its wording. Therefore, and in case you need
clarifications, please let me know. I'd be pleased to clarify my
answer before you rate the question. |
,
0 Comments
)