Nuclear Weapons In the Hands of Terrorists
Gusterson's article discusses the possibility of nuclear weapons being launched in our lifetime and the likelihood that they would be launched by third world countries. A nuclear war is a troublesome thought in and of itself, but the real threat is not the third world leaders. The dangerous situation is nuclear weapons in the hands of non-state actors like transnational criminal organizations or terrorists.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty made nuclear weapons alright for five countries and "illegal" for everyone else. Still, though, we know that there are countries not within the group of five that have nuclear weapons. If these states can bend the rules, then what's stopping non-state actors, not bound by the treaty, from going after nuclear weapons? Nothing, except maybe the difficulty of acquiring the materials or weapons themselves.
A terrorist attack involving nuclear weapons isn't inconceivable or impossible, though it may be improbable. Terrorist groups don't just have to take over a nuclear-armed state to possess nuclear weapons. They have been known to exploit the black market for fissile materials, which would be necessary to create nuclear weapons. They could create a dirty bomb, which doesn't match the scale of an all out nuclear missile, but would still have extensive fallout. The attempts by various criminal or terrorists groups to acquire nuclear weapons or material to have or create weapons of mass destruction, small nuclear weapons, or dirty bombs is of grave concern to the international community at large.
State's have to work together to increase security to prevent access to nuclear weapons and material. With an increasing number of countries seeking to pursue nuclear energy projects without adequate resources or the framework to protect these programs, the concern increases that terrorist groups looking to get their hands on nuclear weapons have easier access. Even if chances are slim that nuclear terrorism is a possibility, the devastating consequences should it occur should propel security measures for prevention and protection.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty made nuclear weapons alright for five countries and "illegal" for everyone else. Still, though, we know that there are countries not within the group of five that have nuclear weapons. If these states can bend the rules, then what's stopping non-state actors, not bound by the treaty, from going after nuclear weapons? Nothing, except maybe the difficulty of acquiring the materials or weapons themselves.
A terrorist attack involving nuclear weapons isn't inconceivable or impossible, though it may be improbable. Terrorist groups don't just have to take over a nuclear-armed state to possess nuclear weapons. They have been known to exploit the black market for fissile materials, which would be necessary to create nuclear weapons. They could create a dirty bomb, which doesn't match the scale of an all out nuclear missile, but would still have extensive fallout. The attempts by various criminal or terrorists groups to acquire nuclear weapons or material to have or create weapons of mass destruction, small nuclear weapons, or dirty bombs is of grave concern to the international community at large.
State's have to work together to increase security to prevent access to nuclear weapons and material. With an increasing number of countries seeking to pursue nuclear energy projects without adequate resources or the framework to protect these programs, the concern increases that terrorist groups looking to get their hands on nuclear weapons have easier access. Even if chances are slim that nuclear terrorism is a possibility, the devastating consequences should it occur should propel security measures for prevention and protection.
I agree with your conclusion and overall stance on nuclear weapons, but this does bring into question the US decision to withdraw from the Iran deal. Withdrawal is almost the opposite of taking security measures to prevent another actor from getting nuclear weapons. I know the argument in support of withdrawing is that the agreement was too weak and wasn't going to prevent Iran from getting a weapon. But I think this is misguided. Furthermore, the US has not made any efforts (publicly at least) to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability, which makes the move even more mind-boggling.
ReplyDeleteOne would think that, given the consequences of nuclear attack, that a state would make every effort to ensure prevention and protection of these weapons, but the US actions say otherwise.
Great point! I agree, this does go against the logical reasoning path. However, it could be argued that by withdrawing the US is opening up more security measures to employ. Now they can bring up sanctions against Iran, but that could push Iran towards re-instating their nuclear program. So, yes it is really unclear how this will ensure prevention of using nuclear weapons and not serve to antagonize Iran. Definitely a sticky situation that we will have to wait and see how it plays out.
Delete