Apocalypse ahead: everyone's talking about the film 'The Peacemaker' - but when it comes to nuclear terrorism, truth is scarier than fiction

Washington Monthly, Nov, 1997 by John Leifer

The technology is out there, the raw materials are plentiful--so just how worried should we be? Would a terrorist group that got its hands on a nuclear weapon actually dare to use it against us? Recent events speak for themselves: The World Trade Center bombing, the Aum Shinrikyo attack on the Tokyo subway, and the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City all point to a major shift in the sophistication and tactics of the world's fanatics. Bruce Hoffman, an analyst for the Rand organization, suggests that these events are a portent of what is to come: "The March 1995 deadly nerve gas on the Tokyo underground marks an historical watershed in terrorist tactics and weaponry. Previously, most terrorists had an aversion to the esoteric and exotic weapons of mass destruction popularized in fictional thrillers or depicted in action-hero movies and television shows. Indeed, the pattern of terrorism over three decades suggests that many groups are impelled by an inner dynamic, an organizational imperative, towards escalation."

Not only has the terrorists' modus operandi changed, but so, too, have their capabilities. Heretofore, it was erroneously presumed that terrorist organizations lacked the requisite infrastructure or resources to engage in nuclear terrorism. Yet the Aum, who were actively exploring the use of nuclear weapons, built an organization with 50,000 adherents, $1 billion in assets, and a staff of elite scientists--all without raising alarm. A congressional permanent subcommittee on investigations was shocked to find "that the Aum and their doomsday weapons were simply not on anybody's radar screen."

The Battle Plan

The proliferation of nuclear material and weapons, the destabilization of the Soviet regime, the vulnerability of American targets, and the growth of fanatic groups and rogue states have all combined to move us ever closer to nuclear disaster. So what's a conscientious superpower to do? The first, most important step: place greater emphasis on the control of fissile material.

To its credit, the Clinton administration has taken a stab at addressing the problem. It has convinced the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to give up their nuclear weapons (though not all their nuclear materials) in exchange for economic assistance. And it has helped physically remove more than 1,300 pounds of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan. There remains, however, much to be done. Our only hope of preventing an apocalyptic terrorist event is through a multi-step program that first moves to secure the existing stockpiles of fissile materials, then works to develop organizations with the skills and infrastructure to prevent terrorist attacks. Among the actions the U.S. should take:

1) Develop a systematic method of providing physical protection for existing stockpiles of fissile materials that exist throughout the world. This method may include rendering this material "inactive" through innovative encasement procedures, or in the case of highly enriched uranium, through dilution with non-fissile uranium isotopes. The United States must also insist that such standards for containment are adopted by the global nuclear community; otherwise, they will be of little value.