This Sunday there was a fantastic article in the New York Times magazine that examined the threat of nuclear terrorism, focusing in particular on Sam Nunn and his path from rejection to eventual support of a doctrine of eliminating all nuclear weapons. 

This article reminded me once again of the degree to which America’s foreign policy has been hijacked by the Iraq conflict.  As we all remember, President Bush and Senator Kerry both agreed that the greatest threat to our nation was a nuclear attack on our soil by terrorists.  In such a contentious campaign based to a large degree on foreign policy it was quite dramatic to have the two opposing candidates actually agree on this threat.  Such an attack is truly a frightening prospect, particularly to any of us who live in the likely targets of such an attack – Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Miami, Philadedphia, etc. 

9/11 was truly a horrible event that has changed life in America and how it interacts with the rest of the world.  Over 2000 people died and it altered the way we all live and how our country interacts with the rest of the world.  I don’t want to downplay the magnitude of that disaster.  However, I believe that it is safe to say that a nuclear attack on American soil would make that enormous tragedy seem like a minor incident in terms of lives lost, economic impact, and the potential for devastating blowback from American attempts at military retribution.  If we think that the debacle in Iraq is bad, just wait to see what happens when hundreds of thousands of Americans perish instantaneously in a nuclear attack.  If the post 9/11 national mood is any indication, all caution will be thrown to the wind. 

The article presented an interesting take on the danger we’re in:

Buffett once gave Nunn a formula that the latter likes to repeat: assuming a 10 percent chance of a nuclear attack in any given year, the odds of surviving 50 years without an attack are less than 1 percent. If the odds of an attack can be reduced to 1 percent per year, however, the chances of making it 50 years without a nuclear detonation improve to better than even.

So, if both parties agree that this is the number one danger to America, then of course, our country should be harnessing all its resources to ensure that this doesn’t happen.  Well, unfortunately, one of the things that has been getting in the way is our current devotion to Iraq and to other state based nuclear threats.  Yes, I do agree with our President that if Iraq continues along its current path it may provide a safe haven for terrorists.  I question, however, our ability to stop this from happening.  If we are unable to prevent Iraq from being such a safe haven, then the next logical means of self protection is to prevent those terrorists from gaining the nuclear materials they seek.  This is where we continue to devote insufficient resources and attention. 

Certainly the work that we’ve done is significant.  The Nunn-Lugar legislation and now the Lugar-Obama legislation is vitally important.  It is clear, however, that much more must be done.  There is no question that after 9/11 a nuclear attack on American soil is the holy grail for terrorists.  

So, we know that our enemies are seeking to do this.  We also know that if successful the results would disastrous.  Neverthless we tend to focus our efforts on Iraq and other state based nuclear threats.   I am constantly surprised at the degree to which we focus on threats such as North Korea and Iran in lieu of nuclear terrorism.  Certainly we would very much prefer that such countries do not have access to nuclear weapons.  However, I would have to say that I’d rather North Korea or Iran have such a weapon than a stateless terrorist.  The nuclear arsenal of the US and other allies provides a check on Iran and North Korea.  If they chose to use a nuclear weapon on the United States or an ally they would cease to exist.  Although their possession of such a weapons greatly limits our coercive power towards them, they certainly do not provide the same threat to American territory as that of an individual terrorist with a nuclear weapon.   

Certainly, attention to foreign policy threats is not simply a zero sum game.  However, most would agree that our foreign policy establishment and our country in general has had a difficult time devoting sufficient attention to the wide range of terrorist threats out there because we are bogged down in Iraq. 

What is tragic is the degree to which our current crop of presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, seems to be overlooking the threat of nuclear terrorism.  I know that many of them have worked on these issues before and that they have the right rhetoric when talking about this threat.  However, if nuclear terrorism is truly the greatest threat to our country, then a bit more attention needs to be paid to this issue both by the candidates and by the electorate. 

We know how to protect the nuclear materials that our enemies seek.  It’s not rocket science.  It requires money, international cooperation, and persistence.  None of these tools are dramatic. Maybe that’s the problem.  

One of the most interesting things that this article highlighted was a recent bipartisan op-ed by Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry that advocated for pursuing a “world free of nuclear weapons”.  As the article pointed out this was a dramatic turnaround for Sam Nunn.  However, what I thought was most compelling was Nunn’s explanation:

Nunn concedes that any path to complete disarmament would be long and slow. He says that the U.S. could begin by finally starting to make substantial cuts in its nuclear forces, and by ratifying a 1996 international nuclear-test-ban treaty that Congress has refused to ratify, and by working to halt the production of new fissile material everywhere. But only a sweeping vision of a world free from the bomb can start such a process, Nunn says. “I don’t believe the steps are possible without the vision.”

I agree that we should not underestimate the symbolic power of America’s actions.  It is clear that the US has dramatically more nuclear weapons than it needs for an effective deterrent.  It’s hard to see how reduction, even if it is primarily symbolic at first, could not be a good thing. 

Related posts:

1. 30 Top National Security Leaders Come Out in Support of New START Treaty
2. Bipartisan Support for Non-Proliferation Programs
3. Obsession with Nuclear Deterrent Doesn’t Add Up
4. CTR for Pakistan: Opportunity Knocks
5. Obama Takes a Long View of Missile Defense