|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nations Must Declare Global War Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, Experts Say By Chris Schneidmiller WASHINGTON — The attention paid by the United States to the threat of nuclear terrorism does not match the danger that someone will detonate an atomic bomb on U.S. soil, experts said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 28). “We have a global war on terror, but we do not have a global war on weapons of mass destruction,” Harvard University science and international affairs professor Ashton Carter said during a panel discussion at the Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference on preventing nuclear terrorism. Speakers focused their comments on nuclear and biological weapons — “those that have the greatest potential to cause the greatest harm,” according to moderator Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation fellow at the Center for International and Strategic Studies. While they offered some glimpses of hope, the overall tone was downbeat. The United States has made significant efforts since the Sept. 11 attacks to safeguard itself from terrorism through spending increases, intelligence reform, creation of the Homeland Security Department and other activities. It has not made similar strides against unconventional weapons, said Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard and Stanford universities. President George W. Bush in a 2004 debate with then challenger Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) identified WMD terrorism as the greatest threat facing the United States (see GSN, Oct. 1, 2004). However, his administration continues to spend far more on missile defense than it does on blocking terrorists from obtaining nuclear material, said U.S. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) “We know that Osama bin Laden wants the bomb. We know that he has expressed his desire to have an American Hiroshima,” Schiff said. “If al-Qaeda is the No. 1 suspect, then the most likely delivery system is not a missile but a crate.” The greatest and possibly only real impediment to an act of nuclear terror is in obtaining the plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed for a weapon. The know-how to build a bomb is already out there and radiation sensors or other measures should not be counted on to prevent someone from smuggling a bomb into the United States, Schiff said. Since only nations are able to produce weaponizable nuclear fuel, the question of deterring terrorism is inextricably tied to nonproliferation, speakers said. The more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it becomes that nuclear materials could end up in the wrong hands. Carter noted the past and present troubles experienced by nuclear powers. The Soviet Union collapsed into multiple independent nations. North Korea cannot sustain itself in its present level of impoverishment, he said. “Pakistan I worry about every single day. You’d hardly describe that as a stable situation,” he said. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has survived several assassination attempts by militants in his country. The Bush administration has had a “relaxed attitude” to nuclear proliferation among certain nations, said panelist Rose Gottemoeller, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. While it has vehemently opposed suspected weapons programs in nations Iran and North Korea, the White House could be willing to give a pass to an ally such as Japan should it seek nuclear weapons status, she said. Another theme in the White House is that “nuclear weapons create a rush to stability,” Gottemoeller said. If Iran produced an atomic bomb, its neighbors could seek the same weaponry and thereby cancel out the threat posed by Tehran. The detente between nuclear rivals Pakistan and India is held up as an example of this successful balance. Gottemoeller argued, though, that the world cannot afford further proliferation of nuclear weapons and fissile material. While the likelihood of an act of nuclear terrorism is small, the results would be so devastating on a global level that the danger must be addressed, she said. She questioned who would have access to atomic materials should Musharraf be deposed or killed in Pakistan, or if the government of a nuclear Iran were to fall. “These are stark examples but they show we must be cautious about seeking some ephemeral stability involving nuclear weapons,” Gottemoeller said. Speakers gave some time for positive thoughts on nonproliferation. Schiff noted increases in funding for U.S. programs and the geographic expansion and easing of restrictions for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, July 22). Leaders should focus on nation-level nuclear prevention and use the tools at hand, Gottemoeller said. She used as an example North Korea — a known proliferator of missile technology that is operating what Carter called a “runaway” nuclear program. Should Pyongyang agree in the six-party talks to eliminate its weapons program there are resources within the United States and in other countries that could support efforts to carry out that goal, Gottemoeller said. The experience that the United States and Russia gained in devising nuclear threat-reduction programs following the breakup of the Soviet Union could be put to work in dismantling North Korea’s nuclear program. However, a similar level of cooperation cannot necessarily be expected given the deep mistrust between Washington and Pyongyang, Gottemoeller said. A program of “scientist to scientist” exchanges of expertise could build confidence between the two nations, she said. Leaders should also look to countries outside the six-party process for support in creating a North Korea without nuclear weapons, Gottemoeller said. Kazakhstan, for example, has historical and cultural ties to North Korea along with experience in removing nuclear fuel from reactors and then shutting down facilities. “I think there’s good news out there. I think we are actually very well positioned to work successfully with North Korea assuming that we can build up a level of mutual confidence fairly quickly and proceed to some actual threat-reduction projects,” Gottemoeller said. “As we know from our experience working with North Korea in the 1990s this will not be easy, but it will be possible.” If nuclear terrorism must be blocked at the source of the material, the answer to biological weapons is more likely to be found at the site of the attack, Carter said. Pathogens such as anthrax or botulism occur in nature, meaning terrorists cannot be barred from them. The objective then must be to heighten the ability of governments and emergency personnel to detect, contain and treat a biological agent before it can spread, Carter said. Infectious and parasitic diseases killed 14.9 million people worldwide in 2001, nearly 4 million more than runner-up killer heart disease, Princeton University astrophysics and international affairs professor Christopher Chyba said in his presentation. Al-Qaeda is known to be interested in biological weapons, he said, and the technological capability that would enable an attack is progressing rapidly past the point in which it is only available to nations. There have only been a handful of actual biological attacks, Chyba said. He noted the Aum Shinrikyo’s failed effort to spread anthrax around Tokyo, two years before its successful 1995 sarin attacks on the city’s subway system. “We should be careful not to suggest that such attacks are somehow inevitable. … You have to [prepare the weapon] in the laboratory without killing yourself and your colleagues,” Chyba said. There is no “silver bullet” against a biological attack, Chyba said. Rather, a “web of prevention” is needed. That will require international efforts, he said. Chyba called U.N. Security Council resolution 1540, which requires member nations to outlaw WMD prevention and to take measures to safeguard dangerous pathogens from misuse, “a step in the right direction.” Carter said he wants the U.S. president 10 years from now to be able to tell the nation that the danger of nuclear terrorism had been eradicated, and that any biological attack would “fizzle” in the face of an overwhelming response. Sixty years after the proposal of the first international controls on nuclear weapons, Carter said he foresees two possible worlds 60 years in the future. In one there is no risk of nuclear terrorism, in the other dangerous people have access to fissile materials. “That’s the path we’re on, I fear, for 60 years from now,” Carter said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
