Terrorist Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons: How, and How Likely?
if a terrorist group like al Qaeda was determined to “go nuclear,” how might it attempt to do so and what obstacles would it face? There are four main alternatives that prospective nuclear terrorists might pursue. First, terrorists could attempt to manufacture the fissile material needed to fuel a nuclear weapon—either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium—and then use that material to construct a nuclear device. Of all the scenarios, this is by far the most ambitious, most difficult,and least likely. Producing fissile material is both the most crucial and the most challenging aspect of developing nuclear weapons, and is the step that has prevented aspiring nuclear powers such as Libya and Iraq from becoming nuclear-weapon states in the past. Thus, the knowledge, infrastructure, and finances needed to undertake this step with any realistic prospect of success very likely outstrip the resources that even a well-funded terrorist group might possess.
A second possibility is that a terrorist group might seek out a state sponsor, in particular a rogue nation that already possessed nuclear weapons and might provide the group with this capability. While the direct transfer of a nuclear weapon would certainly be the easiest route from a terrorist group’s perspective, several factors suggest that it is also highly unlikely. First, nuclear weapons are an extraordinarily valuable commodity that any state would be reluctant to part with. Second, any state that deliberately provided a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon would run the risk of being discovered and suffering the consequences.7 Third, it is also unlikely that a regime would willingly entrust a terrorist group with such a powerful weapon, since there would be no way to ensure that the group would carry out an attack against the intended target rather than another state or even the sponsoring regime itself.
A third possibility is the theft of an intact nuclear weapon, although this would hardly be an easy task. Most nuclear weapons are heavily guarded, and, even if terrorists did manage to acquire a weapon, they would still have to overcome any security features that render a weapon inoperable without the proper arming codes. Despite these factors, fears of “loose” nuclear weapons persist and are warranted, especially in the cases of Russia and Pakistan. For example, while efforts to help the Russian government reduce, consolidate, and secure its nuclear arsenal have been underway for more than a decade, the sheer size of that arsenal, the incomplete accounting of Russia’s weapon stockpiles, and limited or problematic safety measures at its nuclear facilities have contributed to lingering questions over Moscow’s ability to safeguard its weapons. In Pakistan, ongoing political instability and popular unrest, as well as suspicions that members of Pakistan’s military, intelligence, and scientific establishments continue to sympathize with and perhaps even support violent Islamist groups, have exacerbated fears that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons may be vulnerable. These fears have also been compounded by reports that Pakistan has been expanding its nuclear infrastructure and increasing its nuclear arsenal, for example by building two additional heavy water nuclear reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract the plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.
Finally, there is the possibility that a group could purchase fissile material on the black market or steal it from a military or civilian facility and then use that material to construct an improvised nuclear device. in recent years, analysts have increasingly come to view this scenario as the most plausible route for terrorists seeking nuclear weapons, for two main reasons. First, large stockpiles of fissile material can be found throughout the world in military as well as civilian facilities, some of which are inadequately monitored and protected. Second, building a crude nuclear device once a sufficient amount of this material has been obtained, although not an easy task, is certainly within the realm of possibility. Here, the principal challenge for terrorists would involve the tradeoff between the quantity of fissile material required for a weapon and the type of weapon that could be built. That is to say, while a gun-type nuclear weapon would be relatively easy to build, it requires a significant amount of highly enriched uranium; conversely, far less uranium or a very small amount of plutonium would be needed to fuel an implosion weapon, but building this device would prove extremely difficult.Nevertheless, this threat remains particularly salient.
Developing a Response
At the most basic level, a comprehensive strategy for addressing the threat of nuclear terrorism should be structured around three core objectives: preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or fissile material; stopping terrorists from delivering a nuclear weapon to their intended target should prevention fail; and being prepared to respond as quickly and effectively as possible, both at home and abroad, in the event that terrorists succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon inside the United States.