One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a state, one cannot formally declare war on a terrorist group, thus causing difficulties in regards to concerns of specific conflicts or targets. It is not as if one could penalize a terrorist group with economic sanctions or any other means states employ to deter threats from and intimidate one another.
The globalized world has created a form of terrorism that knows no borders, and it would be very difficult to exert one’s will on a terrorist group, at least on a large scale. The coinciding fact that terrorists do not conduct warfare in the same manner as states do makes them increasingly unpredictable. A terrorist employment of a nuclear arm would not occur during an organized conflict; rather it would be used in a terrorist attack without warning. And due to the growing fervor of fundamental religious terrorism, there is a greater willingness among terrorists to sacrifice their own lives in pursuit of their goals. These combined elements create a frightening world in which today’s most astounding new threat possesses weapons of the most awesome power. The key to identifying the threat posed by a particular terrorist group is its basic tenets, and the level of violence thereof.
The Term Paper on India pakistan Nuclear Threat part 1
India-Pakistan Nuclear Threat In May 1998, India carried out five nuclear tests and formally declared itself a "nuclear weapon state" (NWS). This dramatic move stunned the world and immediately triggered a new round of the nuclear arms race in South Asia. India's archenemy, Pakistan, responded by setting off six announced nuclear tests just two weeks later. The nuclear crisis in South Asia was ...
“Groups that model themselves on an avenging angel or a vindictive god… are more likely to lash out than those whose core myth is the suffering Messiah,” (Stern, p. 72).
For example, the element that may be both the most prevalent and violent in the world today is fundamental Islamic extremism. With its emphasis on violent martyrdom and conquest on “infidels,” Islam is a religion based on values that are easily twisted to an extreme. Due to their religious motivation, Islamic terrorists may be more inclined to use any nuclear device at their disposal “in the belief they were emulating God,” (Stern, p.
70).
It is conceivable that nuclear weapons in the hands of such groups would be used in a manner both to wreak incredible destruction, and in a sort of religious homage to the relevant deity, particularly because “worldly consequences are not a central concern for religious terrorists, since they believe their actions are dictated by a divine authority,” (Stern, p. 80).
Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p. 5).
After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401. 7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget).
Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11 th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities.
The Essay on Nuclear Bomb History Weapons Pentagon Document
The United States stored nuclear weapons in 27 countries and territories around the globe during the Cold War, according to 'Where They Were,' the cover story in the November/December issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The article, by three noted nuclear weapons analysts, is based upon a newly declassified Pentagon history released under a Freedom of Information Act request originally ...
In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party that is responsible for the employment of a nuclear device. However a terrorist group with a nuclear weapon presents the problem of accountability; who do we hunt down after we have been hit with a nuke that does not belong to a state? “It is difficult to preempt or deter [or retaliate against] adversaries whose identities, motivations, and likely responses are unknown” and irrational, (Stern, p. 130).
Moving beyond accountability, one must address the issue of unpredictability of a nuclear terrorist attack. This facet corresponds to the lack of formal accountability for an attack; however it is an even more horrifying reality. The fact of the matter is we can only do so much to anticipate and prevent a non-nuclear terrorist attack, let alone one that involves a nuclear device.
History has shown that in the case of the state, they “have been deterred from using nuclear weapons because of concerns of retaliation in kind by adversaries,” (Baylis-Smith, p. 422).
However, in the case of the terrorist, he is not deterred by any threat of retaliation. The conventional “strategic motivation” behind nuclear proliferation was that “acquisition [of nuclear weapons] was the deterrence of other nuclear weapons-capable states,” (Baylis-Smith, p. 423).
On the contrary, I can only imagine a terrorist group devoting the necessary resources to the process of obtaining a nuclear device in order to use it, rather than to exert its political, social, or economic will.
The Term Paper on Nuclear Power The Future OF Energy
Nuclear power, a phrase that isn’t too far from its controversial disputes. nuclear powers debate began around the 1970s to late 1980s when American nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania had a cooling malfunction that caused a part of one of its reactors partially melt inside the reactor core. Media outlets jumped onto this incident, and dramatizing the events that transpired; not ...
Regulation of nuclear materials among states has become an increasingly grave issue. Various commissions and agencies have been created to monitor and maintain states’ nuclear capabilities, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and the European Atomic Energy Community. These organizations exist in order to protect nuclear weapons, the designs and components thereof, and to coordinate “nuclear energy development” and the “safeguards system to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted ‘to purposes other than for those which they are intended,’ ” (Baylis-Smith, p. 430).
Various treaties and agreements, both formal and unspoken have also come into existence in order to regulate nuclear proliferation and prevent it from reaching the bounds of terrorism.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons recognizes the “traditional” nuclear powers of the world, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, France and China. “In Latin America, South-East Asia, Africa, and Central Asia, the trend has been to establish and consolidate the region as a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,” (Baylis-Smith, p. 416).
While states across the globe have come to understand the tremendous power of nuclear weapons technology, it is precisely because of its magnitude that terrorists would seek to obtain such a weapon.
Terrorists will not acquiesce to the terms concerning possession and production of nuclear weapons handed down by an international organization, regardless of its power. The best we can hope for is a level of regulation among the nuclear-capable states of the world that is strong enough to remove the possibility of any terrorist acquisition of nuclear materiel. The inherent lack of rationality in the mind of a terrorist is the quintessential factor behind the frightening prospect of nuclear proliferation among radicals, whether they are fundamental religious extremists, or political radicals. The globalized world of the 21 st century has seen the threat of politically driven state ideology fade out and give way to the new threat of terrorist ideology.
The dangers of such illogical principles are only compounded when on considers the nuclear element, and its significance in the hands of those who seek solely to harm others. The interconnectedness of the modern global community has compounded the threat of worldwide terrorism, and with greater nuclear proliferation, the potential for a devastating nuclear terrorist attack should shock and awe civilians everywhere.
The Essay on Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Energy
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear physicist Alvin M. Weinberg told the Senate's Special Committee on Atomic Energy in December 1945: "Atomic power can cure as well as kill. It can fertilize and enrich a region as well as devastate it. It can widen man's horizons as well as force him back into the cave." The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was passed with the intention of using potential peaceful ...
