Abstract
International community is aware of the terrorists’ intentions to acquire nuclear material. We are thus living with the modern day nightmare of the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Among non- state actors Al Qaeda is considered to be the most aspirant organization which has used resources and made foiled attempts to acquire nuclear weapon/material and use it. Analysts fears that hostile states namely Iran and North Korea would provide nuclear material to terrorists to use it against their enemies. Despite the fact international community realized the threat of nuclear terrorism in 1990s, IAEA has registered 800 cases, since end of the Cold War to 2010, wherein radioactive material was either missing or it was taken into possession by smugglers. As all roads of terrorist activities are linked with Pakistan, this country can face serious problems if terrorists succeeds in their attempts. This Paper highlights the competition between the international community to foil terrorists attempts to acquire nuclear weapons – and terrorists – to acquire nuclear material and carryout deadly attacks – and possible implications for Pakistan.
Introduction
Nuclear terrorism is considered to be a modern day nightmare and international community in post 9/11 era is more than ever determined to prevent it.1 The primary purpose of this study is to understand the notion of nuclear terrorism and critically examine possibility of a nuclear attack by terrorists as well as to investigate whether the notion of nuclear terrorism is a myth or reality? This paper highlights why the international community suddenly realized the threat emanating from the possible acquisition of or usage of nuclear material (according to International Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA- nuclear material is “necessary for the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” Agency has specified as “source material, special fissionable material, uranium, plutonium, thorium, enriched uranium”) 2 by terrorists. It also focuses on possible ways and means through which terrorists or non state actors can possibly acquire nuclear material to fulfill their nefarious designs. An attempt has also been made to highlight steps undertaken by the international community to deny terrorists and rouge actors, determined to inflict massive harms to international society through the use of nuclear material, from acquiring nuclear material. Such acquisition would lead them/terrorists to use it in terror activity or activities.
a. Defining Nuclear Terrorism
Prior to discussing the topic it is imperative to define nuclear terrorism. Nuclear terrorism means the “use or the threat of the use of nuclear explosive device of any type by an individual or a group for terrorist purposes.”3 Radiological terrorism on the other hand means “the use or threat of use of radiation for terrorist purposes by means of such methods as a radiological dispersal device (RDD), or dirty bomb, which would disperse radioactive substances.”4 After understanding what nuclear terrorism is one knows that terrorists would first require nuclear material or weapon. It would then be used against potential targets. Terrorists’ intentions to acquire nuclear weapons are clear. Hohowever, terrorists would first have to develop a strategy to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Or get hold of WMD which is by no means an easy thing, for any such devices are useless without delivery means, otherwise they are reduced to dirty bombs, or uinstable nuclear devices.
b. Terrorists Resolve and Attempts to Acquire Nuclear Material for Nuclear Attack
Several terrorist organizations and non- state actors across the globe have expressed their resolve to acquire Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) material.5 Among these terrorists organizations Al Qaeda has made multiple attempts and expressed its determination to obtain nuclear material.6 Prosecution witness Jamal Ahmad Al Fadl 7 quit Al Qaeda in 1996 and assisted Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 8 Fadl while recording his statement in court claimed that in late 1993 or early 1994 Al Qaeda made an attempt to acquire uranium worth $ 1.5 million. Amount was paid to former Sudanese president Saleh Mobruk.9
In post 9/11 era many feared that terrorists would acquire WMD and use it against their enemies and enemy allies.10 In 1998 Al Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden declared, “it is his duty to obtain WMD.”Al Qaeda senior leadership in pre 9/11 era pursued strategy to acquire nuclear and biological weapons.11 Non-state actors particularly Bin Laden and his followers pursued first use policy and to use these weapons after getting their hold on these weapons against their enemies or their allies anywhere in the world.12 Bin Laden initiated his fight against US believing it a holy war between Muslims and Christen-Jews Crusaders,13 to change the status quo in international system. He thought once the status quo is changed overall conditions would be conducive for the organizations to overthrow the apostate regimes/governments in Islamic states and Islamic Caliphate would be restored.14
In order to inflict massive harm to its enemies Al Qaeda’s strategy is focused on acquiring “strategic weapons.”15 “Documents seized in Afghan training camps in late 2001 also indicate a rudimentary understanding of nuclear fission devices.”16 Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, mastermind of 9/11 attacks, was interviewed by Al Jazeera in, 2002.17 Al Qaeda leader stated that “Al Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified concern about aircraft crashes.”18 Acquisition of poisonous material had remained of little interest for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda operatives were experimenting on “crude chemical agents” before 9/11 in its training camps in Afghanistan. However, their use was left on the individuals outside Al Qaeda core leadership command. Abu Khabab planned small scale chemical and biological activity, in 2002 and 2003 Abu Masab al Zarqawi planned attacks using ricin and cyanide in Europe and Bahrain based terror group also devised a plan to carryout attack using crude cyanide gas device in New York City subway.19 Al Qaeda top leadership was kept uniformed of these attacks. Later, Al Zawahiri comes to know about New York subway planned attack he cancelled it “for something better.”20
After reading the preceding paragraphs it is understood that unlike state actors, who are determined to acquire nuclear weapons to boost their security and deter enemies, terrorists also have three routes to get hold on these weapons. First acquire WMD. Second, develop nuclear device or dirty bomb. Thirdly, terrorist can carry-out attack on nuclear programme sites/complexes.21
In August, 2003 Russian authorities apprehended Alexander Tyulyakov on charges of either smuggling or steal nuclear material. Alexander Tyulyakov had been working as Deputy Director in an organization that repairs Russian Nuclear submarines and icebreakers.22 Sulaiman Abu Gaith, Bin Laden spokesman was quoted stating that Al Qaeda aspires “to kill 4 million Americans, including 1 million children.” He justified Al Qaeda’s aim by holding US and Israel responsible for mass casualties of Muslims.23 Ibrahim Muhammad, an Al Qaeda operative was apprehended in 2005 by German officials on charges of making foil attempt to purchase uranium isotopes from “Combat Black Market” in Luxemburg.24 Other possible means for terrorists to acquire such weapons and then launch nuclear terrorist attack include terrorist’s possession of intact nuclear weapons or ability to fabricate Improvised Nuclear Device (IND).25 However, it is close to impossible to acquire intact nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are heavily guarded. If terrorists somehow acquire intact nuclear weapon they would require codes to detonate it which is yet another problem.26
c. President George W. Bush’s Declaration of “Axis of Evil” and Future Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
In his State of Union Address on January 29, 2002 US President George Bush termed Iran, Iraq and North Korea as “axis of evil.”27 To qualify his argument President Bush claimed that North Korea is pursuing missile programme and developing WMD. Iran was alleged of being a repressive regime, exporting terrorism and pursuing clandestine WMD programme. Iraq was also alleged of being anti US, exporting terror, developing anthrax and nerve gas and expelling IAEA inspectors to hide its nuclear programme related activities.28 President Bush further stated that these states can provide these weapons to their allies which would not only use WMD against US but also its allies. Bush emphasized in his speech that North Korea, Iran and Iraq being axis of evil pose great threat and danger to international peace and this threat needs to be thwarted with the help of allies and international community.29 In 2003 Iraq was invaded 30 by US in pursuit to disarm its WMD which were never found in Iraq.31 Threat emanating from Iraqi WMD has been thwarted.32 International community is at unease because of the fear that President George W. Bush shared with US citizens, US allies and international community in 2002. Many Western analysts have bought the idea and fear that hostile states, such as Iran or North Korea may provide nuclear material to terrorists to use it against West.33
Western analysts have also associated dangers with Pakistani nuclear weapons and programme’s related research sites.34 However, nature of these concerns varies from dangers associated with North Korea, Iraq and Iran which is explained in next section. An organized and baseless campaign has been launched in Western media about the insecurity of Pakistani nuclear weapons programme.35 This organized propaganda has been justified on the basis of prevailing deteriorated law and order situation in the country.36 Various reports can be found on the subject written by various Western scholars/analysts. Some of the analysts includes, Seymour M. Hersh,37 Jeffery Goldberg, Marc Ambinder 38 and Russ Wellen.39.
d. International Community Concerns regarding Pakistani Nuclear Weapons Programme
Four problems are associated with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program in various reports. Moreover, US has devised contingency plan to “snatch-and-grab” Pakistani nuclear weapons. Such a plan would be implemented if US president is sure that Pakistani nuclear weapons are under threat. Moreover, these weapons will later pose threat to US main homeland or US interests.40 Among contingency plans is that US forces would work in collaboration with Pakistan army units, deployed for the security of these weapons. and intelligence officials to “spirit away” Pakistani arsenals believed to be under threat.41 US contingency plan to secure Pakistani nuclear arsenals was first shared by former US Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice in January, 2005 during hearing before US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.42
First, problem associated with Pakistan’s nuclear assets and program is it is viewed as vulnerable to terrorists by several Western analysts. International community fears that terrorists would either takeover control of Pakistan’s nuclear assets or country would fall into the hands of extremists.43 Second, problem associated with frontline state, in US led war against terror, is that terrorists can get access to Pakistan’s nuclear assets because of the insider support or collaborator serving in security circles of Pakistan.44 Pakistani nuclear scientist Sultan Bashirudin’s meetings with Al Qaeda Chief Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman Al Zawahiri gave birth to these fears.45 International community expresses increased concerns about Pakistani nuclear programme but it has ignored an armed attack on Pelindaba, South African nuclear research centre in 2007.46 Attackers managed to enter into the research centre and stayed there for 45 minutes. Though they could not steal any nuclear material but they managed to escape safely.47
Fears that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons can fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups were further intensified due to the interview of Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. Mustafa Abu Yazid, during an interview to Al Jazeera on June 22, 2009 stated that “if it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States.”48 In 2010, former investigator with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and US Department of Energy Rolf Mottaw-Larssen was quoted by BBC that besides Taliban or Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayeba also poses threat to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.49
Third version is country may be hit by chaos wherein nuclear weapons would be readily available for terrorists.50 Fourth, it is feared that assault can be carried out during the transportation of Pakistan’s nuclear material wherein radioactive material would be released.51
Pakistan has repeatedly rejected concerns of international community regarding its nuclear programme’s safety and security. In late May, 2012 Pakistani Foreign Minister Ms. Hina Rabbani Khar while addressing participants of conference in Doha, Qatar stated that Pakistani nuclear programme under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Gilani is safe.52 Claims made by Pakistani officials were endorsed earlier by various US officials including President Barack Obama. President Obama in his speech on April 29, 2009 stated that, “I’m confident that we can make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals is secure, primarily, initially, because Pakistani army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons falling into the wrong hands.”53 Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff US Admiral Michael Mullen also expressed his confidence in safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. On February 3, 2010 former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “Pakistan army takes very seriously the security of its weapons, and they know the catastrophic consequences-primarily for Pakistan- if they were to get loose.”54 Mullen stated that Physical protection of Pakistan’s nuclear programme has “become more secure” and that “training improve for those handling and guarding the weapons.”55
It is worth mentioning that Pakistani i nuclear programme sites and its nuclear stockpiles are heavily guarded.56 Military officials tasked with securing Pakistani nuclear programme sites comprises of 10,000 well trained soldiers they are under command of a Lieutenant General.57 WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cable in December, 2010 wherein US officials informed US State Department about Pakistani nuclear programme. Cable stated that around 120,000 to 130,000 people are involved in Pakistani nuclear and missile related programmes working and protecting them.58 Pakistan’s Ministry of Defence sources confirmed reports in 2011 that additional 8,000 security officials are being trained for the protection of Pakistani nuclear programme sites. One of the passing out ceremony of which included 700 officials was attended by Major General Muhammad Tahir in 2011.59 Muhammad Tahir was in-charge of Strategic Plans Division (SPD), tasked to guard Pakistan’s nuclear programme.60 After reading the preceding paragraph it is known that foolproof security arrangements have been carried out by Pakistan army to secure country’s strategic weapons.
e. Threat of Nuclear Terrorism Associated with Pakistan based Terror Groups
Graham Allison expressed his fears that any of the terrorist group after getting its hold on nuclear device would transport it either to “Mumbai or New York”61 It would be a very difficult situation for Pakistan, if terrorists are successful in carrying out nuclear attack, anywhere in the world or any event similar to Bhopal gas incident 62– “Methyl Isocynate Gas leaked from the Union CaribdeCarbide India Limited, Plant in Bhopal, India” on December 3, 1984.63 According to estimates 3,800 people died while thousands others were affected-occurs. Other instances can include similar to June, 2011 wild fire threat to US nuclear laboratory in Los Alamos, it was used in Manhattan project to make US nuclear weapon 64-US authorities used the lab for storing approximately 20,000 barrels of nuclear waste. 12,000 residents were also evacuated from the suburb areas due to the threat of radiation.65 Some of the same facility’s buildings were damaged in 2000 due to wild fire and it caused over $ 1 billion damage.66
In April, 2009 Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Baitullah Mahsud claimed responsibility of the attack on New York based US immigration Centre. 13 people were killed in attack carried out by Vietnamese immigrant. Baitullah Mahsud’s claim compelled Pakistani security analyst to deny his claim.67 Later, in May, 2010 Qari Hussain TTP leader claimed responsibility of foil terror plot of New York Time Square.68 Various US officials held meetings with Pakistani President Asif Zardari and country’s top military general Gen Ashfaq Kayani to convey US concerns to Pakistan.69 US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned Pakistan of “severe consequences if a terror attack against the US would ever be traced back to Pakistan.”70 It is therefore feared that these security arrangement would become questionable and Pakistani authorities themselves would be held accountable by international community if terrorists succeeds in carrying out a nuclear attack anywhere in the world, even a natural calamity or accident take places in nuclear sites. Because Pakistan based terrorists can claim their involvement in such an incident even they are not capable of carrying it out.
Off-course neither Pakistani state nor its security officials would be involved to assist terrorists in pursuing their nefarious designs. But international community which runs a deliberate propaganda to declare Pakistani nuclear programme insecure would not lose any opportunity to pressure Pakistan to rollback its nuclear programme through various means which includes coerce diplomacy. Deliberate propaganda is legitimized by anti Pakistan quarters due to the past instances of Dr. A. Q Khan led International Nuclear Black Market (it was by no means run by Pakistani state it is discussed in succeeding paragraph), Dr. Bashirudin’s meeting with Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri in past.71
Dr. Khan led Network, had members, “merchants, nuclear specialists and middlemen from 3 continents,”72 its front office- SMB Computers- was setup in Dubai. Dr. Khan’s Deputy Chief Mr. Buhari Syed a Sri Lankan businessman- imprisoned in a Malaysian jail in 2005- was running front office.73 Dr. Khan was simultaneously representing Pakistani state for the procurement of nuclear technology and running his private business. He interacted with Libya, Iran, North Korea and Iraq for strategic business.74
Anti Pakistan quarters are less concerned about nuclear attack infect they are biased towards Pakistan. It is very much evident from nonproliferation group based in Washington the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) report. It was published in January, 2011 wherein Indian nuclear programme security was ranked among “top five nuclear security risk” of the world.75 If Western analysts and international community would really have been concerned about hazards of nuclear attack they would have criticized India. However, members of the international community and security analysts kept silence and ignored NTI report.
Efforts to prevent the threat of nuclear terrorism require attention from international community to stop Nuclear Black Market from functioning. It is therefore pertinent to increase information sharing among states and crackdown against Nuclear Black Market and save the world from nuclear holocaust.76 In June, 2011 Moldavian authorities apprehended 6 individuals on charges of smuggling “4.4 grams of weapons grade uranium” on their way to sell it to Nuclear Black Market for “$ 31 millions.”77 Problem associated with effective crackdown against Nuclear Black Market are “globalization, huge profit margins and organized crime.”78
f. Realization of Threat of Nuclear Terrorism
Since terrorists efforts to acquire CBRN dates backs to 1990s one questions how international community realized the threat of nuclear terrorism? Concerns that terrorists and non state actors can get access to weapons of mass destruction can be traced back to pre 9/11 attacks 79 era. United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) prepared a report in 1996 in accordance with United Nations General Assembly’s Resolution 50/50. Report included measures of preventing terrorists from using WMD.80 Russian Federation while explaining the draft convention asserted that Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM) lacks the ability to address the problem of new threat of nuclear terrorism. Draft convention was therefore focused on addressing the new challenges of nuclear terrorism and stressed on adoption of stringent measures by international community to fight against the more lethal form of terrorism-nuclear terrorism.81 However, potential use of radiological, biological, chemical and nuclear threat was renewed after the anthrax attack in US, following 9/11 attacks.82 Anthrax was used in mails wherein 17 people were sickened and another 5 were killed. FBI started probe into the issue and termed it with code name as Amerithrax.83 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohmamed El Baradei, soon after the 9/11 attacks warned international community that we have entered into a new era of terrorism wherein fanatics determined to sacrifice their lives can launch attacks on nuclear plants.84 While in US possibility of nuclear theft and terrorism began to preoccupy the US political elite in the beginning of twenty-first century, thereby bringing this subject into the policy-making discussion. US focused on the emerging threat because of the coordinated attacks of Al Qaeda terrorists on Pentagon and the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 in US.85 Al Qaeda Chief Bin Laden issued instructions to his followers to carry out attacks against enemies’ installations. It was assumed in US that Al Qaeda terrorists are capable of launching attacks on nuclear power plants.86 Former CIA Director George Tenete informed President Bush in October, 2001 that “two suitcase nukes have reached Al Qaeda Operatives in US.”87 Sophisticated sensors were deployed in US to detect radiation under the Bush administration and prevent nuclear material from being smuggled into the main homeland.88 September 2004, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry during a political debate unambiguously termed, proliferation of nuclear weapons and material and the possibility that either might fall into the hand of terrorists, as the singular most important threat to US Security.89 Nuclear terrorism threat also remained on the top of the agenda of Presidential Candidates in 2008. In May, 2008 Senator John McCain called on both US and Russia to “redouble our common efforts to reduce the risk that nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons may fall into the hand of terrorists or unfriendly governments.”90 Then presidential candidate, Barrack Obama called the prospects of nuclear terrorism “the gravest threat we (US) face”.91 The ensuing discourse about the nuclear terrorism in the Congress and at the other important fora has contributed constructively in establishing that nuclear terrorism is not a myth, but a disturbing reality. IAEA has registered 800 cases, since end of the Cold War to 2010, wherein radioactive material was either missing or it was taken into possession by smugglers 92. It testifies the proposition that menace of threat of the use of nuclear weapons/terrorism can become a reality.93 President Barrack Obama in his historic speech in Prague on April 5, 2009, while spelling his agenda for Global zero, i.e. a world free from nuclear weapons highlighted the grave threat posed by nuclear terrorism. This initiated a campaign against nuclear terrorism, resulting consequently, in the UNSC Resolution 1887 in September, 2009. The resolution not only drew the attention of the international community towards the threat of nuclear terrorism but also necessitate that international community should work collectively to combat the menace of nuclear terrorism. President Obama’s initiative for nuclear weapon free world is considered to be the policy, suggested to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 by US former President Ronald Regan.94 Continuous efforts of international community to address the threat of nuclear terrorism have evolved a systematic mechanism known as Nuclear Security Summit. In 2010, leaders of various states met in Washington, US under the banner of first Nuclear Security Summit. Participants unanimously agreed upon the “urgency and seriousness of nuclear terrorism” they also agreed to address the issue.95 In March, 2012 world leaders gathered in Seoul South Korea under the Nuclear Security Summit. A joint communiqué was issued which stated that “nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threat to international security.”96 It further stated that “defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international cooperation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences.”97
g. Efforts to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
Nuclear black market poses threat to non-proliferation efforts of international community terrorists thinks that use of terror activities is a moderate tool to obtain or achieve their goals.98 Nuclear black market can be termed as the “Supply Side” while aspiring state (allegedly Iran). 99 and non state actors can be called “Demand Side.” Terrorists can either try to seize a nuclear weapon or purchase fissile material to manufacture Improvised Nuclear Device (IND).100
International community and US- because it fears use of nuclear attack against mainland- should prevent non state actors and sophisticated networks from acquiring WMD to reduce the threat of nuclear attack.101 Possibility of the nuclear attack by terrorists thus requires a comprehensive strategy to prevent such an attack. Effective strategy would prevent terrorists’ access to nuclear fissile material, prevent nuclear black market penetration into state run nuclear programmes and enhance the security apparatus of nuclear installations. Moreover, devise a well articulate policy to dispose off used fissile material. Efforts of the international community to prevent acts of nuclear terrorism include employing stringent measures to thwart the threat of theft of nuclear materials or prevent rouge state actors access to attain such material.102
US under George Bush administration announced new National Security Strategy in 2002. Use of force against enemy states by US, acquiring nuclear weapons or to provide such weapons to non state actors, had been the cornerstone of the new strategy – 103 Iraq invasion was justified under the same security policy.104 IAEA Board of Governors held meetings in March, 2002 wherein IAEA Board of Governors approved an “Action Plan” with an agenda to carryout measures first to upgrade the protection of nuclear material around the globe.105
Second, such measures would lead to prevention of activities leading to nuclear terrorism involving “nuclear and radioactive material.” IAEA Board unanimously agreed upon the fact that “physical protection” is the “first line of defence” to thwart nuclear terrorism.106 IAEA Action Plan identifies following types of nuclear threats, first, “theft of a nuclear weapon.” Second, “theft of nuclear material.” Third, “theft of other radioactive material.” Fourth, “sabotage.”107 IAEA cooperates with independent states of the international community to thwart threat of nuclear terrorism. It also works in collaboration with nongovernmental organizations. IAEA representative participate in UN Security Council Counterterrorism Committee.108 It works with Universal Postal Union, Interpol, Europol and World Customs Organization.109 US proposed establishment of Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to international community on May 31, 2003.110 Aim of PSI had been to prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and their delivery system.111
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed resolution 1540 on April 28, 2004 to further tighten the security parameters and limit terrorists/ non state actors’ attempts of proliferation of nuclear materials.112 Under Chapter VII of UN Charter this resolution and its obligations are binding on all UN member states.113 Keeping in mind the destructive power of nuclear weapons international community called upon the necessity to carryout preventive measures against possible acts of nuclear terrorism. On April 13, 2005 UNGA approved resolution A/RES/59/290 the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.114 UN resolution called upon international actors to carryout immediate measures to prevent such acts of terrorism by enhancing cooperation. The resolution also emphasized on adoption of measures to prosecute and punish architect of such deadly attacks.115 Convention is also known as Nuclear Terrorism Convention and it entered into force in July, 2007.116
Measures to protect fissile material and secure nuclear devices includes July, 2006 US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin proposal during G-8 Summit for establishing mechanism to cooperate to counter nuclear terrorism. U.S and Russian presidentspresidents’ proposal pave the way for the creation of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT).117
Conclusion
According to IAEA, 433 power plants and 240 operational nuclear research reactors are operating internationally.118 Despite the fact that measures are taken to deny the right of terrorists/non state actors to acquire nuclear material, fissile material is produced in great quantity – around the globe both for military purposes and civilian needs. Such material is dispersed at various sites worldwide. It is more difficult to maintain strict control over fissile material than over nuclear weapons. States posed with security threats are attempting to develop clandestine nuclear weapons programme in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is suspected by the US that it is violating the clauses of the NPT and developing nuclear programme for military purposes. Proliferators want to get nuclear weapons in order to employ them to deter their enemies both potential and declared rather than use it. However, presence of huge stockpile of nuclear fissile material, spread of nuclear weapons and existing nuclear arsenals have created fear that terrorists may either acquire or construct a nuclear device. Legacy of the risk of nuclear attack will persist as long as fissile material exists.
End Notes
1. Evan Braden Montgomery, Nuclear Terrorism Assessing the Threat, Developing a Response, Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, 2009, p. 76.
2. IAEA Safeguards Glossary 2001 Edition (Austria: IAEA, June, 2002), p.24.
3. The U.S-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, May, 2011, p. 13,
4. Ibid.
5. “Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions,” January 1- June 30, 2001, https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/archived-reports-1/jan_jun2001.htm#10, accessed on June 3, 2012.
6. “Terrorism Risk in the Post- 9/11 Era: A 10 Year Petrospective” (Newark: Risk Management Solutions, 2011), http://www.rms.com/Publications/9_11_Retrospective.pdf, accessed on, June 3, 2012. p. 16.
7. Kimberly McCloud and Mathew Osborne, “WMD Terrorism and Usama Bin Laden,” CNS Report, http://cns.miis.edu/reports/binladen.htm, accessed on July 1, 2012.
8. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, “Al Qaeda Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Foreign Policy, January 25, 2010,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/25/al_qaedas_pursuit_of_weapons_of_mass_destruction?page=full, accessed on July 1, 2012.
9. Ibid.
10. Lyudmilza Zaitseva and Kevin Hand, “Nuclear Smuggling Chains; Suppliers Intermediaries, and End-Users,” http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20357/abs_zaitseva.pdf, accessed on June 3, 2012. P. 831.
11. Rolf Mottaw-Larssen, “Proliferation and Terrorism: Big Hype or Biggest Threat?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, Vol. 66, Issue, 2, March/April, 2010, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20014/proliferation_and_terrorism.html?breadcrumb=%, accessed on June 2, 2012.
12. Evan Braden Montgomery, p. 7.
13. Graham T. Allison, “How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the United States?” Council on Foreign Relations, Online Debate, April 20, 2007, http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097, accessed on June 18, 2012.
14. Mowatt-Larssen, “Al Qaeda Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: Hype or Reality?,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, January 2010, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19852/al_qaeda_weapons_of_mass_destruction_threat.html, accessed on June 16, 2012.
15. Ibid.
16. “Terrorism Risk in the Post- 9/11 Era: A 10 Year Petrospective” p. 16.
17. Garaham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism the Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (New York: Times Books, 2004), p. 19.
18. Carl Behrens and Mark Holt, “Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack,” Congressional Research Service, February 4, 2005, http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21131.pdf, accessed on July 2, 2012.
19. Larssen, “Al Qaeda Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: Hype or Reality?.”
20Ibid.
21. Christopher C. Joyner, “Countering Nuclear Terrorism: A Conventional Response,” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, 2007, ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/225.full.pdf+html, accessed on June 15, 2012. p. 227.
22. Graham Allison, “How to Stop Nuclear Terror,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 1, Jan-Feb, 2004, http://people.reed.edu/~ahm/Courses/Reed-POL-422-2012-S1_NP/Syllabus/EReadings/12.1/12.1.Allison2004How-to-Stop.pdf, accessed on June 13, 2012. P. 66.
23. Ibid.
24. “Terrorism Risk in the Post- 9/11 Era: A 10 Year Petrospective” p. 16.
25. Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, “Improvised Nuclear Devices and Nuclear Terrorism,” Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, http://www.blixassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/No2.pdf, accessed on, May 22, 2012, P. 1.
26. Ibid.
27. State of the Union Address (January 29, 2009), George W. Bush, http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/4540, accessed on July 2, 2012.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ashraf Hussain, “US Attack on Iraq in 2003: Violation of International Humanitarian Law,” November 20, 2009, http://www.internationalpeaceandconflict.org/profiles/blogs/us-attack-on-iraq-in-2003, accessed on July 2012.
31. Caroline Jaine, “the Axis of Evil- 10 Years on,” September 5, 2011, http://dawn.com/2011/09/05/the-axis-of-evil-10-years-on/, accessed on July 2, 2012.
32. Ibid.
33. Rensselaer Lee, “Nuclear Smuggling and International Terrorism: Issues and Options for US Policy” (Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, October 22, 2002), p. 15.
34. Shams uz Zaman, “Prospects of a Nuclear Armed Iran and Policy Options for Pakistan,” IPRI Journal, XII, No. 1, (Winter, 2012), p. 68. http://ipripak.org/journal/winter2012/Article%204.pdf , accessed on July 2, 2012.
35. Seymour M. Hersh, “Watching the Warheads: the Risk to Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal,” November 5, 2001, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/11/05/011105fa_FACT , accessed on July 2, 2012.
36. Shams uz Zaman, “Prospects of a Nuclear Armed Iran and Policy Options for Pakistan.” p. 68.
37. Ibid.
38. Jeffery Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, “the Ally from Hell,” the Atlantic, December, 2011, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/8730/, accessed on July 2, 2012.
39. Russ Wellen, “Nuke and other WMD It’s not Just Pakistan Whose Nuclear Program Is in Danger of Infiltration,” June 13, 2011, http://www.thefastertimes.com/nukesandotherwmd/2011/06/13/its-not-just-pakistan-whose-nuclear-program-is-in-danger-of-infiltration/, accessed on July 2, 2011.
40. Peter Pace, “US has ‘Snatch-and-Grab’ Plan for Pak’s Nuclear Weapons,” Times of India, August 6, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-06/pakistan/29858131_1_nuclear-arsenal-pakistan-army-abbottabad, accessed on July 2, 2012.
41. Ewen MacAskill, “Pentagon Recedies Plans for Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal,” the Guardian, December 28, 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/28/usa.pakistan, accessed on July 2, 2012.
42. “The Nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State,” Hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 18 and 19, 2005, 128.
43. The U.S-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism, p. 13.
44. Ed Henry D. Sokolski, Pakistan’s Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War, (Strategic Studies Institute, January, 2008), p. 278.
45. Subodh Atal, “Extremists, Nuclear Pakistan an Emerging Threat,” Policy Analysis, No.
47. 2, March,5, 2003, p. 5.
46. Peter Goodspeed, “Peter Goodspeed: Ongoing Nuclear Threat Looms Over Seoul Summit,” March 24, 2012, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/preventing-devastating-nuclear-terrorist-attack-aim-of-world-leaders-meeting/, accessed on June 15, 2012.
47. Ibid.
48. “Al Qaeda Says would use Pakistani Nuclear Weapons,” June 22, 2009, http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/06/21/idINIndia-40495320090621, accessed on June 16, 2012.
49. Stephen Mulvey, “Could Terrorist Get Hold of a Nuclear Bomb,” BBC, April 12, 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8615484.stm?wpmp_switcher=mobile, accessed on June 2, 2012.
50. Jonathan Medalia, “Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses” (Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, February 10, 2005), p. 3.
51. Kenneth N. Luongo and Brig Gen (Retd) Naeem Salik, “Building Confidence in Pakistan’s Nuclear Security” (Arms Control Association, December, 2007), http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_12/Luongo, accessed on June 6, 2012.
52. “Pakistan’s Nuke in Safe Hands, Says Khar,” May 31, 2012, http://www.arynews.tv/english/newsdetail.asp?nid=59657, accessed on June 11, 2012.
53. “Transcript President Obama’s 100th-Day Press Briefing,”(The New York Times, April 29, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?pagewanted=all, accessed on June 6, 2012.
54. “Pakistani Nukes Secure, U.S. Intelligence Head Says,” (NTI, February 4, 2010), http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/pakistani-nukes-secure-us-intelligence-head-says/, accessed on June 6, 2012.
55. Talitha Dowds,”Ongoing Nuclear Security Concerns in Pakistan” (Centre for Strategic and International Studies, July 22, 2011), http://csis.org/blog/ongoing-nuclear-security-concerns-pakistan, accessed on June 6, 2012.
56. Khalid Iqbal, “Seoul Summit,” Pakistan Observer, http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=148072, accessed on July 3, 2012.
57. Paul K. Kerr and Merry Beth Nikitin, “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues,” Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2011, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/155624.pdf, accessed on July 3, 2012. p. 16.
58. Amir Mir, “Whose Finger on Pakistan’s Nuclear Trigger?” Online Asia Times, November 17, 2011, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK17Df03.html, accessed on July 3, 2012.
59. Khalid Iqbal, “Seoul Summit.”.
60. Ibid.
61. Jeffery Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, “the Ally from Hell.”
62. “Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) the Incident, Response and the Settlement,” http://www.gurusconnection.com/contributes/Upload/Bhavaniswaminathan10842331031.pdf, accessed on July 5, 2012.
63. Ibid.
64. Updated 2-Wildfire Reaches US Los Alamos Nuclear Facility,” Reuters, June 27, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/usa-wildfire-nuclear-idUSN1E75Q1NV20110627, accessed on July 5, 2012. Also read, “Three US Nuclear Facilities Threatened by Natural Disasters,” http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/308469, accessed on July 5, 2012.
65. Ryan Owens, “Los Alamos Fire: 1st Air Sample Show No Elevated Radiation,” abc World News, June 29, 2011, http://abcnews.go.com/US/los-alamos-fire-initial-air-samples-normal-radiation/story?id=13953953, accessed on July 5, 2011.
66. Updated 2-Wildfire Reaches US Los Alamos Nuclear Facility.”
67. “Taliban Chief Claims Responsibility for N.Y. Shooting Massacre,” Foxnews.com, April 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512537,00.html, accessed on July 5, 2012.
68. Bill Roggio, “Pakistan Taliban Claim Responsibility for Failed NYC Time Square Car Bombing,” May 2, 2010, http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/05/pakistani_taliban_cl.php accessed on July 5, 2012.
69. “U.S. Warns Pakistan after NY Bomb Attempt: Report,” May 8, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/08/us-timessquare-pakistan-report-idUSTRE64725P20100508, accessed on July 5, 2012.
70. “Clinton Warns Pakistan of Terror Consequences,” BBC News, May 8, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8669512.stm, accessed on July 5, 2012.
71. Graham Allison, “How to Stop Nuclear Terror.” p. 67.
72. Dr John Chipman, “Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks, A Net Assessment,” IISS Strategic Dossier May 2, 2007, http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/nbm/, accessed on July 5, 2012. p. 2.
73. Willian J. Broad and David E. Sanger, “Pakistan’s Black Market May Sell Nuclear Secrets,” the New York Times, March 21, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/international/asia/21nukes.html, accessed on July 5, 2012.
74. Dr John Chipman, “Nuclear Black Markets: Pakistan, A.Q. Khan and the Rise of Proliferation Networks, A Net Assessment,” p. 2.
75. Khalid Iqbal, “Seoul Summit.”
76. “Nuclear Black Market a Growing Terrorism Fear World Opinion,” www.timesleader.com/stories/Nuclear-black-market-a-growing-terrorism-fear-WORLD-OPPINION,132020, accessed on June 5, 2012.
77. Peter Goodspeed, “Peter Goodspeed: Ongoing Nuclear Threat Looms Over Seoul Summit.”
78. Maj General (Retd) Bruce Lawlor, “The Black Sea: Center for the Nuclear Black Market,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-black-sea-center-of-the-nuclear-black-market, accessed on June 15, 2012.
79. Sara Daly, John Parachini, William Rosenau, Aum Shinrikyo, Al Qaeda and the Kinshasa Reactor: Implications of three Case Studies for Combating Nuclear Terrorism, RAND Corporation, 2005.
80. “International Convention on the Suspension of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism,” http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/international-convention-suppression-acts-nuclear-terrorism/, accessed on June 11, 2012.
81. Ibid.
82. Lois M. Davis and Jeans Ringel, Public Health Preparedness for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Weapons, RAND Corporation, 2009, p. 306.
83. “Amerithrax or Anthrax Investigation,” The FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation, Online available at, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/amerithrax-investigation, accessed on May 22, 2012.
84. “Calculating the New Global Nuclear Terrorism Threat,” Press Release, International Atomic Energy Agency, November 1, 2001, Online available at, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2001/nt_pressrelease.shtml, accessed on May 22, 2012.
85. John Roth, Douglas Greenburg, Serena Wile, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Monograph on Terrorist Financing, Online available at, http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf, accessed on May 22, 2012, P. 2.
86. “Nuclear Terrorism—-How to Prevent it,” Online available at, http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm#intro, accessed on May, 22, 2012.
87. “Al Qaeda Nukes Already in U.S. Terrorists, Bombs Smuggled across Mexico Border by MS-13 Gangsters,” July 11, 2005, http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31232/, accessed on June 16, 2012.
88. Barton Gellman, “Fears Prompt US to Beef up Nuclear Terror Detection,” Washington Post, March 3, 2002.
89. Evan Barden Montgomery, Nuclear Terrorism Assessing the Threat, Developing a Response, CSBA, 2009.
90. Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism, Monterey Institute of International Studie, California, 2004.
91. Ibid.
92. Nick Meo, “Mission to Stop Nuclear Terrorism,” The Telegraph, October 11, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8053159/Mission-to-stop-nuclear-terrorism.html, accessed on June 13, 2012.
93. Valerie Plame Wilson, “Nuclear Terrorism is the Most Urgent Threat,” CNN, April, 08, 2010, Online available at, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-08/opinion/plame.wilson.nuclear.danger_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-terrorism-nuclear-materials?_s=PM:OPINION, accessed on May 22, 2012.
94. Barry M. Bkechman and Alexander K. Bollfrass, “Zero Nuclear Weapons, the Pragmatic Path to Security,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 17, No. 3, November, 2012, Pp. 569.
95. “2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit: With the People,” March 8, 2012, http://www.thenuclearsecuritysummit.org/eng_media/press/press_view.jsp?oCmd=6&b_code=1&idx=243&rnum=45&f_gubun=0, accessed on June 11, 2012.
96. “World Leaders: Nuclear Terrorism a Grave Threat,” March 27, 2012, www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17520156, accessed on June 15, 2012.
97. Ibid.
98. Ward Wilson, The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence, Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, November, 2008, p. 431.
99. “Q& A: Iran Nuclear Issue,” BBC News, March 6, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428, accessed on July 5, 2012.
100. Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter, Improvised Nuclear Devices and Nuclear Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006, p.1.
101. Michael Kraig, “Nuclear network Theory,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/28/nuclear_network_theory?page=0,0, accessed on June 14, 2012.
102. Charles D. Ferguson and William C. Potter.
103. “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Arms Control Association, January/February, 2003, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_01-02/document_janfeb03, accessed on June 14, 2012.
104. David Cortright, “Overcoming Nuclear Dangers,” The Stanley Foundation, November, 2007, http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/pab/CortightPAB07.pdf, accessed on June 14, 2012, p. 3.
105. IAEA Press Release, “IAEA Action Plan to Combat Nuclear Terrorism,” http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/nuclear_terrorism/index.shtml, accessed on June 17, 2012.
106. Ibid.
107. “Promoting Nuclear Security,” IAEA, June 1, 2004, http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/nuclearsecurity/terrorism.html, accessed on June 18, 2012.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. Andrew C. Winner, “The Proliferation Security Initiative: The New Face of Interdiction,” The Washington Quarterly, The Centre for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Spring, 2005), p. 136.
111. Charles Wolf. Jr, Brain G. Chow and Gregory S. Jones, Enhancement by Enlargement the Proliferation Security Initiative, RAND Corporation, 2008, p. 1.
112. “The Role of the Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA) in Support of the Committee Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004),” http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/1540/, accessed on June 12, 2012.
113. “UN Security Resolution 1540,” U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c18943.htm, accessed on June 12, 2012.
114. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly,” United Nations General Assembly, April 15, 2005, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/59/290&Area=UNDOC, accessed on June 12, 2012.
115. Ibid.
116. “Nuclear Terrorism Convention,” IAEA, http://www-ns.iaea.org/security/nuclear_terrorism_convention.asp?s=4&l=28, accessed on June 18, 2012.
117. Ed Natalino Ronzitti, Coordinating Global and Regional Efforts to Combat WMD Terrorism, Instituto Affari Internazionali, March, 2009, p. 76.
118. Suzanne Kelly, “The World’s Nuclear Detective: the Case File on IAEA’s Khammar Mrabit,” November 15, 2011, http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/the-worlds-nuclear-detective-the-case-file-on-iaeas-khammar-mrabit/, accessed on June 18, 2012.
Contribute by : SAIMA KAUSAR
