Nuclear terror
OVER the last decade, the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of (Islamic) terrorists has been projected by western policy circles as the greatest threat to international peace and security.
Extensive bureaucratic and military machinery has been created within governments and at the UN to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons, materials or knowledge by terrorists and extremists.
Among states, Pakistan has encountered the greatest pressure to reassure the ‘international community’ that its nuclear weapons and materials are ‘safe’ and will not fall into the hands of terrorists and Islamic militants. Pakistan’s detractors next door and in western capitals have missed no opportunity to portray it as the most likely source of nuclear terrorism.
Nuclear weapons are devilishly complex to develop, deploy and use. India required five decades (1948-1998) to master the atomic bomb; Pakistan developed its capability over 24 years; North Korea acquired a primitive capability after 20 years.
Iran’s enrichment capacity has evolved in even slower motion. Terrorist organisations will find it virtually impossible to develop nuclear weapons by themselves.
No state is likely to share its nuclear weapons capability with non-state actors because their unaccountable use, or threat of use, of a nuclear weapon, would most certainly invite a retaliatory response endangering the very existence of the transferring state. Islamic jihadis may resort to suicide attacks; Islamic states are not suicidal.
Moreover, it is totally beyond the capability terrorist organisations to arm, aim and fire a nuclear weapon. These complex systems require the coordinated actions of an entire team of highly trained people to use them.
Numerous studies have established that if fissionable material were to be acquired, by theft or capture, by terrorists or other non-state actors, the most they could do with it is build and explode a radiation (dirty) bomb. Depending on population density, a dirty bomb’s casualties would number in the hundreds rather than thousands. In comparison, a ‘daisy-cutter’ — the conventional fire and concussion bomb used extensively in Afghanistan — would cause thousands of casualties
if dropped on a population centre.
The most destructive weapons a terrorist can acquire or build are chemical or biological weapons. Both are banned by international treaty. A system is in place to verify the chemical weapons ban. Not so for biological weapons. Thousands of laboratories remain immune from international inspection due to opposition from the US and some other industrial countries. Recent news reports that scientists have developed bacteria immune to antibiotics are not reassuring.
Since Hiroshima, ‘nuclear terror’ has been the monopoly of states. Today, nuclear terror emanates from the failure of states to address those security issues that could precipitate the deliberate or accidental use of nuclear weapons. There are at least five areas of ‘nuclear concern’.
The planned deployment of US Anti-Ballistic Missile systems in Europe could erode the stability of deterrence, based, since the Cold War, on the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Russia does not accept the American assurance that to be deployed ABMs are meant to shoot down Iranian rather than Russian missiles.
Although China faced nuclear threats in the early days, the nuclear equation has been a latent factor in China’s relations with both the US and Russia over the last four decades. This may change once the US implements its plans to deploy most of its naval forces to the Pacific and build a ring of alliances around China’s periphery. ABM systems could also be deployed by the US, Japan and India in the region. Unlike the US-Soviet Cold War relationship, there is no agreed doctrine to stabilise nuclear relations between China and the US.
In this context, the Korean peninsula is an especially dangerous nuclear ‘hot spot’. A weak, insecure and nuclear-armed North Korean regime confronts coercive efforts to denuclearise it. A miscalculation on either side could lead to a disastrous conflagration.
In the Middle East, the danger arises from coercive efforts to maintain Israel’s nuclear monopoly. Iraq’s nuclear endeavours have been obliterated. An alleged clandestine nuclear facility in Syria was destroyed by Israel three years ago. There is widespread speculation that Iran will be attacked before its enrichment programme moves into what the Israelis have called ‘the zone of immunity’. Iran’s direct and indirect retaliation will make the post-Arab Spring Middle East a most dangerous place.
The nuclear danger is pervasive in South Asia today. In 2004, Pakistan and India declared jointly that their acquisition of nuclear weapons had contributed to stability in South Asia. However, the nuclear parity which this declaration implied has been broken by three developments. The first and most important was the Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement which provided India a quantitative and a qualitative nuclear edge against Pakistan.
A second development was the publication of reports that the US has plans to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons if these were
in danger of being captured or taken over by Islamic radicals. Suffice it to say, plans to seize or destroy another country’s nuclear assets, and counter-measures to thwart this, do not mitigate the danger of conventional or non-conventional conflict.
The negative developments in Pakistan-US relations in 2011 validated and reinforced the dangerous strategic drift. Today, the relationship has passed into the zone of hostility at the popular and official level. It is entirely uncertain where the American insults, collaboration with our regional adversaries and talk of ‘losing patience’ with Pakistan will lead.
The history of the nuclear era reveals how often states have come, through blunder and miscalculation, to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. We continue to live with nuclear terror.
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
Right on, perhaps if countries like Pakistan and Iran were not continually threatened by other countries and their powerful benefactors these countries would not need to have nuclear plans.
Its like saying, " I am going to shoot you so you better not get a gun" to someone.
We are glad Munir is not an ambassador anymore.
(Quote) "Numerous studies have established that if fissionable material were to be acquired, by theft or capture, by terrorists or other non-state actors, the most they could do with it is build and explode a radiation (dirty) bomb. Depending on population density, a dirty bomb’s casualties would number in the hundreds rather than thousands."
That is absolutely wrong and misleading. The author ignores lasting effects of radiation. "Half-life" of radiation from a "dirty bomb" is 8000 years, meaning that its lethal effect can last for more than 80 centuries. That is more than 300 human generations where the ground and water will be uninhabitable. People living there will continue to suffer cancer and leukemia.
The main part of the effect, which the author ignores, is not how many houses and shops were wrecked from the initial blast. The long-term human cost is what matters.
The prospect of such a device in the hands of a terrorist who doesn't care about innocent lives is scary. A "dirty bomb" can be smuggled into a small travel case. In today's world climate it could go as quickly to Karachi as it could to Kentucky.
It's hard to believe that such fuzzy thinking ever was in the mind of a spokesperson from Pakistan.
India tested its first Nuke in 1974, not 98. So it was more like 17 years of development rather 5 decades.
I totally agree with Mr. Akram about any of the so called Islamic Miltant as called by the West ever acquiring a nuclear bom to atack any country or place. An atomic bomb is not a simple toy gun that can be picked up from a street and used in a child like gangster war. Even dirty boms will be out of reach of the so called terrorsist because none have any processes in place to make one. The fact is only well disciplined and organzed countries/governments have the atomic bombs. This will reamin so. The rest is the nuclear bomb fear phobia spread by the West while they continue to terrorize and blackmail the non-nulear nations with their atomic bombs. They are the one who have the dirty bombs to use at their discretion to avoid using a full atomic bomb but still get the same local destructive results.
"Suffice it to say, plans to seize or destroy another country’s nuclear assets, and counter-measures to thwart this, do not mitigate the danger of conventional or non-conventional conflict."
You would like to have a nuclear conflagration between Pakistan and the United States — won't you?
What a morbid preoccupation!
Frankly, makes no sense…first of all India did not take five decades to acquire capability. India came close to testing several times before 1998. Second I don't understand how Indo-US deal gives India an edge especially when the deal comes with several mandatory and intrusive IAEA checks for all civilian facilities. Quite frankly it is beyond my understanding as to what advantage India will gain out of nuclear deal. Publicly the Indian government has been saying that the deal will enable India to improve contribution of nuclear power to the national grid from current 2.5% to 7%!! that too in two decades. So whats the point.
What views. Hard to belive Munir represented Pakistan in UN.
Take it seriously.
This article is a 10th Grader analysis. Looks like someone wrote this claiming as Pakistan UN ambassador
Nuclear weapons are useless..any state that would use one today would be ostracized from the world community and eliminated by more powerful entities…having this weapon may be an ego boost for some but the reality is that it can never be used if the owner wants to continue to live in this world…which is why it is so scary that jihadists might get control of one…
India and Pakistan never built there Nukes.
They were given Nukes so that they could mutually self destruct themselves.
Given the level of love both have for each other.
A Martian school shall have a nice chapter on
"Primates and Nukes " .
Brilliant article. provides good insight
Unless the Big Powers set an example by dismantling their nuclear weapons the world will always remain on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. The Armaments industry is the fastest growing in the world and is on the look out for prospective customers. The world has become so paranoid that all countries are competing with one another to acquire the latest and most sophisticated weapons.
If the money spent on purchasing weapons is diverted to constructive purposes, the world can look forward to a peaceful,
harmonious and prosperous future. The barriers to this dream are mutual distrust and suspicion.
The time has come to challenge the existing power structures and work for a new world order. People all over the world are frustrated at their utter helplessness in influencing the existing politics and economics and want change.
Let us pray that change comes by non-violent means rather than being forced on us.
Well Thought and well said. I hope some one could make the big powrs understand this dilemma. But the history tells us that peace never comes by itself until big terrorist powers are defetaed or they evaporate due to their internal problems. World War II brought peace in a piecemeel fashion for most of the world but death and destruction for countries like , Palestine, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yogoslavia / Bosnia. One bid powerfull countrty was the common denominator in the destruction of these countries and destroying local peace.
Very Clear.