The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation

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. “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 11th. 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. 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