Can Terrorist Acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Current World Environment?

Can terrorist organizations produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction? It would be extremely difficult if not impossible for terrorist organizations to covertly develop a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program. Nuclear weapons require high grade uranium or plutonium which requires large facilities and many scientists. The financing is astronomical. Weapons require testing which would expose the program and make the weapons program. It would be extremely difficult or impossible for a terrorist group to develop a nuclear program without it going undetected.

According to Carson, Taylor, Eyster, Maraman and Wechsler: "The production of sophisticated devices therefore should not be considered to be a possible activity for a fly-by-night terrorist group. It is, however, conceivable in the context of a nationally supported program able to provide the necessary resources and facilities and an established working place over the time required."

Not only would it be extremely difficult for terrorist organizations to develop a nuclear weapons program, but it would be difficult to develop a chemical or biological weapons program without detection. It would be possible to develop a CBR program on a small program without state sponsored, but once large scale production begins including delivery systems and testing, the world might find out.

State sponsored CBRN developed does not mean that the states sponsoring the development are stable. Unstable governments can fund and help terrorist organizations to develop a CBRN program. Moreover, some states are very eager to have a WMD program for the means of deterrence, especially some that do not have large financial resources. An established nuclear weapons program is far cheaper than maintaining a fully armed trained naval and army forces.The Shift in Political Parties in Unstable Countries and "The Traditional Enemies"

Historically when political parties change in countries, either by force, coups, or through elections, the first target of the new regime is the opposing political party or the 'traditional enemy' of the state. For instance Pakistan the traditional enemy of India, Greece the traditional enemy of Turkey, North and South Korea, Japan and China, etc. These traditional enemies have this relationship due to a historical dispute over regions or actions that occurred in the past, for instance Turkey and Greece's dispute over Cyprus.

However, as America's presence in the region grows and actions taken by America grow, it may overshadow the relationship of the 'traditional enemies.' If asked in the 1980's who the traditional enemy of Iran was, the answer would be Iraq. After the Iraq war and the fall of Saddam Hussein, it is safe to say the new traditional enemy of Iran is America. In the 1980's it was safe to say the traditional enemy of the Taliban was the Soviet Union. Now that the Taliban has been removed by American forces, it is safe to say the traditional enemy is America.

It is not to say that actions by the American military and the American government have produced negative outcomes. That is far from the truth. The term traditional enemy is relative, enemies change, and not everyone views the actions of America in a positive view.

However, a regime that currently has a WMD program may fall to a terrorist organization or to a political party that considers America a 'traditional enemy.' Many researchers state Pakistan as an example in which this will most likely not occur. Pakistan has undergone many coups and has shifted political parties violently. Throughout these shifts, Pakistan's main concern has been to assert its dominance over India. However, throughout these periods of unrest Pakistan did not have nuclear capabilities and America was not heavily involved in that area. Pakistan's underground nuclear detonation was a surprise to many Americans. If the Taliban was able to take control of the current Pakistani government, they would gain control of the nuclear program creating a situation where the Taliban has the technology without the discipline of developing it.

Would a newly formed government launch a nuclear or WMD attack against the United States? Yes they could do it and they might do it. Not every country's nuclear program is designed like America's in which there are EKMS codes and verification requirements to verify launch orders. The newly formed government might not fear retaliation from the World and might not be interested in nuclear deterrence. Moreover there might be a strong underlying hatred for America in this new government.

According to the Landler: "The last time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Pakistan, she was asked why the United States persisted in killing innocent civilians with its secret program of drone strikes. And she speculated that officials in the Pakistani government knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda.

The mood was less charged this time, which may not have been surprising, given that Mrs. Clinton brought $500 million worth of American aid to fix Pakistan's power grid and to help with water distribution." (New York Times, 200 July 2010).

Is the financial aid just covering a growing hatred for America by the people of Pakistan? Would the traditional enemy of Pakistan change from India to America? Would the people of Pakistan demand retaliation on America for the killing of civilians by drones? It is very possible that if a terrorist organization gains enough public support and overthrows an existing government, that they may utilize the existing CBRN technology that country had developed. Detecting Nuclear Tests

Not all nuclear weapons tests have been detected when the testing initially occurred. On September 22, 1979 sensors onboard a VELA 6911 satellite detected what appeared to be a nuclear explosion in the South Indian Ocean. It was believed that this was the result of a nuclear weapons test between South Africa and Israel. The Carter administration challenged the detections and the readings of the VELA satellite stating that the flash could have been caused by a micro meteorite. It wasn't until 20 April 1997; almost 20 years after the fact and after South Africa had dismantled their nuclear weapons program that South African officials admitted to the nuclear test.

"In an 20 April 1997 article that appeared in the Israeli Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad confirmed for the first time that a flare over the Indian Ocean detected by an American satellite in September 1979 was from a nuclear test. This statement was confirmed by the American Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, as an accurate account of what Pahad officially acknowledged. The article said that Israel helped South Africa develop its bomb designs in return for 550 tons of raw uranium and other assistance." (www.Globalsecurity.org).

Even after our detectors that have been designed by the top scientists at Los Alamos detect a nuclear test by U.S. friendly countries, due to possible political reasons; it takes almost 20 years for it to be admitted. It is very possible that a 'blind side' approach to WMD production may occur based on U.S. political alliances. But if that alliance changes, the knowledge and manufacture of WMD still exists. Upholding Global Judicial Law

There are also cases where unlawful procurement of nuclear technology has been gained and the judicial system did not hold these crimes in high regard. The development of Pakistan's nuclear program (project 706) can be traced to Dr. Abdul Khan who shipped a nuclear reactor and fuel by truck to Pakistan. This occurred right after a Pakistani civil war. When the Dutch brought Dr. Khan to trail (in absentee) he was awarded a ten thousand dollar fine and an eight month suspended sentence. In 2007 three Pakistani nationals were taken to court in Canada for purchasing nuclear weapons devices for Pakistan. They falsely claimed these devices were for a meat packaging plant. According to Time Magazine: "The three Canadians made ten shipments to Pakistan. They were arrested while attempting to ship the eleventh. The trio later denied that they knew the ultimate purpose of the exports. One of them said that the equipment was for use in a textile plant and a food-processing factory. In the end, two of the men paid fines of $3,000 each on a minor charge: failing to obtain an export permit."

It is clear that the world community does not take the unlawful acquisition of nuclear material as serious as some in the United States would like. If the threat of retribution does not exist, then the reward for unlawful acquisition far outweighs the risk.Conclusion

If the United States cannot maintain a strong military presence in these volatile regions, it is very possible for terrorist organization or regimes that are unfriendly to American interests to overthrow weak governments that have developed and maintained WMD programs. It is difficult to maintain a long term financial lifeline to maintain American friendly governments in power. It also may not be in the best interest of the indigenous population to maintain an American friendly government, for instance Iran pre 1970's and Egypt.

Maintaining control of WMD development requires a global initiative. The United Nations needs to develop a system where countries do not feel a need for a nuclear deterrence. However, there has only been one country that has dismantled their nuclear WMD program (South Africa). South Africa dismantled their program only after they believed the need for deterrence was gone.

Terrorists can and may obtain nuclear technology from states that have already developed the technology to develop and deliver WMD. Moreover, these terrorists may not be interested in the traditional role of deterrence of WMD. Even states that dismantled their WMD may still have technology and knowledge available to restart a WMD program without the world community knowing. Finally the WMD program may go unnoticed even when it is being tested.

References:

Ackerman, Gary, A., Bale, Jeffrey M. Bale (2002), Al-Qaida and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Retrieved 12 July from: http://cns.miis.edu/other/alqwmd.htm
Security Council Resolution 1373, 28 September 2001

Bowman Steve, (2002), CRS Report for Congress, Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Terrorist Threat, Retrieved 11 July 2010 from: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9184.pdf

Carson, M., Taylor, T., Eyster, E., Maraman, W., Wechsler, J., (Date Unknown). Can Terrorists Build Nuclear Weapons?

Landler, M. (2010). In a Visit to Pakistan, Clinton Encounters a Less Hostile Reception, The New York Times, Retrieved 20 July 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world/asia/20diplo.html?_r=1

Nuclear Terrorism: Weapon for Sale of Theft? Retrieved on 14 July 2010 from:
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2008/July/20080815122156XJyrreP0.8970606.html

Author Unknown, (2009). Nuclear Weapons Testing. Retrieved 18 July 2010 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/isreal/nuke-test.htm

Author Unknown, (2007). During the Reprocessing Tussle, Time Magazine. Retrieved 18 July 2010 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957761-8,00.html#ixzz0u8QLlveb