What is the Greatest Threat to National Security?

National security is a highly ambiguous concept that has different meanings to different people. However, most definitions typically contain common elements including protecting values, territorial integrity, political interests, and economic interests. By that definition things like interstate war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, natural disaster, and disease could be considered threats to national security. For the sake of the United States, the greatest threat to national security over the next five years is the nuclear proliferation of non-state terrorist organizations.

Why nuclear terrorism - and not another factor - is the greatest threat:

If the greatest threat to national security was solely based on the number of deaths incurred then disease would certainly be the winner. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, heart disease alone kills 631,636 Americans yearly which is more than interstate war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and natural disaster combined. Disease encompasses all of the elements of a national security threat, however, it unfortunately seems to have become common place and, despite the death toll, it doesn't seem to have the same type of impact on American culture as say a terrorist attack. In the case of natural disasters, they undoubtedly have a major impact on U.S. national security, however, they do not necessarily have a huge effect outside of the respective region.

With the afore mentioned threats eliminated as the greatest threat to U.S. national security; nuclear proliferation, terrorism, or a combination of the two remain. With the existence of the UN and other international organizations comes major pressure on non-nuclear states to abstain from proliferation which greatly reduces the threat of a state sanctioned nuclear attack on the United States. Nuclear terrorism on the other hand by a non-state actor, seems to be the more likely form of attack. With no oversight, sanctions, or international pressures; non-state terrorist organizations can proliferate almost undetected. It is highly likely that terrorist organizations could proliferate (if they haven't already done so) through black market transactions and pose a major threat America that would have a nation wide impact.

Graham Allison says that the threat is serious and real and "it's more likely than not in the decade ahead." The threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism can take many forms. It can simply be the use of the materials as a scare tactic or in the form of a RDD or "dirty bomb" or an actual nuclear warhead. The psychological impact of a nuclear terrorist attack could be potentially catastrophic and the mere knowledge that an extremist group possesses some form of nuclear weapon is enough to induce panic. According to Allison the threat is a lot more prevalent than the public actually thinks. He says that Al Quaeda is the leading terrorist group when it comes to obtaining nuclear technology and he quotes George Tenet saying that Al Quaeda is "singularly focused on acquiring WMD's" (Allison 2). The problem with nuclear terrorism is the lack of intelligence on the subject. With millions of items coming in and out of the country daily it is not at all impossible to smuggle in a weapon in the same ways drugs and other illegal items are smuggled daily (Allison 2). The threat of of nuclear terrorism is so great not only because of the mass destruction it causes, but also the inability to predict or prevent an attack.

Policy Recommendation:

Mathew Bunn and Andrew Newman have formulated four key points on how to prevent nuclear terrorism that cannot be ignored when creating policy; they include reducing and securing nuclear stockpiles, disrupt plots, preventing and deterring state transfers, and preventing nuclear smuggling (Bunn 2). The following addresses the best United States policy to achieve the ideas presented by the two scholars.

• Securing and Preventing Nuclear Stockpiles:

Unfortunately, there are countries in the world that are in a state political unrest and have stockpiles of nuclear materials that could be subject to theft by terrorist groups. In order to turn this concept into solid policy the United States can not and should not approach this problem alone. If the U.S. approaches a country alone and asks to secure all of it's stockpiles it could potentially be taken negatively. Obama and the U.S. need to form an international organization and invite countries to join and potentially offer up major benefits to promote nuclear security. It is absolutely imperative to the success of nonproliferation to have all countries on board. Also, once the organization has countries on board it is very important that the United States provides resources and assistance to help secure these stockpiles. Another necessary step is to try and expedite the process. It is impossible to know if terrorist organizations already have nuclear technology; but there must be hasty action taken in securing stockpiles to prevent them from obtaining more materials and possibly the missing item that might be preventing their current attacks. Finally, the United States must be persistent and encourage other countries to be persistent in the pursuit of nuclear securities. Upgrading nuclear security is something that takes months or years in some cases and it is something that needs to remain on the U.S.'s high priority list over the next decade.

• Disrupt Plots:

The best way to end nuclear terrorism is to attack it at it's roots. Aside from just preventing the acquisition of nuclear materials; the United States needs to invest in stopping the recruitment and growth of the terrorist organization and intelligence on possible plots. The CIA should form alliances and partner with other intelligence agencies world wide to increase the sharing of nuclear terrorism information. Also, the United States should be more proactive in an effort to get other counties on board by meeting with major leaders in areas where extremism thrive. If the entire culture can be shifted from one of violence to one of cooperation and trust, the era of nuclear terrorism as a serious threat can be greatly reduced. Another policy recommendation is in the area of education. Of course, the heads of the extremist organization are wealthy and educated but they rely on the poor and uneducated to carry out much of their "dirty work" and support their cause. If it were possible to invest in system of education for the poor communities and somehow end the culture of misinformation and misunderstanding that breeds so much contempt.

• Prevent State Transfers:

Bunn and Newman suggest that the hostile states, while it is unlikely, might provide transfers of nuclear materials and weapons. They say, "the risk of such transfers is not zero-and more states with nuclear weapons would mean more sources from which a nuclear bomb might be stolen" (Bunn 7). Obviously, the movement of nuclear weapons could end in stolen weapons en route to their destination or just simply another insecure stockpiles just waiting to be taken which would pose a major threat to U.S. security. In theory transfers such as this would only occur between nuclear developed nations that are not recognized in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty such as North Korea. Unfortunately, with countries like North Korea the "package of carrots and sticks large enough and credible enough to convince these governments that it is in their national interest to verifiably end their nuclear weapons efforts" (Bunn 7) that Newman and Bunn suggest have seemed to be inherently ineffective. Over the years North Korea has played a cat and mouse game with their nuclear program; asking for more and yet going back on their word about their nuclear programs. The United States, therefore, should join with other countries in a united effort to promote a more intense threat of sanctions and a potentially greater reward for getting rid of the nuclear programs. The U.S. will also need to invest in more intelligence programs in these countries to asses the true nature of the threat. If the incentives or threat of intense sanctions eventually fail and intelligence can provide strong evidence; it is possible that a coalition military effort may be necessary but if and only if they pose a direct threat with indisputable and tangible evidence.