I ran across an interesting discussion by Donald Sensing of this recent OpinionJournal piece by Brendan Miniter that pretty conclusively debunks the idea of "suitcase nukes," powerful nuclear weapons small enough to be disguised as a 'suitcase' and transported by one person.
You should read both pieces, especially the comments following Donald Sensing's post.
First we must agree that that cutting-edge nuclear technology is not absolutely necessary to build a bomb. Stories have persisted through the years about bright college students designing an atomic bomb with information gleaned from public libraries. We know without doubt that terrorist organizations have been trying to do the same thing. But what they don't have is fuel.
Of course it is possible to steal nuclear fuel. But so far, none (that we know of) has ever been stolen in the amounts necessary to build a device capable of a nuclear fission chain reaction.
The strange case of Karen Silkwood included, among other things, allegations by Kerr-McGee (her employer) that Ms. Silkwood had removed small quantities of plutonium from their Cimmaron, OK nuclear research facility in an attempt to embarass the company. A jury rejected that claim, but the negative publicity that resulted from the incident raised a number of questions about both the security and worker safety precautions employed by Kerr-McGee.
Yet the Silkwood case was initiated by the fact that routine
radiation checks revealed that Silkwood was heavily contaminated.
Nuclear fuel is highly radioactive, and, like gunshot residue, you
can't simply wash it off your hands. After the discovery of Silkwood's
contamination, she was closely monitored by the company. So even if
someone did try to steal small amounts of nuclear material, the chances
are good that their activity would be detected.
Buying nuclear material is also difficult. It would involve, first of all, the transfer of a relatively large amount of nuclear material out of a controlled nuclear facility and into the international black market. The extensive monitoring of this material would make this task next to impossible. Brendan Miniter humorously notes the fact that al Qaeda has tried to purchase nuclear material on three different occasions -- each time, they have been scammed.
Today, the only regime with both the potential to sell real nuclear material to a terrorist organziation, and a passionate hatred of the United States, is the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. But they are currently the target of intense world-wide scrutiny, and a connection between North Korea and a nuclear terrorist act would certainly spell their doom. However, Iran -- assuming that they eventually produce weapons-grade nuclear material -- is likely to be another story.
Which brings me to my final point. If you can't buy the material or steal it, then you must make it yourself. To make a fission bomb that uses uranium as its fuel source, you must extract uranium from uranium ore, and then extract the highly unstable uranium 235 isotope from the uranium. This is an extremely time-consuming, expensive, and difficult process. Unaided, it could take a nation a decade or more to perfect the process and manufacture enough fissionable material to produce a nuclear weapon. Nations like Iraq and Libya had been working on the process for years without ever producing weapons-grade uranium. So the chances of an underground group of terrists accomplishing this feat are next to nil, particularly after the pounding that terrorists have taken from our military during the last four years.
The obvious problems with nuclear fuel are that it is unstable, highly radioactive, and (because of its radioactivity) prone to degradation within a short time, perhaps a decade or even less. It is difficult to store safely, and if it is weaponized the complications increase. All of these things make undetected transportation of fissionable material very difficult.
The danger of someone building a nuclear weapon in the United States does exist. But it probably would have to be constructed piecemeal in a secluded area (like a basement) and, due to its size and weight, it would not be transportable. Certainly not in a suitcase.
If you want to worry about a credible and (in my opinion) inevitable terror threat, then worry about shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles.
More good information on the theory behind nuclear fission and nuclear fission weapons can be found here.
Comments