Non-Subscriber Extract
USA evaluating defences against nuclear terrorism
- Article Tools
10/07/00
USA
evaluating defences against nuclear terrorismBRYAN BENDER JDW Bureau Chief
Washington DC
A US Department of Defense (DoD) task force is conducting a classified study of the USA's vulnerability to terrorist attacks using nuclear weapons.
It plans to report its findings next month, as US President Bill Clinton prepares to make a controversial decision on whether to deploy a limited National Missile Defense (NMD) system to defeat ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Some opponents of NMD deployment believe the covert delivery of a WMD, such as a 'suitcase bomb' or missile launched from a ship, is a more likely scenario than North Korea, Iran or Iraq launching an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) against a US city, which could result in an overwhelming retaliatory response from the USA.
Opponents warn that deployment of an NMD system will upset the strategic balance, fuelling an arms race, and that the multi-billion dollar, technically risky missile shield will not be able to defend against the more realistic scenarios involving nuclear terrorism and other unconventional means of attack.
The Clinton administration remains committed to deploying the NMD system at the earliest practical date as required by US law. At the same time, DoD officials are increasingly concerned about the threat of WMD terrorism to the USA. Since March, the Defense Science Board (DSB), a senior advisory panel, has been studying the threat and the country's current state of readiness.
"I think the act of terrorism taking place on the United States is more likely than intercontinental ballistic missile," Defense Secretary William Cohen said last week. DoD spokesman Ken Bacon added that Cohen believes terrorists are more likely to use chemical and biological weapons than nuclear weapons and that more comprehensive defences are needed to address both the terrorist and missile threats.
The DSB Task Force on Unconventional Nuclear Warfare Defense, with "access to classified information," is scheduled to make its recommendations by 31 August to Jacques Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and Jay Davis, director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
The report, particularly if it identifies major gaps in defences, could provide more fodder to NMD opponents. Construction of the NMD system must begin early next year if it is to be ready by 2005 when North Korea, Iran, Iraq and possibly others are expected to be able to deploy operational ICBMs with WMD payloads.
"If they are as concerned as they say they are with unconventional means of delivery, why are they going forward with NMD," said Jessica Stern, a former director of Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs at the US National Security Council, who worked on nuclear smuggling issues.
"You have to ask why [potential enemies] are going to insist on using that delivery system," Robert Park, director of the American Physical Society's Washington, DC, office, said of the ballistic missile threat. "A ballistic missile is not the only delivery system around. As far as I know, a rental truck has been proven effective in every case". He added: "Ballistic missiles are the only delivery system that has a return address on the package."
The DSB has been tasked to outline the different classes of possible terrorist weapons and estimate the feasibility and cost of producing them; review current detection and response mechanisms; and define the technical and operational elements required for prevention.
In a 2 March memo, Gansler instructed the panel to determine the "adequacy of DoD's ability to detect, identify, respond and prevent unconventional nuclear attacks by terrorist or subnational entities" and "the appropriate role and capability of DoD to provide protection against unconventional nuclear attacks in support of homeland defence".
One possible scenario likely to be addressed by the DSB is the detonation of a nuclear weapon above the USA, knocking out communications, satellites and other information systems with an electromagnetic pulse. "I think this is a genuine concern because it is a credible way for dealing with our tremendous advantage," Davis told Jane's Defence Weekly. "It becomes an attractive equaliser for a less sophisticated military opponent or even a terrorist."
Neither the missile nor the terrorist threats lend themselves to timely solutions. While the missile threat is "a concrete, technical problem," according to Stern, the system is still facing significant schedule and design challenges. As for terrorists, "motivation is easier to nail down," but there is "no obvious fix."