Nuclear terror: 50% chance of detonation within 10 years, says expert
Pastor Dale Morgan
Nuclear terror: 50% chance of detonation within 10 years, says expert*
Posted: April 20, 2007
WASHINGTON – How likely is it that terrorists will some day be
successful at detonating a nuclear device in a major American city?
That was the question debated in an online forum sponsored by the
Council on Foreign Relations this week.
And while Harvard's Graham T. Allison and the CFR's Michael A. Levi may
disagree over the likelihood of such an attack, they agreed it is a
serious threat and much more needs to be done to avoid the disastrous
consequences.
Levi, the skeptic, said: "Al-Qaida has grand ambitions and seeks mass
casualties. And regardless of the probability of nuclear terrorism, the
potential consequences of a successful attack should be enough to prompt
us to more urgent action than we are currently taking."
Allison, author of the forthcoming book, "On Nuclear Terrorism," pointed
out a growing consensus on the severity of the threat.
"In the hotly contested American presidential election in 2004, the two
candidates agreed on only one fundamental point," he said. "In the first
televised debate, they were asked, what is 'the single most serious
threat to the national security to the United States?' President Bush,
answering second, said: 'I agree with my opponent that the biggest
threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands
of a terrorist network.'"
Michael A. Levi
Allison cited other authorities, including former Sen. Sam Nunn, who is
on record as saying the likelihood of a single nuclear bomb exploding in
a single city is greater today than at the height of the Cold War.
Perhaps no one, however, has studied the issue more thoroughly than
Allison. In his book, based on the current trend line, he concludes the
chances of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade are greater
than 50 percent. He said former Secretary of Defense William Perry
believes that assessment underestimates the risk.
"From the technical side, Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen
bomb who Enrico Fermi once called, 'the only true genius I had ever
met,' told Congress in March he estimated a '20 percent per year
probability with American cities and European cities included' of 'a
nuclear explosion -- not just a contamination, dirty bomb -- a nuclear
explosion.'"
Discounting arguments that terrorists don't want to take chances with
potential failure, Allison explains why the stakes are so high for
terrorists to conduct a nuclear attack.
"[T]he effect of a nuclear terrorist attack would reverberate beyond
U.S. shores," he says. "After a nuclear detonation, the immediate
reaction would be to block all entry points to prevent another bomb from
reaching its target. Vital markets for international products would
disappear, and closely linked financial markets would crash. Researchers
at RAND, a U.S. government-funded think tank, estimated that a nuclear
explosion at the Port of Los Angeles would cause immediate costs
worldwide of more than $1 trillion and that shutting down U.S. ports
would cut world trade by 7.5 percent."
Even a so-called "dud" in nuclear terms would cause more destruction
than the most dramatic conventional attack.
"If a terrorist's 10-kiloton nuclear warhead were to misfire (known to
nuclear scientists as a 'fizzle') and produce a one-kiloton blast,
bystanders near ground zero would not know the difference," explains
Allison. "Such an explosion would torch anyone one-tenth of a mile from
the epicenter, and topple buildings up to one-third of a mile out."
Allison concludes: "The most important takeaway from this debate is that
we must do everything technically feasible on the fastest possible time
line to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear
materials. Whether nuclear explosion, fizzle, or total dud, the
repercussions of such materials in jihadist clutches are unacceptable."
The largest and most recent study of the effects of nuclear detonations
in major U.S. cities showed that, while millions will die, millions of
others can be saved with some practical preparations and education.
The three-year study by researchers at the Center for Mass Destruction
Defense at the University of Georgia found a concerted effort to teach
civilians what to do in the event of a nuclear attack is the best –
perhaps only – thing that could save an untold number of lives that will
otherwise be needlessly lost.
"If a nuclear detonation were to occur in a downtown area, the picture
would be bleak there," said Cham Dallas, director of the program and
professor in the college of pharmacy. "But in urban areas farther from
the detonation, there actually is quite a bit that we can do. In certain
areas, it may be possible to turn the death rate from 90 percent in some
burn populations to probably 20 or 30 percent – and those are very big
differences – simply by being prepared well in advance."
The government's own National Planning Scenario projects even a small,
improvised 10-kiloton nuclear bomb would likely kill hundreds of
thousands in a medium-sized city. The carnage was estimated at 204,600
dead in Washington, D.C. – with another 90,800 injured or sickened.
Another 24,580 would likely die of thyroid cancer later because the
simple compound potassium iodide, which can prevent it, was not made
available to civilians in advance of the disaster.
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the 9/11 commission have
all concluded a nuclear terrorist attack is not only the nation's No. 1
nightmare but also something of an inevitability at some time in the
future.