The Nuclear Shadow

NY Times ^ | August 14, 2004 | NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

[neverdem]

If a 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear weapon explodes beside the New York Stock Exchange or the U.S. Capitol, or in Times Square, as many nuclear experts believe is likely in the next decade, then the next 9/11 commission will write a devastating critique of how we allowed that to happen.

As I wrote in my last column, there is a general conviction among many experts - though, in fairness, not all - that nuclear terrorism has a better-than-even chance of occurring in the next 10 years. Such an attack could kill 500,000 people.

Yet U.S. politicians have utterly failed to face up to the danger.

"Both Bush administration rhetoric and Kerry rhetoric emphasize keeping W.M.D. out of the hands of terrorists as a No. 1 national security priority," noted Michèlle Flournoy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "And when you look at what could have been done in the last few years, versus what has been done, there's a real gap."

So what should we be doing? First, it's paramount that we secure uranium and plutonium around the world. That's the idea behind the U.S.-Russian joint program to secure 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials. But after 12 years, only 135 tons have been given comprehensive upgrades. Some 340 tons haven't even been touched.

The Nunn-Lugar program to safeguard the material is one of the best schemes we have to protect ourselves, and it's bipartisan, championed above all by Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. Yet President Bush has, incredibly, at various times even proposed cutting funds for it. He seems bored by this security effort, perhaps because it doesn't involve blowing anything up.

Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment sees the effort against nuclear terrorism as having three components. One is the Pentagon's version of counterproliferation, which includes the war in Iraq and the missile defense system; this component is costing $108 billion a year, mostly because of Iraq. Then there's homeland security, costing about $37 billion a year. Finally, there's nonproliferation itself, like the Nunn-Lugar effort - and this struggles along on just $2 billion a year.

A second step we must take is stopping other countries from joining the nuclear club, although, frankly, it may now be too late. North Korea, Iran and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Brazil all seem determined to go ahead with nuclear programs.

Dennis Ross, the former Middle East peace negotiator, notes that if Iran develops nukes, jittery Saudi Arabia will seek to follow, and then Egypt, which prides itself as the leader of the Arab world. Likewise, anxiety about North Korea is already starting to topple one domino - Japan is moving in the direction of a nuclear capability.

The best hope for stopping Iran and North Korea (and it's a bleak one) is to negotiate a grand bargain in which they give up nuclear aspirations for trade benefits. Mr. Bush's current policy - fist-shaking - feels good but accomplishes nothing.

President Clinton's approach to North Korea wasn't a great success, but at least North Korea didn't add to its nuclear arsenal during his watch. In just the last two years, North Korea appears to have gone to eight nuclear weapons from about two.

A third step is to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the U.S. Mr. Bush has made a nice start on that with his proliferation security initiative.

A useful addition, pushed by Senator Charles Schumer, would be to develop powerful new radiation detectors and put them on the cranes that lift shipping containers onto American soil. But while Congress approved $35 million to begin the development of these detectors, the administration has spent little or none of it.

Finally, Mr. Bush needs to display moral clarity about nuclear weapons, making them a focus of international opprobrium. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is pursuing a new generation of nuclear bunker-buster bombs. That approach helps make nukes thinkable, and even a coveted status symbol, and makes us more vulnerable.

At other periods when the U.S. has been under threat, we mustered extraordinary resources to protect ourselves. If Mr. Bush focused on nuclear proliferation with the intensity he focuses on Iraq, then we might secure our world for just a bit longer.

Right now, we're only whistling in the dark.

[neverdem]

FWIW, this is a follow up to An American Hiroshima.

[neverdem]

ping

[Drango]

If Kerry is elected, at least it will be a sensitive nuclear bomb.

[JPJones]

Pathetic article, blames bush, mentions nothing regarding clinton's eight years when nuclear material was disappearing (but gives him credit for n. korea).

IMHO when it comes to nuclear bombs, the best defense is a good offense.

[Darkwolf377]

If Kerry is elected, the children of the incinerated will get a break on their college loans.

Sensitive.

[stockpirate]

bump

[Diogenesis]

It was CLINTON and his ilk who ENCOURAGED the attacks on America... helped by the New York Times.

PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY GORELICK, CLARKE and CLINTON

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered

---

[Felis_irritable]

"...give up nuclear aspirations for trade benefits..."

Won't happen. The little creeps will negotiate trade benefits and keep up a shadow nuclear program. **Especially** if lurch gets elected.

IMHO, only solution is good intel and operators willing/able to go in and disable the capability in a big way before it gets farther along. Like German heavy water in WWII.

[defenderSD]

Heavily slanted, poorly researched, heavily biased article. Clinton signed a totally non-verifiable agreement with North Korea that lead to their development of nuclear weapons. North Korea cheated brazenly on this agreement and rendered the agreement worthless. Bush's policy towards North Korea is not "fist shaking." We just made a very good offer to North Korea to end their nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic assistance. North Korea rejected the offer, presumably because they're hoping Kerry will win the election and offer them a non-verifiable agreement.

Finally, the Energy Department has already started a crash program to develop high-powered radiation detectors. This effort started long before Schumer's proposal.

[genefromjersey]

This is the same Kristoff who furnished us such "accurate" information about the anthrax letters...

[BIGLOOK]

Hmmmmm, a New York Times article...Novel ideas! Amazingly in these days the NYT finds everyone in the current administration asleep at the wheel and at the same time overbearing, belligerent, trampling the constitutional rights of terrorists everywhere and concerned only about oil.Errata & corrections will be found Thursday somewhere in the want ads section.

[The Electrician]

Yet President Bush has, incredibly, at various times even proposed cutting funds for it. He seems bored by this security effort, perhaps because it doesn't involve blowing anything up.

Kristof has taken a cheap shot, which does nothing to bolster his credibility.

Does anybody imagine that he could have gotten away with a statement such as, "Yet, Clinton had, incredibly, permitted the North Koreans to violate agreement after agreement without consequence. He seemed to have been bored by that security effort, perhaps because it wasn't wearing a skirt".

[neverdem]

LOL

[neverdem]

Errata & corrections will be found Thursday somewhere in the want ads section.

LOL

[eno_]

Pathetic article, blames bush, mentions nothing regarding Clinton's eight years when nuclear material was disappearing (but gives him credit for n. korea).

This article is a great example of leftists attempting to define the future to fit their lameness: In the author's world, war with Iran and/or North Korea is unthinkable. Bah! It may be immanent.

[neverdem]

Kristof has taken a cheap shot, which does nothing to bolster his credibility.

That's why I was hesitant to post this article, and was hoping that Former Military Chick, who posted "An American Hiroshima", was going to post this follow-up OpEd.

[Dont Mention the War]

A second step we must take is stopping other countries from joining the nuclear club, although, frankly, it may now be too late.

Of course, the only way to stop rogue regimes from acquiring such nukes is by "blowing stuff up," a tactic Lord Kristof snidely dismisses as cowboy shenanigans in this very same article.

What a jerk. And what a useless waste of newsprint.

[steveegg]

Pathetic article, blames bush, mentions nothing regarding clinton's eight years when nuclear material was disappearing (but gives him credit for n. korea).

And you expected, what, from the Slimes?

Never mind that Krazy Kim never stopped building his nuke program despite that Peanut "agreement" back in '94. Never mind that the leap forward in Iran's nuclear ambition happened mostly on S(l)ick Willie's watch.

[gcruse]

IMHO when it comes to nuclear bombs, the best defense is a good offense.

Do you really think the US targetting Mecca would slow down for one second a terrorist with the ability to suitcase nuke his target of choice?

[steveegg]

Do you really think the US targetting Mecca would slow down for one second a terrorist with the ability to suitcase nuke his target of choice?

That's why you also target Medina and their other "holy" shrines with either simultaneous nuke strikes or (in the case of Jerusalem) the third Temple. While the Koran deals with the destruction of Mecca, I don't believe it also deals with the destruction (especially simultaneous destruction) of the other Islamokazi "holy" sites.