Friday, September 21, 2007

North Korea, Iran, Terrorist Nukes: Not a Threat

When we mention “Nuclear Crisis” today, most people immediately focus on North Korea, Iran, or terrorist nuclear threats. While these issues need to be dealt with I do not believe that they are the foremost nuclear threat in our world.

I would like to examine these three threats one by one. North Korea has been developing the ability to enrich uranium and has produced maybe a dozen weapons of unknown reliability. Their missile and detonation tests have been either marginally successful or resulted in failure. I do not think that North Korea developed nuclear technology for the purpose of attacking the US, selling the bombs to terrorists, of invading South Korea. I believe this because none of those scenarios are in the best-interest of North Korea. They would lead to serious consequences for North Korea, a state already facing a dire economic state of affairs. I think that North Korea sees its development of nukes as the best way to get attention from the US, China, and Japan in order to gain economic concessions from them in return for a nuclear draw-down. It also quells the possibility of an attack by the US because the US will be reluctant to battle the largest military in the world even more so because it has nuclear weapons. I believe that North Korea is acting in its interest by trying to use nukes as leverage to improve its bargaining position with the rest of the world.

Iran has also been developing nuclear technology but this nuclear stand-off is a little different. Iran will get nuclear weapons and maintain them. The international community is not fooled at all by Iran’s talk of only developing nuclear technology. What country that rich in oil needs nuclear power? No Iran wants weapons and will get them. Iran is developing the technology of heavy water production. This technology will allow Iran to use raw uranium as fuel which occurs naturally in nature and Iran can access within its own boarders. A byproduct of the use of uranium as fuel is plutonium, which can be used to make a nuclear bomb. We know the location of nuclear facilities that the Iranians have disclosed, but what of secret ones? Also, many of their current sites are underground and well protected making a bombing very unreliable. The Fact is short of regime change of a change of heart, Iran will acquire nukes. The best strategy I think that we can undertake would be to focus on how to make nuclear deterrence work with Iran in the Middle East. I say in the middle east because Iran is far from being able to launch a dependable missile strike outside of the Middle East.

Terrorist acquisition of nukes is possible but actually detonating one within the US would be extremely difficult. First of all, a warhead large enough to demolish a city is massive. If terrorists could locate a nuke in Russia that is left over from failed testing, and had enough men to transport it as many would be dying form radiation poisoning along the way. They would have to transport this massive bomb into the US without it being detected. New York City is almost done installing a system that would detect any radioactive material entering the city’s limits. This type of technology will be installed in probably every major US city and one day at our ports and boarders. Some might say the terrorists would enter through Mexico. But I ask what are the chances that a group of non-western probably non Spanish or English speaking Muslim men with radiation poisoning (and if trying to avoid it in radiation suites) transporting a huge nuclear weapon will make it through Mexico and into the Untied States (neither of which they are familiar with) and detonate said nuke? I think it unlikely. I also do not think that any State would risk supplying terrorists with nukes. Take Iran for example. Why would Iran give nukes to Hezbollah to use against Israel when it could launch the attack itself more effectively with the same consequences? IR scholars love citing history and history shows us that Iran has never given any of its chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah, so why do we think that it would give Hezbollah weapons that would create even more serious consequences for Iran?

No comments: