What Scares Terrorists?
Bill Hartung raises a number of important questions. Let me address the first in this post and tackle the others later.
I don’t doubt that there are folks out there who would love to pull off a nuclear attack. And I don’t suspect that many of them would be deterred by the possibility of retaliation. But punishment after a successful attack is different from failure to pull off the attack in the first place, and it’s the second possibility that many of the most ambitious groups fear.
The explanation starts with the observation that many of these groups are conservative in how they operate. Take the example of Aum Shinrikyo, the wealthy Japanese cult that attacked a Tokyo subway with Sarin gas in 1995. Before that, it also tried to mount anthrax attacks, but did not manage to clear important technical hurdles. It could have tried to draw on its contacts inside the Russian bioweapons complex, but it decided not to because it was afraid that outsiders would blow the whistle, perhaps permanently ending its efforts at mass destruction. Instead, it shifted to another route – Sarin – which it saw as presenting a lower chance of getting caught. Many books have other examples.
The second case is more theoretical. To pull off big attacks, the most ambitious groups need to accumulate and sustain strong capabilities and organizations. Major failures can weaken groups on those fronts: A sort of survival of the fittest tends to ensure that those terrorist groups that grow strong also don’t make big blunders along the way. Perhaps more important, terrorism scholars have observed that failure hurts terrorist recruiting, while success helps. That provides another incentive for groups that want to develop strong capabilities to be averse to failure.
All of this comes with a big caveat. Our intelligence isn’t fantastic, and there may well be capable groups out there that are also not averse to failure. In my book, I argue that we need to avoid judging defenses against some sort of universal enemy. So measures that enhance defense against some (failure-averse) groups but not against other may still be valuable.
The possibility of a failed attack is also a compelling reason for a nuclear state not to ever turn over a weapon or even fissile material intentionally to a terrorist organization. If the weapon / material were found before detonation, the providing state would find itself quickly fingered.
U.S. retaliation in that case would doubtless be no different from the retaliation had the weapon actually detonated.
December 5, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In May 1997, General Alexander Lebed, former Russian Security Council secretary informed a US congressional delegation to Moscow that eighty-four small atomic demolition devices were missing from the Russian arsenals and could be in the hands of Muslim extremists. 60 Minutes and numerous other media did follow-up stories and interviews. Russia, naturally, officially denied Lebed's comments. Since none of these "suitcase bombs" have been used, many have assumed the report was erroneous. An alternative answer might be that those who possess the bombs are patient - waiting for what they believe to be their best timing. The Muslim extremests have not perpetrated terrorism of any kind in this country since 9/11. Why not? The administration takes credit, claiming their vigilant surveillance tactics have worked. It seems to me that the extremests have chosen to not attack us. They don't perceive the timing to be right.
December 6, 2007 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the world do people obcess over such insanely small possibilities? Like the handful of people counting asteroids that might hit the Earth, it's ok for a few people to think about it & keep two eyes open. But seriously? We should invest enormous amounts of manpower & money to do this with nuclear weapons? I don't buy it. If a parent owns a gun & has children, keep the thing unloaded & locked up safely. In that case, the child should never get their hands on it right? Why hold town hall meetings and pay for silly studies & countless experts and observers? Just lock the things up or get rid of them! It seems ridiculous to me, and it's easier to get a gun in this country than it is to vote. Nuclear capability is far, far, far from being a gun.
It's simply not that easy to get or deploy nuclear weapons, and many people far more knowledgeable & eloquent than I have spoken on this here and elsewhere at great length for quite some time. Just as there were people talking about how unbelievable the 'threat' from Sadaam was, there are voices of reason now too. We just need to listen to reason for a change. It's simply preposterous fearmongering. Could it happen? Sure. And an enormous storm could roll into Washington and lightning could strike and kill the entire US Congress. Possible, certainly. Likely? Hardly. And so worrying and generating elaborate contingency plans for such an event seems rather silly does it not? Silly hypotheticals are still silly. 10 years ago a person would never have thought of talking like this in public for fear of laughter and a jacket whose sleeves were tied together.
I'm personally tired of the relentless wall of noise that includes the words terrorists, nuclear, & Iran. I'm no longer a child and the boogieman no longer frightens me. If & when this nation faces a true external threat, I believe we can & will deal with it. Apparently our problem is the threat from within. THAT'S the terrifing threat that our nation seems incapable of dealing with - rabid, illogical idiots & madmen who somehow get elected to run this country and get just enough people to listen to them that we somehow find a way to always make a bad situation worse.
Saying things like "I don't doubt there are folks out there who would love to pull off a nuclear attack" does nothing but feed the silliness and take two steps towards worse. Why play along with this insanity? Do you truely think it's even remotely possible? I'm being serious here. Really? And I'd like to snap my fingers and solve all the worlds problems. Only I can't. And that's the point, wanting and doing are two entirely different things. For example, I'd like to go to Washington & basically whoop all their @$$es. But I'm not going to & there's no need to raise the terror alert level just in case I might.
December 6, 2007 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are assuming that the Russian nukes, if truly missing, were stolen not just lost, andt hat they ended up in the hands of groups hostile to the US (as opposed to say, the Chechens whose main complaint is with Russia).
Also, there is no such thing as a "suitcase nuke" While a very small warhead (with therefore a very small explosive charge) could be fit into a large suitcase, it would be too heavy to be carried and would still need shielding, detonation hardware etc.
And do you think anyone could keep such devices in hiding for ten years despite enormous temptation to use one, the gradual degrdation of the device itself (nukes do not last forever), and the very good possibility that someone somewhere is going to blab about it generating at the least rumors?
December 6, 2007 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because you don't see any monsters under randyb's bed doesn't mean they're not there! They're very good at hiding, you know -- except from Daddy Bush.
December 6, 2007 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
mcboo,
'fear', by far, is the biggest seller on the market.
December 6, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't this type nuke need testing of some sort, not nuclear, but at least very high explosive, and wouldn't that be noticed?
December 6, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The pure physics package of a US W54 was around 50 pounds, but got up to around 100 pounds when adding power supplies, detonation circuits, etc. Not a briefcase, but a very heavy backpack that could be carried some distace by someone in appropriate condition. There were contingencies to infiltrate them by parachute.
More important is the shelf life designed into the weapon. Factors include if the batteries are conventional or thermal, and accessible without tearing the weapon apart such that factory overhaul would be needed. If tritium boosting is used, that definitely puts a lifetime on it. Does it have a PAL?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 6, 2007 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
What scares terrorists? How about good government and positive national ecnomic and political development. No risk of that happening so long as the Disaster Capitalists rule.
December 6, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, what are they waiting for then? I guess these loose nukes are actually being stored with Saddam's WMD in Syria. And, BTW, the moon is made of cheese.
December 6, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How I long for the good old days when it was sex that sold... Just call me nostalgic but would it be possible for us to return to that and dump this whole fear thing? It may have been sexist, low-brow and gotten a few people's knickers in a twist but it sure seems far less dangerous and far more pleasing to the eye!
(-.-)/
December 6, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still buying sex over fear!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 6, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink