Since the events of 9/11 there have been endless assertions regarding nuclear warfare. Successive US administrations have lambasted Pakistan for spreading nuclear secrets. Abdul Qadeer Khan has long been accused of circulating plans for building an effective nuclear weapon. Various US officials constantly assert their concern over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Similarly Iran is accused of constructing an advanced missile programme to mount a nuclear warhead against Israel. Whilst North Korea’s fiery rhetoric continues to keep the Korean peninsula on the brink of war. Such propaganda has replaced the fear of the Cold War era when many believed it was just a matter of time before the US and the Soviet Union engaged in nuclear warfare.
Weaponising the atom remains one of the most challenging endeavours any nation can undertake. 65 years after the US remote tested the world’s first atomic bomb only a handful of nations have successfully developed a nuclear weapon.
Building the Bomb
Understanding how a nuclear device is built, will allow us to asses the claims of nuclear terrorism. A Nuclear device is an apparatus that can initiate a nuclear chain reaction, due to sufficient fissile material. A nuclear weapon is a reliable miniaturized warhead that can be delivered with a reliable delivery system. This can only be achieved when a series of developments are overcome.
A nuclear device requires a nuclear chain reaction through fission or fusion. Both reactions release huge quantities of energy from small amounts of matter. Both reactions generate roughly a million times more energy than comparable chemical reactions. In a fission weapon, a mass of fissile material – enriched uranium or plutonium is assembled into a supercritical mass – this is the amount of material needed to start a nuclear chain reaction. This is achieved by shooting one piece of sub-critical matter into another or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives.
Enrichment
The enrichment of fissile material is probably the most complex aspect of building a nuclear device. It presents numerous challenges for any nation in developing a nuclear programme. Uranium atoms, like the atoms of every element, occur in nature in varieties called isotopes. Uranium-235, an isotope that makes up less than 1% of all natural uranium, provides the fuel for nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, while uranium-238, an isotope that makes up 99% of natural uranium, has no nuclear use.
The concept of enrichment requires separating a heavier isotope of uranium from a lighter isotope of uranium in order to enrich or purify the stock to higher than 80% of U235 – sufficient for use in weapons. Separating something heavier from something lighter in a gaseous at a sufficiently refined level to separate two isotopes differentiated by only a few subatomic particles is an extremely complicated process. This is achieved through the use of centrifuge technology. A Centrifuge creates a force thousands of times more powerful than the force of gravity. Cascades of centrifuges carry out the delicate task of separating isotopes, these are finely tuned machine components, able to spin at high speeds while fully containing and separating highly corrosive gas. Not only do the centrifuges spin very fast, but each one in a cascade of 100 or more centrifuges must be capable of minute calibration, calibration that becomes more fine and essential as the level of enrichment increases.
Each time Uranium is spun in gas form in a centrifuge, a small amount of uranium-238 gas is removed from the mixture. Each centrifuge pulls out a little bit of uranium-238, and then passes the slightly refined gas mixture onto the next tube, and so on, until many hundreds of thousands of spins later, the gas remaining in the tube is almost entirely composed of uranium-235 – for use as a nuclear bomb. It is the combination of appropriate calibration and rotational speed that allow for enrichment to take place, low-quality bearings just would not do the job.
Thereafter miniaturising fissile material and developing either a gun-type device or implosion device is a process only 9-10 nations in the world have accomplished. South Africa has since renounced it, whilst North Korea is still working on it.
Moving beyond the device stage, a delivery system needs to be constructed taking account of payload. Today nuclear warheads sit in missiles and this would be another challenge any nation would face, i.e. delivering a bomb to its intended target. The components of the bomb that actually initiate a nuclear explosion must be miniaturized in order to be placed in a missile. Modern missiles are smaller than a human being weighing only a few hundred pounds. Actually getting a warhead down to this size is no simple exercise. It requires, among other things, precision manufacturing, exceptional quality control and a good understanding of nuclear physics. All of this would be after decades of testing to ensure detonation upon delivery.
From this brief analysis is should be clear that contrary to their popular portrayal in movies and the media, nuclear bombs are actually difficult to manufacture and effectively deploy. Constructing a Nuclear weapon is not a simple exercise of money and brains, it is a product of decades of testing, design and a huge investment. This is why only Pakistan and North Korea have joined the nuclear club since the fall of the Berlin wall. Building a nuclear weapon requires a comprehensive commitment from any nation for its national resources to be deployed in such a manner. It is not just about one facility, it needs an industrial base. A nuclear program requires long term facilities, which are very energy intensive, years of experimentation, fissile material and high grade industrial machinery.
After all of this a reliable miniaturised nuclear device (a warhead) needs to be combined with a similarly robust and reliable delivery system. Such integration is an immensely costly and complex process. A nuclear bomb would not be very useful if it could not be reliably delivered to its intended target with a good probability of success. For a nuclear bomb to be deployed as a ballistic missile warhead or as a cruise missile warhead a series of very significant technical hurdles must be overcome, these include nuclear physics, materials science, rocketry, missile guidance and the like.
The Threat of non – State Actors
Whilst it is virtually impossible for a terrorist group to construct a nuclear weapon questions have been raised about their ability to acquire one that has already been built. The security of nuclear weapons has long been an important concern for the world. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a CNN interview in 2010 said she considers weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of an international terrorist group to be the largest threat faced by the United States, even bigger than the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. “The biggest nightmare that many of us have is that one of these terrorist member organizations within this syndicate of terror will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction.”
The Hollywood movie scenario of a terrorist group stealing a nuclear bomb from a secure facility and then somehow weaponsing it is virtually impossible. Aside from setting off numerous alarms and protocols it would leave little opportunity to smuggle a bomb very far. If one was stolen
modern nuclear weapons are designed with multiple highly classified safety features. Whilst nuclear weapons are not all created the same, they range from permissive action links without which the device cannot be armed to configurations that will render the fissile core useless if incorrectly accessed.
In the case of al Qaeda even after immense security, sanctuary and financial backing they have been unable to produce a crude nuclear device in any meaningful way – they are considered by most security analysts to have only got as far as attempting to procure nuclear materials that turned out to be fake, sold to them by con men. Even chemical and biological weapon pursuits were not seriously or successfully pursued, given the complexity and cost. Operating and maintaining such weapons are not simple pursuits. It is important to keep in mind that these are complex devices that require a great deal of regular, careful maintenance. They do not have a permanent shelf life.
The reality of actually attempting to steal a nuclear weapon would require a huge dedication of resources and an immense intelligence effort beyond the reach of most if not all terrorist organizations. Terrorist organisations are not governments who have the ability to collect taxes and fund a military–industrial program. The odds of failure are high, no matter how careful and meticulous the planning. Whilst nuclear weapons facilities around the world are not as hardened as each other, but taken as a whole, they are some of the hardest targets on the planet, and the personnel better vetted than almost any other institution.
A terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is virtually impossible and this is fundamentally due to the nature of terrorist organisations that lack resources, manpower, technical expertise and the ability to operate in open environments. It is not a matter of kidnapping some nuclear scientists, a nuclear programme is much more then that.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
US policy makers have for long argued that democracies make rational decisions, they argue that dictators are prone to being irrational and unstable – nuclear weapons in the hands of such leaders would be apocalyptic. US policy makers usually cite North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as possible candidates for starting World War Three – WW3.
Any leader can make mistakes and even miscalculate, however no one can run a whole country on their own. Leaders require loyal and competent individuals. A apocalyptic minded leader is very unlikely to rise so far — and is even less likely to command the respect and loyalty of those necessary to actually run the nation for any length of time.
Joseph Stalin was considered to be a brutal ruler and at times plain mad. He however refused to believe his advisers when they insisted that Nazi forces were poised to invade in 1941. Even after the invasion began, he refused to believe it until his most trusted advisers actually travelled to the front lines. But despite Stalin’s ruthlessness when it came to cracking down on the population of the Soviet Union, he did not throw a nuclear weapon at the US the moment he got one, even though many in the West feared that he might. Running a country as Stalin ran the Soviet Union for as long as he did requires a certain rationality and skill and most importantly, a personal nature that clings to continued existence. Overseeing the defence of that country against the Nazi onslaught and then implementing an aggressive crash nuclear program takes coordination and focus.
Kim Jong Il of North Korea has consolidated control over a country that was run by his father for nearly 50 years. By balancing various groups and interests, he has maintained internal control and loyalty. He has overseen the allocation of resources necessary to build both crude intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s) and crude nuclear devices while faced with crushing international sanctions. This is not the track record of a crazy leader.
If he was suicidal, he has the short-range ballistic missiles at hand to destroy Seoul and invite a new Korean War – a choice that would be far quicker, cheaper and even more complete than the prototype nuclear devices that North Korea has so far demonstrated. He has however shown, consistently that his foremost goal has been the survival of his regime. Indeed, he has actually curtailed much of the more aggressive activity that occurred during his father’s reign, While Kim’s actions seem unstable – they are designed to seem that way in order to induce an element of uncertainty at the negotiating table with the West, Pyongyang regularly uses ballistic missile and nuclear tests as part of a wider strategy to not only keep itself relevant, but to ensure regime survival.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric denying the Holocaust, calling for the destruction of Israel and defying the US, is central to his strategy of regime survival. This rhetoric is intended for domestic consumption, but it is also a strategy, similar to North Korea’s, to cultivate perceptions and influence behaviours by making Tehran appear unpredictable. The true power in Iran is the clerical leadership, not the country’s highly-visible president. Although the executive in Iran does wield considerable power, the complexity of the Iranian political system allows for several layers of oversight.
Furthermore, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – the true leader in Tehran has consistently relied upon consensus when it comes to policy and decision-making. Though there are radical elements within some of Iran’s institutions Tehran’s senior leadership has consistently demonstrated itself to be far more rational than Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric suggests. Whether Iran even possesses nuclear weapons it would not be Ahmadinejad or any potentially like-minded successor with the power to push the launch button.
Crazy and suicidal leaders have a difficult time becoming leaders of a country even capable of considering trying to develop a nuclear weapon, much less being able to see the process through to the end over the course of a decade. Becoming a leader of such a country entails taking some risks, but they are generally calculated as they want to enjoy the fruits of that labour. The consequences for miscalculating with nuclear weapons are annihilation, not only for themselves, their family and the power base that they have built, but for the entire nation.
Rogue Elements
Some have argued that a rogue nation could possibly hand over a nuclear device to a terrorist group. Iran’s support for Hizbullah and Hamas has for long alarmed the West. Pakistan has also been under the microscope as many in the West consider there to be rogue elements within Pakistan’s ISI and the army. Elements within such nations could place a nuclear device into the hands of terrorists in order to fulfil their national aims.
A nuclear device is the product of an immense, expensive national effort. Each individual weapon especially early on, represents an enormous investment of national resources. By handing one over to an outside group, the country not only has no assurance of it being employed in the way they want, but opens itself to the prospect of that immense investment being wasted or misused. Because a meaningful nuclear deterrent rests on not one weapon, but many, the incentive will be for the country to consolidate its stockpile and deploy it to multiple locations that it has strong control over in order to work towards establishing that deterrent.
A nuclear device is the higher end of the destruction ladder, non- state actors could be provided with less destructive, but equally lethal weapons such as biological, chemical or dirty bombs as they have come to be known. There is an important and stark distinction between a nuclear device and Chemical, biological and radiological weapon. The distinction lies in the measure of potential lethality. The anthrax attacks in the United States in the wake of 9/11 used a biological agent but could hardly have been classified as attacks utilizing WMD’s.
One of the most significant challenges non – state actors face in chemical and biological plots is the need to manufacture and transport quantities sufficient to yield a significant body count. As military commanders learned on the battlefields of Europe during World War I, and during the Iran-Iraq war, chemical agents are volatile and quick to vaporize, and they tend to dissipate quickly. As a result, deadly concentrations can be difficult to amass in a real-world setting.
The bottom line is that a nuclear device is the only WMD that can be relied upon to create mass casualties and guarantee the success of a strategic strike. However, a nuclear device is also by far the hardest of the WMD’s to obtain or manufacture. Unlike countries such as North Korea and Iran, terrorists simply do not have the resources or the secure territory on which to build such facilities. Even with money and secure facilities, it is still a long and difficult endeavour to create a nuclear weapons program — as is evident in the efforts of North Korea and Iran. Fundamentally without the help of a state or military it is virtually impossible for any organisation to smuggle a nuclear device. If a terrorist organisation did end up with one it is because those who posses them took the decision to do so.
It is much easier for non – state actors to gain access to Chemical, Biological or Radiological weapons. Components for such weapons are available in many every day applications, the challenge for any non – state actor would be to acquire sufficient amounts, handle them correctly and them set them off correctly. Difficulties arise when one attempts to take a rudimentary substance and then convert it into a weaponized form – a form that is potent enough to be deadly and yet readily dispersed. Even if this weaponization hurdle can be overcome, once developed, the weaponized agent must then be integrated with a weapons system that can effectively take large quantities of the agent and evenly distribute it in lethal doses to the intended targets.
However the history of the use of such weapons in terrorist attacks is limited, the fact of the matter is that most cases where groups have considered pursuing these capabilities have ultimately led to them being abandoned in favor of more obtainable and efficient tactics. They simply fall well short of the destruction wrought by simpler and more conventional explosive devices. Pound for pound and hour for hour of effort, high explosives are far more effective at inflicting massive casualties. Chemical and biological weapons are expensive and difficult to use and have proved to be largely ineffective in real-world applications. A radiological bomb, or a dirty bomb as it is known, whilst easy to deploy, it is very difficult to immediately administer a lethal dose of radiation to victims.
Conclusions
Since the events of 9/11 there has been much propaganda abound about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. This misinformation stems from misconceptions and ignorance, while disinformation also comes from scaremongers hyping the threat for financial or political reasons. Many people have made a lot of money by promoting fear since 9/11. A nuclear bomb requires the construction of a nuclear device, one of the most complex programmes a nation can undertake. A terrorist organisation could possibly gain access to one part of this process, but it would be impossible – due to the nature of terrorist organisations to steal the whole process. Even receiving a nuclear device from a state requires operational capability which would be beyond most terrorist organisations. If a terrorist group does end up with a nuclear device it is because one of the nuclear armed states wanted them to have one. Non – state actors are more likely to get hold of biological, chemical or radiological weapons however their effectiveness is questionable when compared to more conventional weapons.
WMD’s is largely a political issue, even though they are lethal, possessing them gives a nation strength in global issues and any nation with designs on such a nation would need to think twice about the repercussions.
Notes
Nuclear device – is an apparatus that can initiate a nuclear chain reaction, due to sufficient fissile material.
Nuclear weapon – (All about delivery) is a reliable miniaturized warhead that can be delivered with a reliable delivery system
Fissile material – enriched uranium or plutonium
Supercritical mass – This is the amount of material needed to start a nuclear chain reaction
Nuclear chain reaction – Where huge quantities of energy are released from small amounts of matter. This is whereby a sequence of reactions where a reactive product or by-product causes additional reactions to take place. In a chain reaction, positive feedback leads to a self-amplifying chain of events.
Delivery system – Missile – have to get device to target
Enrichment – is fundamentally isotope isolation.
Isotope – Variants of atoms of a particular chemical element, which have differing numbers of neutrons.