A Blast that Would Last

We’re unfortunately used to conventional explosives in terrorism, but the scenarios that really “terrify” speak of weapons of mass destruction: chemical and biological attacks as well as the chilling prospect of nuclear weapons. We’ve seen examples of chemical terrorism such as the use of sarin gas, a nerve agent, in a Tokyo subway: an apocalyptic cult, “Aum Shinrikyo first began their [series of five] attacks on June 27, 1994. With the help of a converted refrigerator truck, members of the cult released a cloud of sarin which floated near the homes of judges who were overseeing a lawsuit concerning a real-estate dispute which was predicted to go against the cult. From this one event, 500 people were injured and seven people died.” Wikipedia

While the use of “germ warfare” in terrorism has been sparse – probably due to the difficulty in handling sufficient quantities of deadly toxic viruses and bacteria – we’ve had an ugly taste of this form of attack here in the United States: “In September and October 2001 ... [l]etters laced with infectious anthrax were delivered to news media offices and the U.S Congress. The letters killed 5. Tests on the anthrax strain used in the attack pointed to a domestic source, possibly from the biological weapons program.” Wikipedia.

The Department of Homeland Security describes the use of a so-called limited nuclear device: “A dirty bomb, or radiological dispersion device, is a bomb that combines conventional explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive materials in the form of powder or pellets. The idea behind a dirty bomb is to blast radioactive material into the area around the explosion. This could possibly cause buildings and people to be exposed to radioactive material. The main purpose of a dirty bomb is to frighten people and make buildings or land unusable for a long period of time.” While such a device could cause death to those in the immediate vicinity of the device, aside from some contamination issues, the notion of such a b last is more frightening than the bomb itself would be devastating.

None of the above examples shows a weapon of mass destruction, but where we really begin to shudder is at the prospect of a full-on nuclear blast from a terrorist bomb, particularly in a major urban center – like New York or Washington, D.C. – where there are great concentrations of people and operational centers of vital parts of the American economy or body politic. One such blast could change the face and character of the United States in a single moment. As leaders from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C. at a major nuclear summit, President Obama laid it on the line (April 11^th): “The central focus of this nuclear summit is the fact that the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short term, medium term and long term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon… This is something that could change the security landscape in this country and around the world for years to come. If there was ever a detonation in New York City, or London, or Johannesburg, the ramifications economically, politically and from a security perspective would be devastating.”The President added that He added that “organizations like al-Qaeda are in the process of trying to secure nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and would have no compunction at using them.”

With nuclear weapons proliferating, rogue nations seemingly committed to becoming nuclear powers, nuclear scientists like Pakistan’s Dr. A.Q. Khan having spread the detailed knowledge of “how to build bombs” to Iran, North Korea and who knows where else, the earth has a very strong interest in tracking the ingredients for bomb-making and penetrating the black market in such materials. It’s good that the United States and Russia have agreed to dramatically reduce their nuclear arms stash. It’s terrific that China’s President Hu is attending the D.C. event. But the risks are probably not with the great powers; it is the maniacal leaders of extremist groups that threaten the most. The summit should make a difference, but this is one instance where a single mistake can change history. On Tuesday, April 13^th, President Obama opened the summit and called for concerted and joint action by all nuclear powers to secure their stockpiles, reduce or destroy nuclear materials that were most vulnerable to theft and take action as a part of an integrated global effort to control this threat: “[T]he problems of the 21st century cannot be solved by nations acting in isolation — they must be solved by all of us coming together.” I hope the gathered leaders were listening. 47 leaders all seemed to agree, signed off in principle, but the lack of specificity is a tad troubling.

I’m Peter Dekom, and yes, I worry about this a lot.