Radical Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and the War on Terror: Are WMD a Threat in the War on Terror

1
Radical Islam, Nuclear Weapons, and the War on
Terror Are WMD a Threat in the War on Terror?
FPRI Wachman Center History Institute Teaching
the Nuclear Age March 2009

• William Symolon

2
Background

• Nuclear era dawned at end of WWII in Aug 1945
  with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki three
  days apart and Japans surrender six days later.
  
• Weapons were so devastating they have not been
  used since
• Acquisition of NWs by Soviet Union spawned the
  Cold War, which lasted until collapse of USSR in
  1989.

3
Background (cont.)

• During that era many wars were fought as proxy
  wars between US and USSR, but the superpowers
  never clashed.
• --Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
  prevailed
• Did possession of NWs and prospect of
  annihilation prevent another world war?
• Difficult to prove, but a reasonable assumption.
• Rational actors viewed the costs of war not worth
  the risk of mutual destruction.

4
Current Era

• Post 9/11, we face a new enemy. A non-state
  actor (al Qaeda) with apocalyptic ambitions
  raises new questions.
• Does the same rationale of MAD still apply?
• George W. Bush introduced the term War on Terror.
  Who and/or what are we fighting?

5
Facts About Terrorism

• Terrorism has been in use for centuriesit is not
  a new phenomenon
• Modern examples
• 1914 assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of
  Austia-Hungary launched WW I
• Numerous airline hijackings explosions of
  1970s - 80s
• Munich Olympic Massacre of 1972
• 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing
• 2000 bombing of USS Cole

6
Facts About Terrorism (cont.)

• Increasingly since 1993 terrorism emerged with
  series of attacks having shocking, but limited
  effects.
• New level of escalation not recognized until
  Sept. 11, 2001 an ideology with religious,
  political, and cultural elements.
• Radical interpretations of traditional Islamic
  faith consider Western World corrupt and
  threatening to their way of life.

7
Facts About Terrorism (cont.)

• For Islamists, a better world only possible
  through pure communities following the vision of
  the Prophet Mohammed and his followers.
• Radicals have corrupted traditional Islamic
  theology usurping power from religious leaders
  (imams).
• Bin Laden is not a religious cleric, but a
  political force. His use of fatwas (edicts
  calling for jihad) is beyond his authority.
• He portrays West as unbelievers (infidels) intent
  on destroying Islam.

8
Facts About Terrorism (cont.)

• Bin Laden has interpreted the Koran in terms of
  obedience in a political sense instead of as a
  precept of worship.
• He labels democracy as the center of evil because
  it permits citizens to make their own laws,
  permits freedom of worship, and the choice to
  believe in a faith or not without penalty. This
  is unacceptable to the extremist interpretation.
• Historically, suicidal, apocalyptic cults are
  short-lived cannot readily institutionalize
  because they self-destruct.

9
Facts About Terrorism (cont.)

• In view of the above, does terrorism define our
  age as a prime mover of struggle, or is it one
  factor among many issues such as
• Globalization
• Energy Awareness
• Economic dislocation
• Immigration

10
Facts About Terrorism (cont.)

• Still, al Qaeda remains a force aimed at our very
  center of being (freedom)
• Listen to their leaders and read their
  proclamations calling for destruction of our
  system of government.
• Is their objective realistic? Probably not. But,
  will that stop them from trying?
• In efforts to inflict maximum casualties, would
  they use NWs if able to acquire them?

11
Considerations

• MAD worked because we always knew where the enemy
  might strike from and we could retaliate.
• Nuclear terrorism has a no fingerprint effect
• Who would we strike?
• What is logical and feasible?

12
Considerations (cont.)

• Pres. Bush proclaimed the enemy as any terrorist
  group OR any state that gave aid, comfort, and
  support to them. If weapons could be traced back
  to a state of origin we would retaliate. Is that
  a deterrent?
• NWs are extremely hard to make (physics,
  metallurgy, and engineering factors), large space
  is needed, lots of people involved, specialized
  skills needed, they are not easy to hide or move
  and harder to deliver.
• Suitcase bombs are more fiction than fact.
  Technological sophistication needed to get one
  into a suitcase that could be carried is
  problematical.
• Potentially more threatening could be biotoxins
  or chemical weapons.

13
More Considerations

• Bio science is open-ended and less controlled
  than nuclear science. Would smallpox, ebola, or
  other killing diseases be thought of as attacks
  or natural outbreaks? (Swine Flu)
• Biotechnology and nanotechnology are worldwide
  efforts today.
• They require little space, fewer people, less
  time and money, are easier to hide, move, and
  deliver than nuclear weapons weighing hundreds or
  thousands of pounds.
• They could be even harder to trace back to a
  country of origin.
• What are we to do?

14
Potential Options

• Harden potential targets
• Enhance human intelligence
• Build forensic capabilities for surveillance
• Convince other states to be wary
• Terrorist cells require a social vortex to
  survive
• Develop incentives for responsible states to act
  responsibly
• Attack with special forces and covert operations
• --Recruit scientists and engineers willing to
  help
• Encourage mainstream Islam to renounce terrorism
  on their own and stigmatize it.