The birth of the nuclear bomb changed the world in a permanent and fundamental way. The horrendous events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced both governments and political scientists to grapple with the new reality created by this technological monster. During the Cold War, millions feared that they were on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Today, more and more countries are developing nuclear technology, and the fear of nuclear war remains real.

As we continue to try to control nuclear proliferation among nations, a new and potentially more dangerous player has entered this deadly game. Terrorist groups, apparently with nothing to lose, are now desperately trying to develop or obtain small atomic weapons.

Stanford professors at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) have been analyzing the current global nuclear situation. Co-Directors of CISAC and Senior Fellows at the Freeman Spogli Institue for International Studies, Professors Scott Sagan and Siegfried Hecker are researching two different angles of this global nuclear state: Sagan is examining the ethics involved in nuclear politics whereas Hecker is focusing on nuclear terrorism. Their research, combined with the work of other CISAC scholars, helps to explain how the advent of terrorism has complicated the nuclear picture and whether a country can have a rational or even an ethical nuclear policy.

Dreams of Disarmament
It seems natural to think that the best way to end the nuclear threat is to simply eliminate nuclear weapons. Force every country to dismantle its atomic armory. Yet, why is this so difficult to do, and is it even a desirable action to take?

According to Sagan in Chapter Three of Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, two contrasting points of view exist in international relations in terms of nuclear strategy: cultural politics and realist politics. The former takes into account ethical considerations for creating policies and usually considers the use of nuclear weapons as unethical. The latter has a more complex and controversial argument. Realists argue that in a highly competitive, perhaps harsh, political environment, a state must take every action necessary to preserve its security, even if these actions might be unethical.

For example, during the Gulf War in 1991, the United States’ nuclear threat against Iraq may have stopped that country from using chemical and biological weapons. Realists do not favor using nuclear weapons, but believe it is unrealistic and possibly dangerous to try to eradicate them completely. Realists thus believe that a state’s nuclear arsenal can actually help avoid war and achieve peace.

Although a few countries have terminated their nuclear weapon programs and many more have forsworn developing nuclear weapons by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, realists argue that these nations’ specific security situations best explain their disarmament. Realists believe countries which agree not to possess nuclear weapons do so either because they are confident that neighboring countries will not obtain them or because they are protected by an allied country’s nuclear umbrella. For example, the vast majority of NATO countries have no need for nuclear weapons because the United States’ nuclear arsenal provides a security guarantee. Therefore, certain countries like the United States are required to keep their nuclear weapons for the protection of others.

Though this realist standpoint may seem rational, there are two major fears that make this standpoint hard to accept. First, as Sagan suggests, “nuclear weapons are not always completely controlled by statesmen;” instead they may be controlled by military groups that may not consider certain ethical consequences. The second fear is voiced by politicians around the world: though nuclear weapons could serve to maintain international security, the cost of a possible nuclear breakdown is a price that they are not willing to pay. In other words, the possibility of having a weapon that could kill millions of people instantly and destroy complete cities is a huge risk that they are not willing to accept.

However, as more and more countries agree to disarm, another perilous possibility presents itself: as nuclear missiles are deactivated, those who possess the last few weapons may be tempted to use them because they have such a large advantage over nonnuclear states.

We have opened Pandora’s Box. Now that we have entered the atomic age, we may never be able to return to a world free from nuclear weapons.

Unbalancing the Nuclear Equation
Despite this precarious state of affairs, the world has not seen a nuclear attack since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Due to the destructive power of nuclear weapons, nations still avoid using them at all costs. Even though norms governing international politics dissuade a state from using nuclear weapons against another state, a new player may enter this deadly game. This time the enemy is not a state, has no specific location and has completely destructive ambitions.

The enemy is comprised of terrorist groups.

Some terrorist groups are desperately trying to obtain small atomic weaponry and are far from having enough technology to create large-scale nuclear arms. However, they only need a few tens of kilograms of enriched uranium or less than ten kilograms of plutonium to create a devastating weapon. According to the Institute of Science and Security, approximately 2.3 million kilograms of such weapon-grade nuclear material currently exist in the world. Therefore, unfortunately, a few loose kilograms may not be very difficult to obtain.

Alternatively, terrorists could attempt to build a dirty bomb which is a non-nuclear explosion that disperses radiation. The destructive power of a dirty bomb is magnitudes less than a nuclear bomb, but the fear and panic created by the dispersed radiation could be substantial. Also, the radioactive material that can be used for a dirty bomb is found in nonmilitary reactors, scientific apparatuses and medical devices. Hence, through various means, terrorists could potentially obtain this material from everyday machines. Since materials for a dirty bomb are so readily available, it is crucial to manage the response.

As for the real nuclear bomb, Hecker explains that the best solution to meet this threat is to control the inventory of worldwide nuclear bomb-grade material. The International Atomic Energy Agency now governs 700,000 kilograms of such material, but the international community still needs to cooperate more on this issue. However, such cooperation faces severe obstacles. Military secrecy in many countries such as North Korea and Pakistan exemplifies one of the major problems, and it is very difficult to know if countries are accurately reporting all of their nuclear material and weapons.

The international realm has barely kept the atomic equation in stability. If we are going to maintain this equilibrium and prevent nuclear terrorism, as Hecker described in his Toward a Comprehensive Safeguards System, “loose fissile material must be the top security priority of every nation.”

Facing Reality
It is hard to believe that technology has put us in a situation where ethics and security seem to be at odds with each other. For over 50 years, international security has depended at least partly on the existence of nuclear weapons, and this reality is likely to continue into the future. However, the frightening prospect of nuclear terrorism looms on the horizon.

To prevent this horrific scenario from becoming a reality, the international community must vigilantly control nuclear material and forbid these new terrorist players from entering the deadly nuclear game. Only then can we be hopeful that we will never see the atomic cloud which the world witnessed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.