How should nuclear security be addressed in a post-Sept. 11 world?

In many ways, the world has changed since the Sept. 11 attacks, but issues of nuclear proliferation and security continue to figure prominently in national debates, such as whether to take action on Iraq.

Frank von Hippel, co-director of the Wilson School Program on Science and Global Security, said that he continues to see a nuclear terror attack as a real danger.

"There's a lot of highly enriched uranium in the world and some of it is not very well secured," said von Hippel, also a former assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

"Nobody above my level in the White House . . . really worried about [the nuclear security] problem," he said, suggesting that terrorists might be able to acquire these materials if they are not better secured.

He added that the Bush administration initially proposed cuts for nuclear security programs but did not follow up on the plan.

Von Hippel also suggested that nuclear security was important in preventing the progress of the Iraqi nuclear program.

"If [enriched uranium] is available on the black market . . . then within a year or two after getting enough material for a weapon, [the Iraqis] could have a nuclear weapon," he said.

He cautioned that the problem is not limited to Iraq. "Either we should go after every country . . . which is an enemy and could become a more dangerous enemy if they acquire nuclear weapons . . . or we get more serious about keeping nuclear materials from getting stolen," he said, adding that his preference was for the latter.

Zia Mian, a researcher in the program on science and global security, said that it was unlikely that a terrorist group like al Qaeda would use nuclear weapons in the United States. He said that the goal of their actions seemed to be to force the United States to make concessions.

"Experience suggests that people don't negotiate when you let off nuclear weapons in their country," he said, suggesting there is no political reason for such a group to use nuclear weapons.

However, if the United States kills "hundreds of thousands" in an attack on Iraq, terrorists might look for ways to retaliate on a larger scale, he added.

M.V. Ramana, another researcher in the program of science and global security, said that some within the Bush administration are reconsidering the role of nuclear weapons in its military plans.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"Increasingly, the U.S. is changing its view of nuclear weapons and the role they have in its military strategy," Ramana said.

Von Hippel agreed that "there is somewhat of a shift" in U.S. nuclear policy. However, he added that the report did not represent a full turnaround in policy.

"There's always been a public perception of U.S. policy that is more benign than the actual policy," he said.

Von Hippel said he is concerned about the possibility of further testing. "It pushes the idea that nuclear weapons are usable," he said.

He added he was especially disappointed by a section of a Bush administration report in January that suggested that accidental nuclear missile launches are not a major concern. He noted that the United States has approximately 2,000 and Russia more than 1,000 missiles that are ready for deployment in fifteen minutes and called this an "unnecessarily dangerous posture."

Von Hippel said the United States could never be fully defended against an accidental launch from Russia unless the number of missiles ready for quick deployment is reduced.

"We don't have a missile defense now . . . and we won't have probably ever, that could handle that number of warheads," he said.

Mian said that it was notable that the nuclear complexes of the United States and the former Soviet Union had survived major social and political change.

He added, however, that he questioned the logic of deterrence, which has been embraced by political leaders around the world.

Ramana agreed, explaining that during the Cold War, "deterrence" caused the world to come very close to nuclear war several times, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis thirty years ago.

Mian said both India and Pakistan have recently adopted the flawed logic of deterrence. Each country has tested nuclear weapons in recent years, and they are currently locked in a tense relationship, though neither appears to have actually deployed any weapons.

Mian added these countries are likely to hold onto their weapons as a last resort, in part because each country has relatively few warheads.