Homeland Defense Journal - January 2009 - 18

FEATURE ARTICLE By Jeremy Tamsett Nuclear and Biological Threats The Two Most Lethal Choices in a Terrorist’s CBRN Toolbox T The Weapons he threat of terrorists armed with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons attacking the U.S. homeland is real. According to December’s Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.” Looking beyond the headlines, what is the likelihood in the near future that a terrorist group will acquire or build a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and use it to attack the United States? Has this threat been sensationalized, or have policy makers given it inadequate attention? While all four CBRN weapon types are commonly and collectively referred to as WMD, only nuclear and biological weapons have the potential to kill a very large number of people and, in the case of nuclear weapons, also cause catastrophic physical devastation. For these reasons, nuclear and biological weapons are the only true “weapons of mass destruction” and are, hence, the focus of this article. Because of the awesome power and destructive effects of nuclear weapons, potential future terrorist attacks often conjure images of mushroom clouds. Assuming that terrorist groups seek to maximize damage but are constrained by limited resources, are they likely to pursue a nuclear weapon as their ﬁrst choice? What about biological weapons? To determine the answer, we’ll ﬁrst take a closer look at the dangers posed by both nuclear and biological weapons, as well as a few key hurdles confronting terrorist acquisition and use of these weapons. Nuclear Threats Nuclear terrorism poses one of the most destructive threats to the U.S. homeland. According to the Securing the Bomb 2008 report published by Harvard’s resident nuclear expert Matthew Bunn, “The next U.S. president will take ofﬁce still facing a very real danger that terrorists might get and use a nuclear bomb…Preventing such an attack must be a top international security priority -- for the next U.S. president and for leaders around the world.” The catastrophic consequences of terrorist use of nuclear weapon are not hard to imagine, but it is far more difﬁcult to ascertain the ability of a terrorist group to manufacture, acquire, or use a nuclear weapon. The reality is that unless terrorists steal or buy an intact nuclear weapon, which only a handful of nation-states possess, they will have to resort to building an improvised nuclear device (IND). The successful construction of an IND would require access to certain types of equipment, machining tools, engineering and scientiﬁc know-how, in addition to what might be the most dangerous commodity in the world – ﬁssile material. There are two types of ﬁssile material used in nuclear weapons: highly enriched uranium (HEU) and various isotopes of the even more rare element plutonium (the most useful of which is pu-239 – and can only be created inside a nuclear reactor). Fissile materials are used in varying levels of abundance in research reactors, and as the primary source of fuel for commercial power reactors around the globe. The largest concentration of HEU is located in Russia, where the United States has poured billions of dollars in the past decade to either secure in place or “blend down” weaponsgrade HEU (in which the isotope u-235 is present in 16 | Homeland Defense Journal Visit www.homelanddefensejournal.com

Homeland Defense Journal - January 2009

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Homeland Defense Journal - January 2009