WASHINGTON -- The risk that terrorists will acquire and use atomic weapons will increase in coming decades as nuclear technology and expertise proliferate, according to a U.S. intelligence report released yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 19).
(Nov. 21) -
U.S. Deputy National Intelligence Director Thomas Fingar this week warned of growing nuclear threats (U.S. House of Representatives photo).
While the risk of a nuclear attack in the next 20 years remains "very low" -- probably lower than the possibility of a chemical or biological weapons strike -- it is "likely to be greater than it is today," according to the projection, published by the National Intelligence Council.
The panel, an arm of the national intelligence director's office, issued Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World to "stimulate strategic thinking about the future by identifying key trends, the factors that drive them, where they seem to be headed, and how they might interact," commission Chairman Thomas Fingar, U.S. deputy national intelligence director, said in a foreword to the report.
The 99-page document -- the fourth such report on long-term trends that the council has issued in recent years -- warns of the perils the United States might expect from the steady expansion of nuclear capabilities worldwide.
"The spread of nuclear technologies and expertise is generating concerns about the potential emergence of new nuclear-weapon states and the acquisition of nuclear materials by terrorist groups," according to the document.
The national intelligence director's office laid out the risks in a statement released yesterday.
"The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons," according to the DNI statement. "The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a widening range of options for limited strikes."
Of particular concern is the "growing risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," where a number of states "are already thinking about developing or acquiring nuclear technology useful for development of nuclear weaponry," reads the global trends report.
A Middle East nuclear arms race tops the panel's list of dangerous developments that could threaten political or economic globalization. An act of terrorism using a weapon of mass destruction could have a similarly traumatizing effect, according to the assessment.
Fingar emphasized at an event this week that the publication is not meant to be predictive or inevitable. In fact, he said Tuesday, "even the word 'projection' is a little more determinative than we intend this to be."
Experts note that a number of nations have come close to gaining -- or actually acquired -- nuclear arms by masking illicit activities under the cloak of internationally permitted development of civil nuclear energy. For a time, Libya and Iraq maintained clandestine efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and Iran and Syria are now widely suspected of doing the same (see GSN stories on Iran and Syria, Nov. 19).
The global trends report "pulls its punch on exactly ... why the spread of nuclear power is a problem, said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "The way they describe the problem, it's not clear that you need to do very much to solve it other than to say something like, 'Well, we have diplomatic pledges or IAEA inspections to guard against these possibilities,' and then it just goes away."
The trend lines in the Middle East are discouraging, according to a February essay he wrote about the international community's challenges in verifying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
"Since 2005, more than 15 countries have announced a desire to acquire large reactors of their own by 2020," wrote Sokolski, who serves on the U.S. Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (see GSN, Nov. 19).
"Nine of these states -- Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen -- are located in the war-torn region of the Middle East," he explained. "Most are interested in developing a nuclear program capable of more than merely boiling water to run turbines that generate electricity. At least four have made it clear that they are interested in hedging their security bets with a nuclear weapons option."
Sokolski expressed doubt that the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the U.N. watchdog agency for nuclear power -- would be able to ensure that these programs remain peaceful and not evolve into weapons efforts.
The global trends report called particular attention to the potential that a nuclear-armed Iran could prompt other nations in the region to acquire a similar arsenal.
"Over the next 15-20 years, reactions to the decisions Iran makes about its nuclear program could cause a number of regional states to intensify these efforts and consider actively pursuing nuclear weapons," according to the document. "This will add a new and more dangerous dimension to what is likely to be increasing competition for influence within the region."
It adds: "The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran spawning a nuclear arms race in the greater Middle East will bring new security challenges to an already conflict-prone region, particularly in conjunction with the proliferation of long-range missile systems."
On Tuesday, Fingar declined to establish a direct link between the provision of nuclear energy assistance to non-nuclear-weapons nations in the Middle East and their eventual capacity to build atomic arms.
Gaining proficiency in enriching uranium for peaceful purposes might be seen as just one of many steps that could contribute to an eventual weapons capacity, but a state's intention or ability to develop nuclear arms is not a given, he said.
"[A] civil-nuclear [effort] provides opportunities for certain kinds of technology to be mastered," Fingar said at the forum, held at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy to debut his projections for the Middle East. "That is a necessary but not sufficient criterion or condition for moving into weapons."
He added that many nations have a legitimate interest in peaceful nuclear energy but no desire to build weapons. In fact, under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, "most" states have "renounced both the intent and the capacity."
As oil and gas prices rise, interest in nuclear energy will grow, accompanied by expanding risks, Fingar said.
"There are a range of issues around nuclear power, both for civilian use and weaponization, that are likely to play out in this region," he told the audience.
"The NIC director is being polite," Sokolski said in comments e-mailed to Global Security Newswire. "He and anyone in the business know that a large reactor program brings any nation quite a ways down the road to acquiring an option to make bombs."
Civil nuclear power advocates argue the burden rests on the U.N. nuclear oversight body to ensure that technology and materials for peaceful programs are not diverted for military use.
"Programs should be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's nonprofit policy organization. "That entity is in place to serve a role. So that's really the approach that folks ought to take. People should understand that you don't need a commercial nuclear power program to engage in proliferation-type activities."
To Sokolski, existing international monitoring regimes rely too heavily on trust that countries will not lie about how they are using condoned civil nuclear efforts as a fig leaf for illicit nuclear weapons development.
"It's going to be 'Atoms for Peace' that leaves the bombs for sneaks," he said, alluding to a 1953 speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that touted the global benefits of nuclear power.
Sokolski advocates instead using international financial and diplomatic tools to deter non-nuclear nations from building large reactors, absent a clear economic justification or an ironclad indication of the nation's peaceful intent.