“The issue with terrorists getting nukes is not what they have done in the past (zero) but how rapidly it can change the risk profile when they do use a nuke. Scenario: terrorists use a nuclear device on a major city in the US and kill 1 million. This makes the new annual fatality risk in the US equal to 1/300 which is comparable to WWII at the top of the chart.” Vs. “Scenario: Everybody eats cake. Saying it might happen does not a risk analysis make.”:) Comments of Omar Fink and arturus on http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/04/terrorist_attac.html
“Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, everyone. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, it is serious, it is growing, and it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security.
Over the past two decades there has been indisputable evidence that dozens of terrorist groups have actively sought some type of weapon of mass effect. Relative to other such potential weapons — which include biological, chemical, radiological — the consequences and impact of a nuclear attack would be the most devastating as well as the most lasting.
Thus, the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and to use it is the ultimate and most prized goal of terrorist groups.
Al Qaeda is especially notable for its longstanding interest in acquiring weapons-useable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield producing improvised nuclear device.
Al Qaeda has been engaged in the effort to acquire a nuclear weapon for over 15 years, and its interest remains strong today.
[...]
Q First, Mr. Brennan, if you could clarify again this ongoing threat that you were talking about from these terrorist groups, al Qaeda, is there anything specific now that intelligence is telling you that this threat exists — not just general threat over the last 10 years or the last 5 years, but anything actively going on now that intelligence can point to?
MR. BRENNAN: I think you can point to a lot of al Qaeda activities and public statements that underscore their determination to carry out attacks against U.S., Western interests, as well as the interests of other countries and nations. And there is a significant amount of intelligence that underlies those statements and those assessments that are public.
Al Qaeda has demonstrated this determination and also extreme patience in going after particular types of capabilities. And we know for certain that there are individuals that have been within al Qaeda that have been given this responsibility. This is a very, very tough challenge though for us to be able to look worldwide to see where al Qaeda might be undertaking biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear programs.
And so there is intelligence that indicates that al Qaeda continues its murderous agenda and continues to look toward WMD capabilities in order to carry out that agenda.
[...]
MR. BRENNAN: [Discussions have] been taking place over the past 15 months at the expert level to identify all the parts of the broader nuclear security architecture that we really need to make sure is as strong as possible.
Q But those commitments are non-binding, are they not? I mean, there’s no general enforcement mechanism or enforcement out there. These are agreements that nations to made to each other. What is the means by which to check to verify that these commitments are being met?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I can assure you that over the course of the next two years, as I said, the United States will provide whatever technical assistance is necessary to ensure that the movement of very dangerous and not easy to handle material — that that’s accomplished. I mean, Major, look, there’s — we’re not signing any formal mechanism today, but I would say the commitments made between those two leaders, the President feels confident in — in understanding as well what we’ll then begin to provide, along with other nations in the world, for the ability to lock this stuff down.
[…]
Q Just to follow up on the previous questions about the timing, should they get possession of this material, how long would it take a group like al Qaeda to produce weapon? I mean, is there any estimate? Because it seems not a very easy process anyway. Look at Iran and, you know, it’s taking years. So what is your assessment in terms of timing?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, I’ve talked before about the various weapons of mass effect, whether it be biological, chemical, radiological, and nuclear. Radiological, a dirty bomb — this is a way that al Qaeda could try to carry out a nuclear-type event, but it wouldn’t have — it wouldn’t produce a yield; it wouldn’t be a nuclear blast.
So those materials may be available –
Q (Inaudible.)
MR. BRENNAN: Mass effect — well, you can have the psychological effects that are attendant to some type of WMD attack. And so a chemical attack, a biological attack, you can have tremendous effect, but the destruction in terms of lives might be limited. A nuclear attack, though, an improvised nuclear device, and that’s probably the way they would go as they — if they were able to acquire this fissile material, a lot depends on the material they were able to get, the expertise that they had, but I think they would be damned determined to try to move in that direction. They have already said publicly that if they acquired that type of weapons capability, that they would use it.
I don’t want to test the proposition of that — that they would take a certain period of time to create such a weapon. What we want to do is, again, try to focus on denying them the opportunity to use those materials for weapons of mass effect purposes.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.
Q (Inaudible) — terms of vulnerability, military, nuclear sides to the civil nuclear energy sector. What gives you the bigger concerns, that somebody steals nuclear weapons from a military site worldwide? Or rather, let’s say, hijack, for example, the transport of highly enriched based? Which is often transported (inaudible) — cities all over the world. What’s the bigger concern?
MR. BRENNAN: Well, we have concerns both on the civilian and military side from the standpoint of facilities as well as transport as well as the security measures that are put in place at these respective facilities. Al Qaeda and other groups, including criminal groups, are going to be looking for what avenues present them the best opportunity to acquire these materials. And so they and a lot of these criminal gangs and terrorist organizations reside in countries where there are nuclear programs, including some that are part of nuclear weapons programs.
And so what we’re trying to do is to make sure that we’re able to stay several steps ahead of terrorist groups by working with these countries to make sure that they’re able to button down their facilities, but also take the appropriate steps and to institute the protocols that are necessary that will endure over time. This is not just a one-time event here — what we’re trying to do is continue this process that’s been underway for a number of years that we can truly help to safeguard these materials.
Q Every day tons are transported worldwide. Tons.
[Cf. Testimony of Dr. Henry Kelly, President Federation of American Scientists before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations March 6, 2002 http://fas.org/ssp/docs/kelly_testimony_030602.pdf ]
MR. BRENNAN: A lot of things are transported on a regular basis. What we need to do is to make sure that it’s done in the most secure fashion possible. And that’s what part of the dialogue that is taking place with other countries to ensure that as they move materials they are doing it fully aware of the vulnerabilities and the potential opportunities that terrorists might use to take advantage of that transport.
[…]
Q Why not going through the United Nations for — there is a convention on protection of nuclear materials. It is kind of creating a parallel mechanism.
MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry, say the second part again.
Q You’re creating a parallel mechanism.
[Cf. http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/482
MR. GIBBS: No, I don’t — again, we’re — 46 countries are represented here, as well as a series of international organizations that the President believes are necessary to do this. So I don’t think in any way this is duplicative. I think the President sees the strong concern for — and John reiterated the type of — the President reiterated the threat, John reiterated the types of groups that are seeking to control this type of material. And I think the President strongly believes that we must do everything in our power and that that is certainly not duplicative of what the United Nations seeks to do.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-and-assistant-president-counterterrorism-and-
Key documents: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/13/enormously-productive-day
