Issues: Nuclear Weapons

The grave threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has not gone away with the Cold War. It has evolved into many separate threats, some of them harder to see and harder to answer.

~ President George W. Bush²

I. Introduction
II. The Lingering Threat of Nuclear Weapons
III. The Policies of the Bush Administration
IV. Alternative Policies for a More Secure World
V. Opportunities to Influence Policy
VI. Conclusion
VII. Glossary
VIII. Additional Resources
Map of Nuclear Weapon States
Congressional Funding Process for Nuclear Weapons

The nuclear threat has dramatically changed in the past two decades. The likelihood of a massive deliberate nuclear attack against the U.S. is far less than the risk of an unintended or unauthorized missile launch, the use of a nuclear weapon in a regional conflict, or the threat of nuclear materials falling into the hands of violent extremist groups. Unlike the relatively predictable nuclear stalemate that existed historically between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, these newer threats are extremely difficult to control.

The Threat of Hair-Trigger Alert

In 1995, the United States and Norway launched a research rocket from an island off Norway's northwest coast. Within seconds, Russia's early warning system indicated a possible nuclear attack. This triggered Russia's emergency nuclear decision process. President Boris Yeltsin was within minutes of ordering a nuclear strike on the U.S. when a Russian radar crew saw the rocket was headed out to sea. ³

Although the threat of a nuclear attack from Russia has decreased, the U.S. and Russia still court nuclear disaster. The U.S. and Russia each have about 2,500 nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert. This means that both countries have nuclear weapons that are ready to fire thousands of warheads in as little as three minutes. Maintaining weapons on high alert allows a small mistake to quickly become a nuclear holocaust.

The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation

Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weapons, is one of the greatest security threats in the world. There are eight countries that possess nuclear weapons: the United States (since 1945), Russia (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), China (1964), Israel (1967), India (1974), and Pakistan (1989). Additionally, some analysts believe that North Korea may possess one or two nuclear warheads. (Webmaster's note: Click here for related graphic, "Map of Nuclear Weapon States")

Since the first detonation of an atomic device, many officials and experts have feared that the proliferation of this deadly technology could spin out of control. Each additional country that joins the"nuclear club" increases the likelihood that these catastrophic weapons may be used. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy predicted that by 1975 some 15 to 20 countries would have nuclear arms. Thankfully, this has not occurred. The world community has done a great job of curbing the spread of nuclear weapons through erecting a nonproliferation regime of interlocking treaties, organizations, and multilateral inspections. ⁴ As a testament to the regime's successes, only three states have acquired and maintained nuclear weapons since 1964.

As long as some states are allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not, there will be a power imbalance leading to insecurity. The U.S. has the most powerful conventional military force in the world. Yet, as long as the U.S. continues to see nuclear weapons as central to its security, other states will also see these weapons as instruments of power and security. After its nuclear weapons tests of 1998, the Indian prime minister said, "India is a big country now because it has demonstrated that it has nuclear weapons." ⁶ If powerful countries continue to rely on nuclear weapons for a sense of security, these horrific weapons will remain attractive to states like India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

In 1997, retired Russian Gen. Alexander Lebed announced that at the time of the demise of the Soviet Union, Moscow lost track of more than 100 suitcase-sized nuclear weapons.⁷ In October 2001, U.S. intelligence sources received a report that "a violent extremist group had acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb and was planning on smuggling it into Manhattan." ⁸ Fortunately, both these reports turned out to be false or lacking sufficient evidence. These events illuminated, however, the frightening reality that, at the time, the U.S. could not dismiss the possibility that these reports were true. Such events could indeed happen.

The two cases above illustrate that the continued existence of nuclear weapons and materials allows for the possibility that they might fall into the hands of a violent extremist group. The five decades of the Cold War left thousands of tons of nuclear weapons material poorly protected and accounted for throughout the world. According to a study by Harvard University, the world's arsenals contain some 30,000 assembled nuclear weapons and enough separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium to make nearly a quarter million nuclear weapons. ⁹ The collapse of the Soviet Union left tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and the material for tens of thousands more weapons in poorly guarded facilities.

In addition to the Russian arsenal, there are unsecured nuclear materials located at hundreds of sites throughout the world. Many of the world's 130 highly-enriched uranium (HEU)-fueled research facilities have little security. At some locations there is no more security than a chain link fence. Nearly every month someone is apprehended attempting to smuggle or steal nuclear materials or weapons somewhere in the world.¹⁰ The attacks of September 11 demonstrated that the threat of an attack by a violent extremist group causing massive destruction is real. If even a small amount of nuclear material were stolen, weaponized, and used in a city, the consequences would be devastating.

²   President George W. Bush, "Remarks by the President to Troops and Personnel." Norfolk Naval Air Station, Virginia, February 13, 2001.

³   Back to the Brink Campaign. "Short Fuse to Catastrophe: The Case for Taking Nuclear Weapons Off Hair-trigger Alert." February 2001, 3.

⁴   Joseph Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal, and Miriam Rajkumar.Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2002, 25.

⁵   Natural Resources Defense Council. "Archive of Nuclear Data." Available online at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp.

⁶   Thomas Graham Jr., "Time for a No-First-Use Policy." Christian Science Monitor. January 28, 1999.

⁷   "Lebed: Small Nuclear Weapons May be in Wrong Hands." CNN.com, October1, 1997.

⁸   Mathew Bunn, Anthony Wier, and John Holdren. Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials. Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, March 2003, 18.

⁹   Ibid, 13.

¹⁰   Allison, Graham. "How to Stop Nuclear Terror." Foreign Affairs. January/February 2004, p. 66.

< Previous

Next >