Could terrorists steal or build a nuclear weapon?
It’s an unlikely, nightmarish scenario, but one that’s so dangerous it has to be considered. Experts say a small group—perhaps as few as four expert scientists, without access to classified information—might be able to build a crude nuclear bomb if they could somehow acquire enough highly enriched uranium or even plutonium. Terrorists might also try stealing “loose nukes” from the more poorly guarded arsenals of such nuclear powers as Russia or Pakistan. Powerful nuclear weapons yielding hundreds or even thousands of kilotons are the most dangerous, but smaller bombs—which could range in yield from one-tenth of a kiloton to several hundred kilotons—would be easier to steal or build. And even a one-kiloton nuclear weapon would produce an explosion equivalent to the detonation of a thousand tons of TNT. (The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 13- and 20-kiloton weapons, respectively, and they each killed some 150,000 people.)
These scenarios are so frightening, in fact—and so enormously difficult to respond to—that nuclear experts have concluded that the government’s primary focus should be making sure such attacks never happen in the first place, rather than on responding to them. This fact sheet focuses on how America might try to manage the consequences of such a seemingly unthinkable atrocity.
Is a terrorist nuclear attack
on America likely?
No. Making a bomb is not easy, and the necessary components—including
plutonium and uranium—are hard to buy or steal. (It would be far easier
for terrorists to make a vastly less dangerous “dirty
bomb”—a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material—than
a nuclear explosive.) Similarly, strategic nuclear weapons—the largest,
city-killing weapons in nuclear arsenals—are hard to steal and may be
difficult to detonate. Somewhat more plausible scenarios, experts say,
revolve around terrorists trying to get smaller, battlefield nuclear
weapons such as atomic artillery shells, which are harder to keep track
of and easier to use. The U.S. government has tried to decrease the
risk of nuclear terrorism by working with Russia to secure any “loose
nukes,” securing some supplies of plutonium and highly enriched
uranium, stepping up intelligence programs, and focusing on such potential
nuclear proliferators as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Does al-Qaeda pose a new type
of nuclear threat?
Yes, experts say. An al-Qaeda nuclear attack would be less damaging
than the old, Cold War scenarios of nuclear war, but it is also more
likely. After the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the superpowers set up
mechanisms to help make the risk of a global nuclear war truly tiny,
and both the United States and the Soviet Union were deterred by the
knowledge that a nuclear strike on its adversary would mean its own
destruction. But al-Qaeda, which has expressed a clear interest in nuclear
technologies, is not a state and cannot be thus deterred. The bin Laden
network would not be able to unleash a global apocalypse, but it might
contemplate destroying an American city.
What would be the overall result
of a nuclear explosion in an American city?
Devastation. The number of casualties—including basically equal
numbers of dead and wounded—would be enormous, and the long-term health,
economic, psychological, political, and social consequences would be
shattering. The scope of the destruction would depend on a number of
factors, including the bomb’s yield, the location of the blast, the
nearby population density, and prevailing weather conditions.
How much damage would a small,
crude nuclear weapon cause?
According to one estimate, the blast from a one-kiloton nuclear
weapon—such as a crude improvised weapon or a stolen battlefield weapon—in
midtown Manhattan during the day would:
- kill more than 200,000 people and injure at least 200,000 more;
- produce radioactive fallout that could kill half the exposed population as far as three miles away within a few weeks;
- demolish most buildings and other structures over 11 city blocks; and
- seriously disrupt Manhattan’s transportation, communications, utilities, and other infrastructure.
How much damage would a large
nuclear weapon cause?
Again, it’s extremely unlikely that terrorists would be able to
acquire a strategic nuclear weapon or get past the safeguards that are
in place to prevent its unauthorized detonation. But under the scenario
described above, the detonation in Manhattan of a large, stolen 150-kiloton
nuclear weapon would be even more devastating. It is estimated that
it would:
- kill more than 800,000 people and injure 900,000 more;
- produce radioactive fallout that could kill half the exposed population as far as 10-15 miles away;
- demolish all buildings and structures within a mile of the blast site;
- set fires that would spread and burn out of control for days;
- knock out many of the city’s major bridges and tunnels, as well as the power grid, communications networks, and other crucial utilities such as water and gas; and
- destroy all but one of Manhattan’s major hospitals.
