Features

Imagine that a nuclear warhead was sent to this country in a container on a ship to be blown up by terrorists. That’s the scenario Scott Sagan, a Stanford University professor, painted for an audience on Thursday. 

“We don’t inspect those containers on a regular basis,” he said. “We don’t inspect the cargo holds of planes we think are coming from friendly countries either.” 

In short, Sagan said the possibility of a nuclear threat was very good. 

Sagan was part of a group of panelists that came to UC Berkeley’s law school to discuss the threat of nuclear weapons from terrorists and the world’s ability to deal with the problem.  

The forum was originally organized last summer. Panelists were asked to address President George W. Bush’s nuclear policy. Yet, Sept. 11 and recent threats from Osama bin Laden prompted the evening’s discussion to shift to problems with nuclear stockpiles. 

Before Sept. 11, Sagan said that some experts doubted that terrorists were interested in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction. 

“No one doubts that now,” he said. 

The countries the United States may need to put a magnifying glass on are countries close to Afghanistan like China, India, Pakistan and Russia. All are known to have developed nuclear weapons.  

If bin Laden wanted a stockpile of nuclear weapons to raid, he would have more than enough to choose from, several panelists said. 

Shibley Telhami, an expert on the Middle East, said that foreign facilities are extremely vulnerable to an attack or a security breach. 

“Most of them are very old and they need modernization,” he said. 

No one mentioned exact figures on what the total costs may be to secure foreign facilities or paying to inspect and secure vulnerable ports of entry in this country. 

Sagan said that the amount was probably an inordinately large amount. 

“Who will pay for all of that? You and I will. Don’t expect a refund any time soon,” he said. 

However, several experts said that choices may have to be made to safeguard nuclear stockpiles now at risk. 

Neyan Chanda, an expert on Far East countries, said facilities in Pakistan are very vulnerable. 

He said that personnel in these facilities who may be sympathetic to bin Laden or the Taliban may give them over to Afghanistan. 

He also said the current Pakistani administration could be overthrown. He indicated that a new government with ties to the Taliban and bin Laden will make it easy for extremists to acquire the country’s nuclear weapons. 

“It’s something that’s keeping a lot of people sleepless at night,” he said. 

Chanda said that no system existed to check the loyalty of staff members in Pakistan. He also said that the weapons had no special locking mechanisms that would allow only authorized personnel to handle them. 

“In this context, it becomes quite clear that the possibilities are quite horrendous to consider,” he said. 

However, Chanda said the United States’s hands are virtually tied. While Pakistan publicly accepted a U.S. offer to help secure its nuclear weapons, Chanda said he doubted the Pakistani government would allow the United States full access to its facilities and personnel.  

"They don’t have faith that the U.S. can keep their stockpile safe," said Chanda. 

Concern over United States presence in China may also be keeping the largest superpower in that part of the world from accepting help from its rival in the west.  

"It might reveal a sign of weakness," said Susan Shirk, a UC San Diego professor and former cabinet official for President Bill Clinton. 

Chinese officials have refused to discuss security measures for their weapons, she said. 

But still, she said China is a country that has had its own problems with terrorism from separatists and should be engaged in a dialogue for international openness and cooperation. 

"We need a dialogue with China on our missile defense program, so that we can both consider safety issues," she said. 

China objected to Bush’s national missile defense program, she said, but unless it is brought to the table it will continue to be secretive of its present arsenal and will likely expand it. 

"If we build a national missile defense program, China will expand. That will be the price we’ll have to pay," she said. "But, if we share information with the Chinese, we’ll have less friction with them." 

Other panelists also expressed the fear that isolationism could cripple U.S. goals. 

David Caron, a UC Berkeley law professor, said that so far the U.S. fight against terrorism is a unilateral one. Unless the United States begins engaging other countries and involves the United Nations in its fight against terrorism, it has little chance of winning. 

"The situation now is that the U.S. is selectively involving the U.N. That only works when the goals are temporary," he said.