Nuclear Issues

Article by Dr. Ashton B. Carter in Daedalus

Dr. Ashton B. Carter on Arms Control

Discussion Paper by Dr. Ashton B. Carter

Written Testimony of Juliette Kayyem

The United States now knows that it is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In Countering Terrorism, experts from such disparate fields as medicine, law, public policy, and international security discuss institutional changes the country must make to protect against future attacks. In these essays, they argue that terrorism preparedness is not just a federal concern, but one that requires integrated efforts across federal, state, and local governments.

In Terrorism, Freedom, and Security, Philip Heymann continues the discussion of responses to terrorism that he began in his widely read Terrorism and America. He argues that diplomacy, intelligence, and international law should play a larger role than military action in our counterterrorism policy; instead of waging "war" against terrorism, the United States needs a broader range of policies. Heymann believes that many of the policies adopted since September 11 -- including trials before military tribunals, secret detentions, and the subcontracting of interrogation to countries where torture is routine -- are at odds with American political and legal traditions and create disturbing precedents.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been preoccupied by the federal role in preparedness against terror attacks and by ways to provide a quick fix through organizational overhauls. First to Arrive argues that the best way for America to prepare for terrorism is to listen to people in the field; those working on the ground can guide decisions at the top.

The bombings of the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City federal building have shown that terrorist attacks can happen anywhere in the United States. Around the globe, massacres, hijackings, and bombings of airliners are frequent reminders of the threat of terrorism. The use of poison gas in the Tokyo subway has raised the specter of even more horrible forms of terror -- including the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Policymakers and scholars agree that North Korea’s nuclear program heightens the risk of nuclear transfer to the global black market. Althuogh the North Koreans engage in illicit activity primarily to acquire hard currency, broader economic and ideological factors may also contribute to a decision to export nuclear materials. North Korea also risks losing control over its smuggling networks as it relies more and more on nonstate criminal actors. The United States, then, must seek to develop and employ new strategies to pursue and dismantle these networks as well as offer economic incentives to the regime. In the case of North Korea, countersmuggling and counterproliferation could go hand in hand.