Q&A: Will terrorists go nuclear?

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 (UPI) -- Has al-Qaida become the world's first terrorist nuclear power? An interview with Michael Jenkins" class="tpstyle">Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corp. think tank.

Q: CIA Director Michael Hayden said recently that al-Qaida was one of the agency's top nuclear concerns. Is al-Qaida a bigger threat than North Korea or Iran?

A: The CIA director based his assessment on intentions rather than capabilities. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are backed up by a large contingent of nuclear scientists and an extensive network of nuclear facilities. The CIA, however, considers al-Qaida the bigger threat because it assumes that if al-Qaida had nuclear weapons, it would be most likely to use them.

Q: What are al-Qaida's nuclear capabilities?

A: Al-Qaida has nuclear ambitions. Osama bin Laden tried to acquire nuclear material when he was still in Sudan, and he spoke with two nuclear scientists from Pakistan shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Documents later discovered in al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan indicate interest in nuclear weapons. But insofar as we know, al-Qaida has not acquired nuclear weapons or fissile material necessary to build them. And the captured documents do not indicate that al-Qaida knows how to make a nuclear bomb.

Q: That was seven years ago. What do we know about developments since then?

A: Probably not enough. It is, however, interesting to note that even as al-Qaida's operational capabilities were being degraded by the combined action of intelligence services and law enforcement organizations around the world, its so-called media jihad was increasing in volume and sophistication. Themes of mass destruction play a significant role in its communications. Al-Qaida appears to have discovered that by claims, threats and broadcasting religious rulings granting it the "right" to kill millions of infidels, it can excite its followers, who embellish its nuclear fantasies, and create nuclear terror among its foes. Al-Qaida has become the world's first terrorist nuclear power without demonstrating possession of a single nuclear weapon.

Q: In your new book, "Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?," you make a distinction between "nuclear terrorism" and "nuclear terror." What is the difference?

A: Nuclear terrorism is about the frightening possibility that terrorists will acquire and use nuclear weapons. Nuclear terror is about the anticipation of that event. Nuclear terrorism is about intelligence, evidence, assessments of terrorists' capabilities. Nuclear terror is about our imagination. The history of nuclear terrorism can be briefly summarized. There hasn't been any -- many would hasten to add "yet." Nuclear terror has a rich history and is deeply embedded in our popular culture and policymaking circles.

Q: How likely is nuclear terrorism?

A: The experts don't agree. Their guesses range from one in a million to a virtual certainty -- "not if but when," to use the famous phrase. American estimates of the probability run significantly higher than the estimates of European respondents. Of course, none of the estimates have any predictive value. They are a reflection of perceptions, of worries, of nuclear terror.

Q: Having written the book, what is your own estimate?

A: This requires prophecy, for which I'm not qualified. The debate itself has a theological quality, with disbelievers on one side vs. the "Apocalypticians" on the other. In this debate I regard myself as a prudent agnostic. Although I don't think nuclear terrorism is inevitable, and there are no indications that it is imminent, what we do know is still grim enough. We have to take the threat seriously. Nuclear terrorism is a threat we are going to have to live with for a long time.

--

(Brian Michael Jenkins was interviewed by the Italian news agency AKI, which first published a version of this article.)