Nuclear 9/11? http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm
September/October 2006
When the Twin Towers fell on September 11, 2001, so too did America's confidence that it was secure from calamitous acts of terrorism. Since then, the United States has undertaken concerted efforts to secure loose nukes and bombmaking materials. But, five years later, are we any safer? (Credit: Steve Savage)
1. The ongoing failure of imagination http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06allison
By Graham Allison
September/October 2006 pp. 36-41 (vol. 62, no. 5) � 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Prior to 9/11, most Americans found the idea that international terrorists could mount an attack on their homeland and kill thousands of innocent citizens not just unlikely, but inconceivable. Psychologically, Americans imagined that they lived in a security bubble. Terrorist attacks, including those on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, occurred elsewhere. These beliefs were reinforced by the conventional wisdom among terrorism experts, who argued that terrorists sought not mass casualties but rather mass sympathy through limited attacks that called attention to their cause.
2. The continuing misuses of fear http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so06arkin
By William M. Arkin
September/October 2006 pp. 42-45 (vol. 62, no. 5) � 2006 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Conventional wisdom says that the wide availability of fissile materials and nuclear know-how make the likelihood of nuclear use by a terrorist group some time in the future extremely high. From Vice President Dick Cheney to Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, there is near unanimity about this threat of nuclear terrorism. Virtually every government agrees; so do most experts in the arms control community, the scientific establishment, academia, the news media, and even the peace movement.