Growing fears over ISIS pursuing nukes 03:21
Story highlights
- Looming over the entire summit is ISIS, to which a special session will be devoted
- The mounting geopolitical pressures have the U.S. military moving to modernize America's nuclear arsenal
Washington (CNN)President
Barack Obama launched the first Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 to
pursue a world without nuclear weapons. But as delegations from almost
60 countries reconvene in Washington on Thursday and Friday, the world
only seems farther from that goal.
Wildcard
North Korea is edging closer to its goal of building a viable nuclear
device, Pakistan continues to amass nuclear material at unmatched rates,
and Russian officials openly discuss pre-emptive nuclear strikes on
Europe. And the sharpening skills of computer hackers mean cyber threats
to nuclear facilities are increasing, too.
Looming
over the entire summit is ISIS, to which a special session will be
devoted. It is only the latest extremist group to raise alarms about the
state of global nuclear security.
The
mounting geopolitical pressures have the U.S. military moving to
modernize America's nuclear arsenal rather than dismantle it. But it was
the latter goal that Obama embraced when he first broadcast his nuclear
doctrine and made it a cornerstone of his global agenda in a landmark
speech during his first trip to Europe as President.
READ: Obama to host world leaders for nuclear summit
"In
a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone
down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up," Obama said in that
address, delivered in Prague in April 2009.
More
nations have acquired the weapons, black market trade in nuclear
secrets and nuclear materials abounds, and nuclear technology has
spread, the President noted.
"Just
as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for
the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st
century," Obama said. "So today, I state clearly and with conviction
America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without
nuclear weapons."
The Nuclear
Security Summit in Washington the next year was the start of a biennial
gathering to secure nuclear materials while working toward that vision.
There
have been significant steps on nuclear issues taken during that time,
most notably a deal in July to curb Iran's nuclear program. The United
States and Russia also signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty in 2010.
But even as these deals' goals have yet to be fully realized, the threat
of nuclear terrorism -- which Obama noted in 2009 -- has only gained
new urgency.
"In all dimensions of
nuclear risk, our security is worse and getting worse all the time,
whether it's terrorists capturing nuclear materials and detonating them
or risk of accidental detonation of weapons in places like Pakistan,"
said Bruce Blair, a nuclear security expert and co-founder of Global
Zero, a group devoted to eliminating nuclear arms.
Presidential candidates weigh in
The
threats have served as fodder on the presidential campaign trail as
well, with nuclear issues rippling through the race. On Tuesday, Donald
Trump told CNN moderator Anderson Cooper at a Republican presidential
town hall that he thinks nuclear proliferation is perhaps "the biggest
issue of our time." He also rattled the nuclear establishment by
suggesting that South Korea and Japan should consider developing their
own nuclear weapons rather than being protected by the U.S. nuclear
umbrella.
The array of global
challenges is one reason why the U.S. military has been pressing for an
upgrade of America's nuclear infrastructure.
The
Pentagon has been closely monitoring what Defense Secretary Ash Carter
has called Russian "nuclear saber-rattling" and Moscow's work to
modernize its arsenal.
In light of
that and other global challenges, the United States needs to overhaul
its nuclear inventory to maintain a credible deterrent, Gen. Joseph
Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday.
While
the military is pushing to sharpen the tools in its nuclear quiver, the
White House still hopes to makes progress on the diplomatic front,
particularly when it comes to ISIS.
Homeland chief concerned about video of nuke official 00:47
"Having
this many leaders together at once provides us an important
opportunity, in the wake of the recent attacks in Brussels and other
countries, to address how we can enhance our capabilities to work
together to confront the threat" of ISIS, Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy
national security adviser, said in a call with reporters.
"We
know that terrorist organizations have the desire to get access to
these raw materials and their desire to have a nuclear device. That was
certainly the case with al Qaeda, and that is certainly the case with
ISIL as well," Rhodes said, referring to ISIS by another name.
The
discovery that plotters of November terrorist attacks in Paris had been
filming the director of Belgium's nuclear research program have sharply
focused attention on the issue.
"We
have seen those reports about targeting nuclear facilities as part of a
broader plot, and certainly the video footage is of concern and
suggests there is at least some interest by ISIL," Laura Holgate, the
White House senior director for weapons of mass destruction, terrorism
and threat reduction, told reporters.
She
added that U.S. officials "don't have any indications it was part of a
broader plan to acquire nuclear materials, and we don't have any
information that a broader plot exists."
Even
so, groups such as Global Zero, which counts among its members former
Defense Secretary William Perry and California Gov. Jerry Brown, say the
summit this year is too narrowly focused on terrorism to adequately
address broader nuclear dangers.
Challenges beyond terrorism
There
are evergreen issues, such as how to prevent the mistaken launch of one
of some 800 weapons the United States and Russia each keep and which
can be fired within seconds. There are newer vulnerabilities to
consider, as the digitization of controls increases the possibility of
cyberattacks.
The gathering needs
to do more to address civilian plutonium and military stockpiles of
highly enriched uranium, these critics say.
Robert
Gallucci, a former diplomat and lead U.S. negotiator during a 1994
nuclear crisis with North Korea, said Pakistan's rapid accumulation of
highly enriched uranium, along with the challenges it faces with
extremist groups, makes for one of "the most dangerous" situations.
Gallucci also points to Asia.
"We
have a nuclear-armed North Korea accumulating weapons and fissile
material," Gallucci said, adding that the situation "is getting worse."
A
report by IHS Jane's found that Pyongyang is "further ahead in its
nuclear ambitions than previously reported" and that its leadership
appears to have ordered an acceleration of all its nuclear-related
programs. This year, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test,
along with a long-range rocket launch and missile tests.
More immediately, Iran and Russia won't even be at the table this year.
Moscow
is declining to attend, not wanting to appear like a junior partner to
the United States, said Olga Oliker, director of the Russia program at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
While
the White House's Rhodes said Russian officials were just "isolating
themselves in not participating as they have in the past," Oliker is
among those who say more meaningful progress would be made with Moscow
at the table.
READ: What we've learned about Trump's world view
Russia
has tested ground-launched cruise missiles that violate treaties, it
has conducted military exercises that simulate using nuclear weapons
against European neighbors, and its generals have spoken openly about
using them in pre-emptive strikes.
The
threats and simulations suggest that Russia doesn't see nuclear weapons
use as unthinkable, said Frank Miller, a former director of arms
control for the National Security Council.
"One
has to worry about the way Russians think about nuclear weapons,"
Miller said. "I think that's a question we have to deal with again" as
we did in the Cold War.
One major
challenge for summit organizers in trying to move beyond terrorism to
address military stockpiles in places like Russia or Pakistan is that
the United States is the only country that has declared the gross size
of its weapons and military fissile materials.
Many
countries don't want to discuss their civilian plutonium stockpiles,
with countries like Japan and South Korea seeing them as a potential
source of energy. That means success at these summits has been defined
by countries announcing plans to send back their civilian stockpiles of
highly enriched uranium.
"It's no
measure of success because it excludes 98% of fissile material," said
Blair of Global Zero. "Security is not going to be achieved until
leaders broaden their agenda."
A sustainable future?
The
summit also raises the question of the degree to which Obama's efforts
on the nuclear front ultimately pay off. Even seeds diligently planted
now would only flourish far down the road, long after Obama has left
office.
And even the President's
clear nuclear achievements will likely take time to distill. He
shepherded through a major -- though still nascent -- agreement with
Iran, but it is time-limited.
Critics
like Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, say that deal only legitimized Iran's program even as
it continues to support terrorism.
"This
in turn encourages other countries to construct their own programs,"
Royce said in a statement Wednesday. "Instead of making the world less
dangerous, the administration has set the stage for a nuclear
free-for-all with dire consequences for U.S. national security."
There's
a question whether the summit, which has in the short term defied
expectations by enduring beyond its inaugural meeting in 2010, will last
beyond his tenure.
"There's a bit
of summit fatigue," according to Sharon Squassoni, director of the
proliferation program at CSIS, who said they take enormous work to pull
off.
She noted that much would depend on his successor.
Obama's
Republican challengers have threatened to rip up the Iran nuclear
agreement once they reach the Oval Office. And even a President Hillary
Clinton might not continue the summits.
Squassoni noted that the former secretary of state "supported this but didn't have the interest" that Obama has displayed.
No comments:
Post a Comment