PRO

Bin Laden is more dangerous dead than alive

Bin Laden is more valuable to al-Qaeda and global jihadism dead. He has spent the past decade in hiding, issuing the occasional statement but increasingly fading from the Muslim imagination. When I visited Cairo last month, he was seen as remote and irrelevant to the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood that I met. This week they respectfully referred to him as Sheikh Osama a title reserved for respected clerics, which he was not. But in death, he is fast becoming an icon of a new sort. Without doubt, the US was right to remove bin Laden, but it is wrong to think that his death will weaken al-Qaeda. Yes, a colossal psychological blow has been dealt, but al-Qaeda

is no longer a mere organisation, but a global brand, an idea, a philosophy that now has its rst Saudi martyr from the holy lands of Islam. http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/bin-laden-more-dangerous-dead-than-alive/p24891 Ed Husain, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies Small-arms proliferation has a massive security impact around the world The negative effects of leftover weapons are felt not only in the immediate conict area, but in neighboring countries and regions as well. Small arms can easily spread across porous borders, igniting violence in adjacent areas. In some societies, these surplus weapons may
create a "culture of violence" that traps whole populations in an endless cycle of war. As a result, the United Nations, many regional organizations, certain states, and a wide range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have initiated efforts to curb the global spread of small arms and to remove such weapons from areas of conict. Small Arms Proliferation and International Security by Michael Clare (Hampshire College) http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/index.html

Nuclear Terrorism Unlikely It also is not very likely that North Korea, Iran, or any country would knowingly provide a terrorist organization with nuclear weapons. Not only is it irrational for a nation to hand over its most powerful weapon to terrorists over which it has no denitive control, but the weapons themselves could likely be traced back to their country of origin. Again,
retaliation against the supplying state would be devastating and anticipation of this fate deters countries from giving nuclear weapons to terrorists. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation 2008 http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearterrorism/articles/111408_understanding_preventing_nuclear_terrorism/

Likeliness of a US Nuclear Terrorist Attack

We should ask ourselves every day: Are nuclear materials that could fuel a terrorists bomb more or less secure than they were a year ago? Thanks to initiatives like the Nunn-Lugar program, highly enriched uranium and plutonium in Russia are far safer from theft today than they were in the early 1990s. But the risk that terrorists will buy or steal nuclear material from a rogue state increases as more countries acquire the ability to produce weapons-usable material. Therefore

it is vitally important to roll back North Koreas nuclear program and to

PRO

constrain Iran before it reaches its enrichment nish line. By becoming a nuclear-armed state, each will trigger a cascade of proliferation in its neighborhood. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-unitedstates/p13097 2007 Nonproliferation is vital to stop terrorists
In July of 2007, while serving as the UK Foreign Minister, Margaret Beckett called for a "revitalization" of both nonproliferation and disarmament effortsbasically calling for a recommitment to the "grand bargain" that was struck in the NPT in 1968. More recently, on June 30, 2008, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, and David Owen, all former UK Foreign Secretaries, and George Robertson, former North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary-General, wrote an op-ed in the London-based The Times that highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons and terrorism operating in the same world. Because terrorist organizations cannot be dissuaded, the authors went on to

bluntly state that "there is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons" and that such a reduction is possible through "a new historic initiative" in which states work
"collectively and through multilateral institutions." The authors concluded by saying that action is urgently needed and gave their support to the U.S.-based "campaign...for a non-nuclear weapons world." http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/terrorism/beyond-1540.htm

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies Johan Bergens [1] October 23, 2008 US Efforts in Afghanistan has lowered Afghanis opinion of US U.S. in Afghanistan 2010 2009 2007 2006 2005 %%%%% Excellent 6 5 8 12 20 Good 32 27 35 45 48 Fair 33 36 32 27 22 Poor 25 27 21 15 8 No opinion 3 5 5 1 3 58% bad http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf 2009 The only way to stop terrorism is proliferation If the United States and countries around the world are serious about preventing a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, efforts to contain the threat at its source need serious attention. According to the Partnership for a Secure America, the biggest problem is the lack of coordination on counter-nuclear terrorism efforts across federal agencies. Congress tried to remedy this shortcoming in 2007 with H.R. 1, the 9/11 Commission Act, which created
a White House Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to ignore the law and never lled the position.14 Failures in coordination are similarly reected at the international level, where bilateral and multilateral engagement to prevent nuclear terrorism is equally fragmented. http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearterrorism/articles/111408_understanding_preventing_nuclear_terrorism/ 08

PRO

Efforts have failed as the US has not convinced allies such as Israel to join NPT which has negative consequences
The ongoing confrontation between Islamic Middle East countries and Israel has long had a nuclear undercurrent. Israel has not signed the NPT, and has made no ofcial acknowledgment of a weapons program. It is widely considered to have developed nuclear weapons capability, although it is not known to have conducted a nuclear explosion.

Israels nuclear program stimulated

calls for an Islamic bomb. Among Israels neighbors, Iraq and Iran have been the focus of nuclear activity.
States claims that it does. Iraq, before its defeat in the Gulf War in 1991, actively pursued nuclear weapons development, despite having signed the NPT. Iran declares it has no nuclear weapons program, but the United

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB10091.pdf Terrorists can make their own weapons too...and fail

The case for the ease of building a gun-type weapon provides a good example of how we often overestimate how easy a terrorist task may be. I certainly wont debate the fact that Manhattan Project scientists were so condent about this design that they persuaded military authorities to drop the bomb, untested, on Hiroshima. But we should parse the word untested carefully. During the Manhattan Project, scientists and engineers spent years testing the gun itself; testing their casting and machining of the uranium metal to avoid res and criticality accidents during production, and impurities in the product; testing the initiator that would trigger the chain reaction; and testing how different congurations of materials would behave, a project that led to the death of one physicist. No one conducted a full-scale test explosion, but that hardly means that building the weapon was trivial. A terrorist group would

have to do many of the same things (though technological progress would make some steps easier) all while attempting to hide from law enforcement and intelligence. This doesnt mean that terrorists couldnt build a gun-type bomb, but it suggests that their chances of failure arent negligible. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-unitedstates/p13097 Michael Levi 2007 Terrorists need states to gain nuclear weapons A nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium, materials that dont occur in nature and that terrorist groups cannot produce themselves. The ease of access to materials in state stockpiles is thus one of the main factors affecting the odds of a nuclear terrorist attack. The other big factor is motivation. Most terrorist groups have little incentive to
pursue nuclear terrorism, since mass murder doesnt serve their political endsbut for some groups, indiscriminate killing is precisely the goal. Most analysts agree that the availability of nuclear weapons and materials, and the utility to terrorist groups of successful nuclear attacks, are the two most important factors in determining the likelihood of nuclear terrorism, even if they disagree over how hard acquiring materials would be or over how many groups might expect to benet from nuclear terrorism. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097 Michael Levi

2007 We are focusing our efforts in the wrong country Al Qaedas afliate in Yemen is believed by the C.I.A. to pose the greatest immediate threat to the United States, more so than even Qaedas senior leadership believed to be

PRO

hiding in Pakistan. The Yemen group has been linked to the attempt to blow up a transatlantic jetliner on
Christmas Day 2009 and last years plot to blow up cargo planes with bombs hidden inside printer cartridges. ((NY Times, june 8th, 2011, Mark Mazzetti, U.S. Is Intensifying a Secret Campaign of Yemen Airstrikes)

Terrorists wont participate in nuclear terrorism because of nonproliferation efforts A nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium, materials that dont occur in nature and that terrorist groups cannot produce themselves. The ease of access to materials in state stockpiles is thus one of the main factors affecting the odds of a nuclear terrorist attack. The other big factor is motivation. Most terrorist groups have little incentive to pursue nuclear terrorism, since mass murder doesnt serve their political endsbut for some groups, indiscriminate killing is precisely the goal. Most analysts agree that the
availability of nuclear weapons and materials, and the utility to terrorist groups of successful nuclear attacks, are the two most important factors in determining the likelihood of nuclear terrorism, even if they disagree over how hard acquiring materials would be or over how many groups might expect to benet from nuclear terrorism. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097 Michael Levi 2007

The U.S. has helped other countries with nonproliferation Our planned contribution will help the Committee to fulll its role in matching those states that need assistance to implement the resolution with those states able to provide such assistance. These funds will also be used to support UN Member States in fullling their obligations under the resolution, including for developing legislation to control WMDrelated materials, and for UN-administered training programs related to implementation.
The United States will continue to consult frequently through the U.S. Coordinator for Implementation of UNSCR 1540 with UNODA to further projects that support this important work. (U.S. to make Voluntary Contributions to U.N. Non-proliferation efforts. March 31st, 2011. www.state.gov)

U.S. policies prevented possible attacks U.S. led- Non-Proliferation efforts with the IAEA to control safe nuclear materials contains over 90 countries, all who have recovered hundreds of pounds and secured hundreds of sights of nuclear materials. (GAO, 2003, Nuclear Non-Proliferation U.S. and International Efforts to Control Radioactive need to be strengthened.) We are focusing on the wrong areas for terrorism efforts Pakistani troops backed by gunship helicopters launched an offensive against Taliban ghters (Nation) in the Kurram tribal agency bordering Afghanistan, a staging area for militant attacks against U.S. forces as well as Pakistan's army. And in the latest of a series of alleged cross-border attacks (VOA), Pakistan says Afghan Taliban militants attacked a checkpoint, while Afghan government ofcials report an increase in shelling of their villages from the Pakistani military. These new tensions in the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan
border area, along with growing internal Pakistan divisions over confronting militants, are adding to unease among U.S. policymakers and experts about the possible regional fallout of the upcoming phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. CFR July 2011

PRO

IAEA and NPT have had postive impacts The nuclear safeguards regime, with the IAEA at its center, has played a key role in verifying that all states parties are in compliance with the NPT nonproliferation obligations. The assurances of full compliance by all states parties could foster a more favorable environment for the expanded use of nuclear energy in the 21st century. US-ROK Workshop on Nuclear Energy and Nonproliferation Washington, D.C., January 20, 2010 Asia Foundation The U.S. has taken steps to reduce risk of nuclear terrorism More importantly, the agreement announced Tuesday will reduce the number of nuclear weapons, which, given their tremendous destructive capacity, represent an inherent global threat. In an age where stateless actors such as Al Qaeda seek nuclear weapons or at least some type of nuclear material, and as the expansive Russian nuclear arsenal atrophies amid economic decline, the disposal and securitization of nuclear material is of paramount importance. Atlantic Council 2009 NPT has resulted in less nuke countries which means less chance of attack Despite these motivations, many countries have abandoned nuclear weapons and have sought other ways to ensure their security.
Germany and Japan, both major powers, are nonweapons states. In 1991, South Africa, having made the transition to majority rule, revealed and dismantled its clandestine program and renounced nuclear weapons. Argentina and Brazil, both of which had secret nuclear weapons programs under military governments, abandoned them under civilian rule and joined the NPT. Former Soviet republics Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan returned the Soviet weapons left on their territory and joined the NPT. In these countries, nuclear weapons were seen as creating more problems than they solved.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/20240.pdf Issue brief for Congress 2003 Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, We are concerned that the influence of inspirational figures such as Anwar al-Awlaqi will increasingly motivate individuals toward violent extremism, The Christian Science Monitor continues, Mr. al-Awlaqi is the radical Yemeni cleric linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, as well possibly to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the Nigerian who attempted to blow up an American airliner in Detroit on Christmas Day. csm Many proposed plans and measures to control proliferation fail. Overall, there is strong cross-regional, international support for arms trade regulation because of the devastating impact of the unregulated global trade in conventional arms.

PRO

However, such views do not directly translate into strong support for an ATT for a variety of reasons. Some states believe that existing national practices are sufcient, others feel that the enforceability of
such a treaty is questionable, and still others feel that an ATT could be used discriminately, such as using subjective judgments on human rights or as trade barriers for developing economies. In addition, some states lack the capacity to implement an ATT at even the most basic levels State Department; Policy Dialogue: The Arms Trade Treaty. June 2010 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/148527.pdf

Credible threat of new terrorist attack US and European ofcials said Tuesday they have detected a plot to carry out a major, coordinated series of commando-style terror attacks in Britain, France, Germany and possibly the United States. A senior US ofcial said that while there is a credible threat, no specic time or
place is known. President Obama has been briefed about the threat, say senior US ofcials. ABC News, September 2010

Al-Qaeda is still a threat if not larger He now inherits a central Qaeda organization that is under intense pressure, even as its ideology has spread and spawned dangerous afliates in Yemen, North Africa, Somalia and elsewhere. Central Intelligence Agency missile strikes from drone aircraft in Pakistans tribal areas have killed many Qaeda operatives and have come close to hitting Mr. Zawahri himself. The strikes have made it far more difcult for the group to communicate, train
and plan attacks. (June 30th 2011, NY Times, Al-Qaeda Leadership,

Terrorism is still a substantial threat to the United States

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past ve years have constrained the ability of al-Qaida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11. We are concerned, however, that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge. Al-Qaida is and will remain the most

serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan highimpact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its
Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qaida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qaida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here. DNI: The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland July 2007 http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

Risk of terrorists purchasing nuclear material

We should ask ourselves every day: Are nuclear materials that could fuel a terrorists bomb more or less secure than they were a year ago? Thanks to initiatives like the Nunn-Lugar program, highly enriched uranium and plutonium in Russia are far safer from theft today than they were in the early 1990s. But the risk that terrorists will buy

or steal nuclear material from a rogue state increases as more countries acquire the ability to produce weapons-usable material. Therefore it is vitally important to roll back North Koreas
nuclear program and to constrain Iran before it reaches its enrichment nish line. By becoming a nuclear-armed state, each will trigger a cascade of proliferation in its neighborhood.

Nonproliferation efforts lack enforcement Even if IAEA inspectors detect clandestine nuclear weapons activity,

PRO

the NPT contains no formal provisions for forcing a country to abandon the activity.

Iraqs nuclear program was dismantled because U.N. forces militarily defeated Iraq after driving it out of Kuwait in 1991. In the absence of such military force a deant NPT signatory could presumably continue its activities if it were willing to resist nonmilitary international pressures and disapproval. North Korea, in the inspection crisis prior to the Agreed Framework that was reached in 1994, violated its obligations and announced that it was withdrawing from NPT. The Security Council did not take decisive action to enforce the NPT. North Korea reversed its decision only after being promised two nuclear power reactors and shipments of fuel oil. That agreement was abandoned following North Koreas resumption of its nuclear weapons program. (See Proliferation Crisis in North Korea, below.) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB10091.pdf CRS 2006

Nonproliferation efforts by the US discriminate

U.S. policy on nonproliferation also has been directed toward making the NPT more effective. Responding to Pakistani nuclear expert Abdul Qadeer Kahns revelation that he had headed a network that spread nuclear weapons technology and equipment to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, President Bush on February 11, 2004, urged more and stricter controls on nuclear exports. Among his recommendations was that non-nuclear weapons states renounce developing capacity to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium as part of commercial nuclear power programs, while nuclear supplier nations ensure adequate fuel for nuclear plants at reasonable prices. He also argued that IAEAs Additional Protocol for inspections regimes be required of all NPT signatories, and urged the Senate to consent to it on the part of the United States. On March 31 the Senate ratied the protocol (Treaty Doc. 107-7, Senate Executive Report 108-12). As a nuclear weapons state, the United States in

agreeing to IAEA inspections has the right to exclude any activities or sites that it declares are of direct national security signicance. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB10091.pdf CRS 2006 Talks the talk, dont walk the walk: Consequences
No matter how safeguarded a nuclear weapons program is, and no matter how secure weapons-grade ssile material may be, the fact remains that so long as nuclear weapons and materials exist, the threat of nuclear terrorism will

convincing foreign countries to reduce and consolidate nuclear stockpiles [and] put stringent nuclear security measures in placewill be far more difcult if we are not doing the same at home.19 With President-Elect Obama having already dedicated himself to work for a world in which the roles and
remain. As Harvard University nuclear weapons expert Matthew Bunn stated, risks of nuclear weapons can be reduced and ultimately eliminated, the United States could demonstrate its seriousness about reducing nuclear dangers early on in an Obama administration by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treat (CTBT). It will take much effort for President-Elect Obama to achieve his oft-stated goal of securing all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb, but the CTBT would be a good place to start.20

http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearterrorism/articles/ 111408_understanding_preventing_nuclear_terrorism/ dec 08 Terrorists can make their own weapons too The case for the ease of building a gun-type weapon provides a good example of how we often overestimate how easy a terrorist task may be. I certainly wont debate the fact that Manhattan Project scientists were so condent about this design that they persuaded military authorities to drop the bomb, untested, on Hiroshima. But we should parse the word untested carefully. During the Manhattan Project, scientists and engineers spent years testing the gun itself; testing their casting and machining of the

PRO

uranium metal to avoid res and criticality accidents during production, and impurities in the product; testing the initiator that would trigger the chain reaction; and testing how different congurations of materials would behave, a project that led to the death of one physicist. No one conducted a full-scale test explosion, but that hardly means that building the weapon was trivial. A terrorist group would have to do many of the same things (though technological progress would make some steps easier) all while attempting to hide from law enforcement and intelligence. This doesnt mean that terrorists couldnt build a gun-type bomb, but it suggests that their chances of failure arent negligible. http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-unitedstates/p13097 Michael Levi 2007 Current nonproliferation efforts are making mistakes However, there have been a few cases where lax local regulatory oversight over highrisk materials resulted in instances where sealed sources were eventually lost or improperly disposed of, resulting in harmful exposure to individuals. (GAO, 2003, Nuclear Non-Proliferation U.S. and International Efforts to Control Radioactive need to be strengthened.) The U.S. has impeded on other efforts to stop nonproliferation Since 2003, the EU has played a leading role in the ongoing effort to curb Iran's uranium-enrichment program, but its ability to make progress has been limited by the recalcitrance of Iran and the United States, and its negotiating role has been eclipsed at times by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia. Internal fissures, including differences between nuclearweapon and non-nuclear-weapon states and the failure to approve an EU constitution, have limited Brussels' ability to carve out an independent stance on such issues as missile defense, nuclear disarmament, and the future of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_05/OliverFeature Oliver Meler 2010 More dramatic action must be taken Against the background of the upcoming fifth anniversary of the ESS, EU member states are currently considering whether to update Europe's security strategy. The idea of revising the ESS had originally been put forward in August 2007 by Sarkozy, who wanted to push for a "bolder" EU.[28] On December 14, 2007, the EU Council asked Solana "to examine the implementation of the [ESS] with a view to proposing elements on how to improve the implementation and, as appropriate, elements to complement it, for adoption by the European Council in December 2008."[29] http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_05/OliverFeature Oliver Meler 2010

Al-Qaeda on brink of defeat http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/al-qaeda-could-collapse-usofcials-say/2011/07/21/gIQAFu2pbI_story.html U.S. counterterrorism ofcials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed alQaeda to the

PRO

brink of collapse. The assessment reects a widespread view at the CIA and other agencies that a relatively small number of additional blows could effectively extinguish the Pakistan-based organization that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Killing Terrorist Leaders is an effective strategy http://cryptome.org/us-targeted-kill.pdf Peter M Cullen of Joint Forces Quarterly In spite of the likelihood that mistakes will occur, the policy of targeted killing remains an effective tactic in the campaign against terror. The persistent targeting of key leaders signicantly disrupts terrorist operations. Skilled leaders in global terrorism are always difcult to replace, especially in the short term. Of equal importance is the fact that it compels terrorists to act defensively and devote a disproportionate amount of their time and energy to avoid being targeted instead of planning and executing attacks. Denying Safe Havens is important http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/les/Testimony %20Koumans_0.pdf Statement of Mark Koumans of Department of Homeland Security Terrorists operate without regard to national boundaries. Protecting the United States and its people from terrorism is the cornerstone of homeland security, and denying terrorists safe haven is one of the best ways to undermine their capacity to operate effectively. A terrorist group could put this weapon together Nuclear Control Institute A study prepared for Nuclear Control Institute by ve former U.S. nuclear weapons designers concluded that a sophisticated terrorist group would be capable of designing and building a workable nuclear bomb from stolen plutonium or highly enriched uranium, with potential yields in the kiloton range.