Democratic presidential hopefuls New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sen. Barack Obama after the Democratic presidential debate on Jan. 5, 2008.
AP Photo

Nuclear Terrorism Discussed in New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate

In the News

January 8, 2008

Related: Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School

During the Democratic presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. on Saturday (January 5), moderator Charles Gibson of ABC News mentioned Belfer Center Director Graham Allison in a question to candidates regarding nuclear terrorism. He also referred to Senator Sam Nunn's comments on a potential nuclear attack.

MR. GIBSON: I want to get to another question, and it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years. Some estimates are higher: Graham Allison at Harvard says it's over 50 percent.

Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind, and I want to put them to you here. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

....

MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first, this is the very point I was making a few minutes ago. In the short term we're faced with very, very serious threats about the possibility of these nuclear weapons getting in the hands of a terrorist group or somebody who wants to attack the United States of America. The first thing is we have to immediately find out who's responsible and go after them, and that is the responsibility of the president of the United States because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology, it means they could have gotten another nuclear weapon into the United States that we're unaware of.

We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them.

Secondly, it is the responsibility of the United States -- and by the way, what I'm about to say doesn't just apply to a nuclear attack, it applies to this crisis that exists in Pakistan right now with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -- it is the responsibility of the president, in times like this, to be a force for strength, principled strength, but also calmness. It is enormously important for the president of the United States not to take -- to react, and to react strongly, but to do it in a way that is calming for the American people and calming for the world, because it would be an enormous mistake for the president of the United States to take a terrible, dangerous situation where millions of Americans or thousands of Americans could have lost their lives, and to ratchet up the rhetoric and make it worse than it already is.

Q Let me come to the two Sam Nunn questions to you, Senator.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, as I said, I've already been working on this, and I think this is the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront. We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons.

That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the nuclear proliferation -- nonproliferation treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology.

We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on.

And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.

MR. GIBSON: And I know, Senator Clinton, you've worked on this as well.

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I have.

MR. GIBSON: But in terms of retaliation, this is not likely going to be a state that sets off a nuclear attack in a city, it's going to be a stateless group.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the first -- the first part of your question was what would we wish we had done. And I have worked on this and passed legislation to move in the direction that I think we should go to have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the United States government is working together.

I don't think we've done what we need to do on homeland defense. You started that segment talking about the ease with which ABC smuggled things in to this country. We haven't done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment that is necessary or protect us from this kind of importation.

But let me just add that when you look at where we are, the stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere. I mean, part of our message has to be there is no safe haven. If we can demonstrate that the people responsible for planning the nuclear attack on our country may not themselves be in a government or associated with a state, but have a haven within one, then every state in the world must know we will retaliate against those states.

There cannot be safe havens for stateless terrorists who are in these networks that are plotting to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the smuggling into our country or elsewhere of the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc.

So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation. We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face very heavy retaliation.

MR. GIBSON: Final word, Governor.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Charlie, when I was secretary of Energy, that was one of my responsibilities, securing nuclear stockpiles, nuclear materials, mainly with the Soviet Union. And I went there many time; we made progress. But since then there's been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross presumably a border, that could be smuggled in in a cargo ship with our very weak port security.

If I'm elected president, I will do two things. First, I will seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union and other nuclear states to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

But also a treaty on fissionable material, where you have verification, where you try to secure those loose nuclear weapons from states like North Korea and others that -- that could be drifting into the international community.

But most importantly, I think we have to realize that the challenges America faces internationally, they're -- they are transnational. They're stateless. This international terrorism is nuclear terrorism, it's environmental degradation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making us less dependent on fossil fuels. Those are the transnational challenges that are going to require international cooperation.

And this president believes in unilateralism. This president believes in going military-first. This president believes in preemption. You discussed this in the Republican debate.

For more information about this publication please contact the Belfer Center Communications Office at 617-495-9858.

Full text of this publication is available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&pagewante
d=all&oref=slogin

For Academic Citation: