North Korea or Al Qaeda: Who's the Bigger Nuke Threat?

The true answer, breaking free from the limits of the question, would be the United States and Israel. The rest is pure fiction.

By Kathleen Rhodes
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 21, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The renewed fear of Kim Jong Il's North Korean regime possessing inter-continental ballistic missiles has overshadowed another threat - the possibility that al-Qaeda terrorists might detonate one or more suitcase nuclear bombs in the United States, using the same kind of coordination deployed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

Investigative journalist and former FBI consultant Paul Williams, author of "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11," discussed what he sees as an inevitable al-Qaeda nuclear attack in the United States in an interview with NewsMax.com in July 2004.

"I believe that between now and 2005, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda will attack the U.S. with [stolen] nuclear weapons. I have no doubt about it," Williams said. "The best bang for the buck is nuclear; they (al Qaeda) know that."

Williams believes al Qaeda already has "10 or more" suitcase nuclear weapons already in place with terrorist sleeper cells in the United States and theorizes in his book that these weapons were either smuggled in through Mexico or Canada or on container ships from overseas.

Williams told NewsMax.com that these bombs have an approximate explosive strength of 10 kilotons and "could render Manhattan unlivable for 1,000 years."

Al Qaeda terrorists living in the United States are patient, Williams added, and "will attack when ready." He claims that New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Boston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Dallas are likely targets and that several bombs could be simultaneously detonated in different cities in the kind of coordinated attack that the hijackers of several jetliners conducted on 9/11.

Williams also named oil-rich Valdez, Alaska, which sits at one end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and Rappahannock County, Va., which may contain an underground command center where White House officials could relocate in the event of a war, as possible targets.

The idea that al Qaeda terrorists already have suitcase nuclear weapons is not new. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir claims that in an interview he conducted in March 2004, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, bragged to him about having purchased "suitcase bombs" on the black market in central Asia.

Although U.S. intelligence agencies never confirmed the purchase, officials have long suspected al Qaeda of attempting to buy nuclear devices in this manner.

Michael Scheuer, who resigned last November from a CIA job that was focused on countering bin Laden and al Qaeda, has expressed a belief that the terror group's next attack against the U.S. is likely to be nuclear-based.

"I was not too sure until I heard U.S. politicians during the presidential campaign discussing whether Soviet-era nuclear assets will be under effective control in 2007 or 2010," Scheuer said in an interview with the Jamestown Foundation.

Scheuer was referring to the uncertain status, since the collapse of the old Soviet Union, of unsecured stockpiles of old Soviet weapons, including suitcase-sized tactical nuclear devices, which could provide ammunition for terrorists.

Those fears escalated when, according to a Center for Nonproliferation Studies report in 1997, former Russian Security Council secretary Alexander Lebed claimed that approximately 100 suitcase nuclear weapons from the Soviet era were missing.

Lebed reportedly told CBS' "60 Minutes" in September of that year that he had tried to investigate the weapons' whereabouts, but had been fired by then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin before he could finish.

Scheuer claimed that "bin Laden has a very professional procurement network involving scientists and engineers," who would be capable of obtaining these suitcase nuclear weapons if they were available.

"They have the money and they have shown the ability to work with unlikely people, like the Mafia. If a weapon is out there, they will do their utmost to secure it. Bin Laden is not looking for a deterrent; he is looking for a first strike weapon." Scheuer said.

If al Qaeda already possesses or in the future manages to obtain nuclear weapons, Scheuer said he is confident the terrorist group would not hesitate to use them. "I think there is no doubt about that. They would prefer to use a nuclear weapon, since chemical and biological weapons would be difficult to control. Moreover using such a weapon enhances their chances of winning this war."

He added that bin Laden and al Qaeda would disregard the possibility of the United States retaliating in the event of such an attack. "I don't think they care about that," Scheuer said, adding that "they are still confident that the Americans are not ruthless enough to do something like that.

"The real problem is that by virtue of being the most powerful military in the world, the U.S. has convinced its enemies that its response will always be measured and proportionate. Bin Laden and his people study these things closely and factor them into their planning and decision-making," Scheuer added.

Dirty bombs: A 'very serious problem'

R. James Woolsey, who served as CIA director during the Clinton administration, told the Cybercast News Service on Feb. 8 that the chances of al Qaeda planning a chemical, biological or "dirty bomb" attack in the United States was "probably pretty high."

But when asked about the chance that dirty bombs or suitcase nukes had already been smuggled into the United States, Woolsey was more skeptical. "I think it's probably unlikely right now, but it's a very serious problem," Woolsey conceded.

He explained that a radiological or dirty bomb was more likely to be used than a suitcase nuclear bomb. "A dirty bomb is a serious problem because there are a number of sources for the [bomb] that could be used and you don't have to have near the expertise to put together something like that you have to have with an actual nuclear weapon," Woolsey said.

"But about the location, I don't know. I mean one hopes that there's nothing here ... but nobody can guarantee that," he added

Woolsey also pointed out that the list of potential terrorist aggressors against the United States is not necessarily limited to members of al Qaeda. "Any terrorist organization - the one that is most solidly and clearly at war with us right now is al Qaeda -- but you know, it's a dark world out there ..." Woolsey said.

Michael Swetnam, former CIA officer and chairman/CEO of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, agreed that the threat of a dirty bomb is more serious that that posed by the missing Soviet built suitcase nukes.

"[The suitcase bombs] all have failsafe mechanisms and unless you've got the code to unlock the bomb ... [it] renders itself useless and you're just left with nuclear material," Swetnam told the Cybercast News Service Feb. 14. "A dirty bomb is probably more likely what you'll see."

Swetnam also discounted Paul Williams' contention that al Qaeda already has nuclear weapons here in the U.S. "I think if they had them here, they'd have used them, absolutely," Swetnam said.

He did not, however, rule out the possibility that such weapons might be brought into the U.S. in the future. "In today's world we're only able to search or screen five percent of the stuff that comes into the country, particularly by ship. So the odds of them being able to smuggle something in are pretty good," Swetnam said.

When asked if he thought American authorities would be able to stop an attack once the weapons had been smuggled into the country, Swetnam replied: "Well, [they] probably wouldn't."

North Korea, Pakistan selling nukes to terrorists?

Swetnam believes the U.S. should focus on the threat posed by countries such as North Korea or Pakistan selling nuclear weapons or materials to terrorists.

"What we're afraid of now with places like North Korea is that this crazy guy, Kim Jong Il ... might sell a real working nuclear weapon to some terror group just because he's a nutcase. That scares us. That scares us badly," Swetnam said.

North Korean officials recently announced that they had acquired nuclear weapons, citing the recent threat of U.S. aggression as the reason for needing them. And CIA Director Porter Goss told a congressional panel this week that he believes the North Korean nuclear arsenal involves inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. soil.

Swetnam also discussed Pakistan as a potential source of nuclear weapons for terrorists. "What we have to worry about is any weapons that might have been built in Pakistan. Remember A.Q. Kahn, who gave nuclear secrets to Libya and other places. That's the type of thing that we really have to worry about," he said.

Swetnam was referring to Abdul Qadeer Kahn, former head of Pakistan's nuclear research program, who is thought to have sold nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

What is the government doing?

President Bush's appointment Thursday of Ambassador John Negroponte to be America's first director of national intelligence is part of the government's greater emphasis on counter-terrorism work, which former Democratic U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana recently called "the number one national security interest in the United States."

Hamilton, who also served as vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United Sates, (9-11 Commission) believes congressional oversight committees need to work as a "partner and critic" of the intelligence community. "The Congress needs to be looking at every nook and cranny at what happens in the intelligence community," he said, including the amount of money budgeted for such operations.

"In the past, intelligence has been handled by the defense subcommittees of the (House and Senate) appropriations committee[s]," Hamilton said. "The defense subcommittee has such an enormous job that giving the time and attention necessary to the intelligence budget is a very hard thing to do." He believes strengthening the congressional oversight committees would help alleviate this problem.

"We are dealing here with the safety and security of the American people and how best to protect them, so we think there is an urgency here and the urgency remains. It has not been eliminated or even diminished," Hamilton said. Increased congressional oversight, he said, is "a matter of national security of the United States."

Hamilton applauded the fact that Americans have not been attacked on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001, but wondered whether it was "because we're so smart, or we're lucky? I don't know," he said, answering his own question.