Deterring State Sponsorship of Nuclear Terrorism

Deterring State Sponsorship of Nuclear Terrorism

September 2008 , 48 Pages

Council Special Report
Concise policy briefs that provide timely responses to developing crises or contributions to current policy dilemmas.

Overview

The basis of nuclear doctrine during the Cold War was deterrence. Nuclear powers were deterred from attacking each other by the fear of retaliation. Today, much of the concern over possible nuclear attack comes in the context of rogue states and terrorism. And since only states are known to possess nuclear weapons, an important question is how to deter them from letting terrorists acquire a device, whether through an authorized transfer or a security breach.

Michael A. Levi
Michael Levi

David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Michael A. Levi analyzes this aspect of deterrence in the post–Cold War world, as well as what to do if deterrence breaks down. He suggests how to discourage states from giving weapons or nuclear materials to terrorists and how to encourage states to bolster security against any accidental transfer. The report also discusses the role of nuclear attribution—the science of identifying the origin of nuclear materials—in deterring transfers, an essential link in assigning responsibility to governments for transfers of nuclear materials.

More on:

Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and Disarmament

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

United States

Deterring State Sponsorship of Nuclear Terrorism offers thoughtful analysis and practical guidelines for U.S. policy on a complex and important question and makes an important contribution to the thinking in an underexplored but unavoidable area of the post–Cold War security debate.

More on:

Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and Disarmament

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

United States

Top Stories on CFR

Russia

Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at CFR, and Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at CFR, sit down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the future of U.S. policy toward Russia and the risks posed by heightened tensions between two nuclear powers. This episode is the first in a special TPI series on the U.S. 2024 presidential election and is supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Terrorism and Counterterrorism

Violence around U.S. elections in 2024 could not only destabilize American democracy but also embolden autocrats across the world. Jacob Ware recommends that political leaders take steps to shore up civic trust and remove the opportunity for violence ahead of the 2024 election season.

China

Those seeking to profit from fentanyl and governments seeking to control its supply are locked in a never-ending competition, with each new countermeasure spurring further innovation to circumvent it.