Jeremy Castellanos Based on the articles assigned this week, the current threat of nuclear weapons being acquired and used in a terrorist attack is low for several reasons. The Department of Defense defines a nuclear weapon as “a complete assembly (i.e., implosion type, gun type, or thermonuclear type), in its intended ultimate configuration which, upon completion of the prescribed arming, fusing, and firing sequence, is capable of producing the intended nuclear reaction and release of energy.” (Joint Publication 3-11) Nuclear weapons and material are very hard to acquire and have intense security. Although more countries around the world continue to develop their own nuclear weapon capabilities, it is very unlikely for a country to give nuclear weapons or materials to a terrorist organization. To give a terrorist organization nuclear capabilities is not only very dangerous because terrorists do not abide by any laws or treaties, but is also likely to force a war with opposing countries. There are signed treaties that prevent nuclear proliferation and testing. The United States has so many different organizations within the Intelligence Community, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy that have dedicated units both home and overseas locking down and securing nuclear materials. The United States has an overall mindset, that if we possess nuclear weapons there is a chance that a terrorist organization can too. This is in large due to the rhetoric of our policy makers and media. Although they are trying to take preventive measures, they make terrorist organizations seem more deadly than what they truly are. If everything is a threat, then nothing is a threat. I think that terrorist trying to achieve nuclear weapons is too hard and is not cost effective. Take for example DAESH right now. They can barely hold their stronghold of Mosul, Iraq and for them to effectively provide logistics, finances and the manpower needed to acquire and build a nuclear weapon is unlikely. They are going to resort to improvised explosive devices (IEDs), vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs), small arms fire and tunnels to continue their operations. References: Huessy, P. (2013). Nuclear Zero: World Peace or World Chaos. ​Family Security Matters, 8. Wilner, A. S. (2012). Apocalypse Soon? Deterring Nuclear Iran and its Terrorist. Proxies. Comparative Strategy, 31 (1) Aaron Baca For this week’s discussion I chose an article called “Are We Prepared?” from the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). This article evolves around an evaluation of four scenarios involving the potential threat of WMDs occurring in the US. The scenarios include the collapse of the Nonproliferation Regime, Failed WMD-armed State, Biological Terror Campaign and a Nuclear Detonation in a US City. The issues regarding these situations combined can create incomparable obstacles, not .

1. Jeremy Castellanos
Based on the articles assigned this week, the current threat of
nuclear weapons being acquired and used in a terrorist attack is
low for several reasons. The Department of Defense defines a
nuclear weapon as “a complete assembly (i.e., implosion type,
gun type, or thermonuclear type), in its intended ultimate
configuration which, upon completion of the prescribed arming,
fusing, and firing sequence, is capable of producing the
intended nuclear reaction and release of energy.” (Joint
Publication 3-11)
Nuclear weapons and material are very hard to acquire and have
intense security. Although more countries around the world
continue to develop their own nuclear weapon capabilities, it is
very unlikely for a country to give nuclear weapons or materials
to a terrorist organization. To give a terrorist organization
nuclear capabilities is not only very dangerous because
terrorists do not abide by any laws or treaties, but is also likely
to force a war with opposing countries. There are signed
treaties that prevent nuclear proliferation and testing.
The United States has so many different organizations within
the Intelligence Community, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Energy that have dedicated
units both home and overseas locking down and securing
nuclear materials. The United States has an overall mindset, that
if we possess nuclear weapons there is a chance that a terrorist
organization can too. This is in large due to the rhetoric of our
policy makers and media. Although they are trying to take
preventive measures, they make terrorist organizations seem
more deadly than what they truly are. If everything is a threat,
then nothing is a threat.

2. I think that terrorist trying to achieve nuclear weapons is too
hard and is not cost effective. Take for example DAESH right
now. They can barely hold their stronghold of Mosul, Iraq and
for them to effectively provide logistics, finances and the
manpower needed to acquire and build a nuclear weapon is
unlikely. They are going to resort to improvised explosive
devices (IEDs), vehicle-borne IEDs (VBIEDs), small arms fire
and tunnels to continue their operations.
References:
Huessy, P. (2013). Nuclear Zero: World Peace or World Chaos.
Family Security Matters, 8.
Wilner, A. S. (2012). Apocalypse Soon? Deterring Nuclear Iran
and its Terrorist. Proxies.
Comparative Strategy, 31 (1)
Aaron Baca
For this week’s discussion I chose an article called “Are We
Prepared?” from the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). This article evolves around an evaluation
of four scenarios involving the potential threat of WMDs
occurring in the US. The scenarios include the collapse of the
Nonproliferation Regime, Failed WMD-armed State, Biological
Terror Campaign and a Nuclear Detonation in a US City. The
issues regarding these situations combined can create
incomparable obstacles, not only for the US, but for other

3. countries around the world combating WMD. Moreover, as the
US moves forward, the alarming issues that these four scenarios
explain, is the fact that the US is not prepared here in the US or
abroad. While there has been progress over the years for the US
in the likes of procedures and capabilities that depicted Cold
War technologies, such as WMD-related programs; government
assets across the whole spectrum has been unsuccessful.
As the US looks forward, the threat continues to develop,
Iran and North Korea progresses on their nuclear programs,
while Al Qaeda continues to be attracted to WMD’s. Even
though several of the states continue to refuse the liking to
produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the fact
remains clear technology, vulnerable and uneasy states can be
the driving force for proliferation and where WMDs could end
up in the wrong hands, not just the likes of Terrorist
Organizations, but other more sophisticated countries as well.
The coming years could be challenging for the US, but the
fact remains clear that policies and procedures for the Cold War
era should not be used and the US must anticipate a properness
plan that reflects each scenario while also developing suitable
approaches, tactics and capabilities; effective procedures will
ensure that partners can rely on the US for security and help if
needed.
Aaron
Reference
Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2009).
Are We Prepared?. http://wmdcenter.ndu.edu.

4. John Doherty
The current threat of terrorist acquiring and using weapons of
mass destruction is a very real and scary threat. A lot of
countries do not have the same resources and security that the
United States have so it can be difficult for them to secure
certain materials. In 2006 a material known as highly enriched
uranium was actually seized from a Russian national in Georgia.
Whoever stole the highly enriched uranium and tried to sell it
made a very dangerous decision. The fact that highly enriched
uranium was stolen is a very serious threat. It does not take a
lot of highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon. What
is even scarier is the fact that terrorist organizations can
actually build a nuclear weapon using highly enriched uranium
pretty much by themselves without any help from outside
sources. So the question is who stole the highly enriched
uranium? At the time of the incident all figures pointed to
Russia, but of course they dismissed those reports. Some
sources believe that the seizure of the highly enriched uranium
was the result of a sting operation by Georgia who believed
Russia was looking for someone to buy the highly enriched
uranium. An undercover Georgia agent was able to convince the
seller the he was Muslim and the Russian national ended up
selling him the highly enriched uranium. We have to ask
ourselves, where did this highly enriched uranium come from?
Georgia attempted to seek help form Russian and the United
States, but Russia did not do a very good job at helping. One
must ask themselves why did Russia not want to help out?
Throughout the years Georgia has seized uranium and it needs
to be figured out how these people are obtaining it. This all
leads to the question of how does the United States protect its

5. self from potential attacks? It is extremely difficult to prevent
terrorist from obtaining materials that can build weapons of
mass destruction. Highly enriched uranium is used throughout
the world for numerous types of things. This makes it extremely
difficult for the United States and the rest of the world to keep
track of it.
References
Sokova, E., Potter, W., & Chuen, C. (2007). Recent Weapons
Grade Uranium Smuggling Case: Nuclear Materials are Still on
the Loose. Retrieved from
https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/333985/Lesson%207
%20Readings%20and%20Resources/CNS%20Research%20Story
.pdf
Jeremy Phillips
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was a flood of
weapons on the world stage. Russia began research and
development in the 1960’s to miniaturize their nuclear weapons.
With the Soviet Union dissolving a lot of these “suitcase” nukes
were unaccounted for. Per Quora.com, “The possibly missing
suitcase nukes were particularly troubling. They were small (30
- 50 kilograms), easily portable, had a yield of half a kiloton to
2 kilotons and lacked the safeguards to prevent accidental or
unauthorized detonation that other Russian nuclear weapons
had. Who controlled the weapons was also troubling: they were
variously described as being controlled by Soviet Special
Forces or the KGB. (Warinner , 2012)” The article later
mentions that, “Loose Russian nukes are not really the big
worry of governments now; nuclear materials like plutonium,
enriched uranium and other radioactive materials are more
worrying. (Warinner, 2012).” This is concerning in relation to

6. North Korea. It is not a secret that North Korea and the former
Soviet Union have had a relationship and that the Soviet Union
has been supportive of the efforts of North Korean
leadership…the big question is how supportive have they been
and how much/if any nuclear material/assets have been provided
to North Korea.
North Korea was always rattling their saber to demonstrate their
power, but with their lack of resources, and know how, it’s hard
to say how viable the threat is from them. Terrorist on the other
hand are a wild card. As mentioned earlier, there are concerns
with a terrorist organization getting ahold of nuclear material,
but I feel that it would be used in an RDD rather than a full up,
viable nuclear weapon. The footprint that this process would
create would be extremely difficult to conceal and carry out. In
our reading in discusses the “small” (one to four kilograms
(FAS n.d)) amount of radioactive material necessary to
manufacture a nuclear weapon, but this is still fissile material,
and not something that can be kept concealed very easily.
In conclusion, seeing the difficulties that North Korea has faced
in developing their nuclear weapons program, I feel that a
viable nuclear weapon isn’t as attractive to a terrorist
organization as an RDD would be.
References:
Warinner, A. (Sep 2012) How many nuclear weapons were
unaccounted for after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/How-many-nuclear-
weapons-were-unaccounted-for-after-the-collapse-of-the-Soviet-
Union
FAS (n.d.) Nuclear Weapon Design. Retrieved from:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm