Editing Nuclear terrorism (section)

=== United States ===
While in office, President [[Barack Obama]] reviewed Homeland Security policy and concluded that "attacks using [[improvised nuclear device]]s ... pose a serious and increasing national security risk".<ref name="ob">The White House. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/homeland-security/ Homeland Security] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120012237/https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/homeland-security |date=2017-01-20 }}</ref> In their [[2004 United States presidential election|presidential contest]], President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John Kerry]] both agreed that the most serious danger facing the United States is the possibility that terrorists could obtain a nuclear bomb.<ref name="Bunn" /> Most nuclear-weapon analysts agree that "building such a device would pose few technological challenges to reasonably competent terrorists". The main barrier is acquiring highly [[enriched uranium]].<ref>Charles D. Ferguson. [https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/opinion/24iht-edferguson_ed3_.html Preventing a nuclear 9/11 : First, secure the highly enriched uranium] ''The New York Times'', September 24, 2004.</ref>

In 2004, [[Graham T. Allison|Graham Allison]], U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Clinton administration, wrote that “on the current path, a nuclear terrorist attack on America in the decade ahead is more likely than not".<ref name="kit" /> In 2004, Bruce Blair, president of the [[Center for Defense Information]] stated: "I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15 or 20 years, first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear weapon".<ref name="nyt" /> In 2006, Robert Galluccii, Dean of the [[School of Foreign Service|Georgetown University School of Foreign Service]], estimated that, “it is more likely than not that al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates will detonate a nuclear weapon in a U.S. city within the next five to ten years."<ref name="kit">Orde Kittrie. [http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf Averting Catastrophe: Why the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty is Losing its Deterrence Capacity and How to Restore It] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100607150719/http://students.law.umich.edu/mjil/article-pdfs/v28n2-kittrie.pdf |date=2010-06-07 }} May 22, 2007, p. 342.</ref> Despite a number of claims,<ref>Paul Williams (2005). ''The Al Qaeda Connection : International Terrorism, Organized Crime, and the Coming Apocalypse'', Prometheus Books, pp. 192–194.</ref><ref>[http://www.globalpolitician.com/23437-terrorwmd Nuclear 9/11: Interview with Dr. Paul L. Williams] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326215314/http://www.globalpolitician.com/23437-terrorwmd/ |date=2023-03-26 }} ''Global Politician'', September 11, 2007.</ref> there is no credible evidence that any terrorist group has yet succeeded in obtaining a nuclear bomb or the materials needed to make one.<ref name="Bunn"/><ref name="today.ucla.edu"/>

Detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major U.S. city could kill more than 500,000 people and cause more than a trillion dollars in damage.<ref name="kittrie" /><ref name="nyt" /> Hundreds of thousands could die from fallout, the resulting fires and collapsing buildings. In this scenario, uncontrolled fires would burn for days and emergency services and hospitals would be completely overwhelmed.<ref name="Bunn" /><ref>[http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/cnwm_chapter2.pdf Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805095900/http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/cnwm_chapter2.pdf |date=2011-08-05 }} p. 16.</ref><ref>Bleek, Philipp, Anders Corr, and Micah Zenko. [http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1414/nuclear_911.html Nuclear 9/11: What if Port is Ground Zero?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110812131430/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1414/nuclear_911.html |date=2011-08-12 }} ''The Houston Chronicle'', May 1, 2005.</ref> The likely socio-economic consequences in the United States outside the immediate vicinity of an attack, and possibly in other countries, would also likely be far-reaching. A [[Rand Corporation]] report speculates that there may be an exodus from other urban centers by populations fearful of another nuclear attack.<ref>[https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR391.pdf ''Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230502055451/https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2006/RAND_TR391.pdf |date=2023-05-02 }} by Charles Meade & Roger C. Molander p 9, Retrieved March 11, 2013 - this report uses smuggled nuclear weapons in container ships at a US port as an example, so speculates an exodus from coastal cities</ref>

The Obama administration claimed to focus on reducing the risk of high-consequence, non-traditional nuclear threats. Nuclear security was thought to be strengthened by enhancing "nuclear detection architecture and ensuring that our own nuclear materials are secure," and by "establishing well-planned, well-rehearsed, plans for co-ordinated response."<ref name="ob" /> According to senior Pentagon officials, the United States will make "thwarting nuclear-armed terrorists a central aim of American strategic nuclear planning."<ref>Thom Shanker and Eric Scmitt. [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/politics/19nuke.html U.S. to Make Stopping Nuclear Terror Key Aim] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218203435/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/us/politics/19nuke.html |date=2021-12-18 }} ''The New York Times'', December 18, 2009.</ref> [[Nuclear attribution]] is another strategy being pursued to counter terrorism. Led by the National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center, attribution would allow the government to determine the likely source of nuclear material used in the event of a nuclear attack. This would prevent terrorist groups, and any states willing to help them, from being able to pull off a covert attack without assurance of retaliation.<ref>{{cite web|last=Richelson|first=Jeffrey|title=U.S. Nuclear Detection and Counterterrorism, 1998-2009|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb270/index.htm|publisher=George Washington University}}</ref>

In July 2010 medical personnel from the U.S. Army practiced the techniques they would use to treat people injured by an atomic blast. The exercises were carried out at a training center in [[Indiana]], and were set up to "simulate the aftermath of a small nuclear bomb blast, set off in a U.S. city by terrorists."<ref>Deborah Block. [https://www.voanews.com/a/us-military-practices-for-nuclear-attack-99269609/162669.html US Military Practices Medical Response to Nuclear Attack]  ''Voice of America'', 26 July 2010.</ref>

''[[Stuxnet]]'' is a [[computer worm]] discovered in June 2010 that is believed to have been created by the [[United States]] and [[Israel]] to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea.<ref name="Wired">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/stuxnet-act-of-force/|title=Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal 'Act of Force'|magazine=Wired|date=25 March 2013|first=Kim|last=Zetter|access-date=10 March 2017|archive-date=7 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130507101948/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/stuxnet-act-of-force|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Nuclear power plants ====
After 9/11, [[nuclear power plant]]s were to be prepared for an attack by a large, well-armed terrorist group. But the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]], in revising its security rules, decided not to require that plants be able to defend themselves against groups carrying sophisticated weapons. According to a study by the [[Government Accountability Office]], the N.R.C. appeared to have based its revised rules "on what the industry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather than on an assessment of the terrorist threat itself".<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/28/110328taco_talk_kolbert |title=The Nuclear Risk |author=Elizabeth Kolbert |date=28 March 2011 |magazine=The New Yorker |access-date=20 February 2020 |archive-date=1 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101032648/http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/28/110328taco_talk_kolbert |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>Daniel Hirsch et al.  The NRC's Dirty Little Secret, ''Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'', May 1, 2003, vol. 59 no. 3, pp. 44-51.</ref> If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a [[core meltdown]] at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage [[spent fuel]] pools, such an attack could lead to widespread [[radioactive contamination]]. The [[Federation of American Scientists]] have said that if nuclear power use is to expand significantly, nuclear facilities will have to be made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of [[passive nuclear safety|passive safety]], which may help. In the United States, the NRC carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three years.<ref name=fas12>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/pubs/_docs/Nuclear_Energy_Report-lowres.pdf |title=The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States |author1=Charles D. Ferguson |author2=Frank A. Settle |name-list-style=amp |year=2012 |work=Federation of American Scientists |access-date=2016-01-05 |archive-date=2017-05-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525170528/https://fas.org/pubs/_docs/Nuclear_Energy_Report-lowres.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

The peace group [[Plowshares]] have shown how nuclear weapons facilities can be penetrated, and the groups actions represent extraordinary breaches of security at [[nuclear weapons]] plants in the United States. The [[National Nuclear Security Administration]] has acknowledged the seriousness of the 2012 Plowshares action. [[Non-proliferation]] policy experts have questioned "the use of private contractors to provide security at facilities that manufacture and store the government's most dangerous military material".<ref name=bas12>{{cite web |url=http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/kennette-benedict/civil-disobedience |title=Civil disobedience |author=Kennette Benedict |date=9 August 2012 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |access-date=30 October 2013 |archive-date=25 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130425104945/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/kennette-benedict/civil-disobedience |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Hoaxes ====
In late 1974, President [[Gerald Ford]] was warned that the [[FBI]] received a communication from an [[extortion]]ist wanting $200,000 (${{Inflation|US|200000|1974|r=-5|fmt=c}} today) after claiming that a nuclear weapon had been placed somewhere in [[Boston]]. A team of experts rushed in from the [[United States Atomic Energy Commission]] but their radiation detection gear arrived at a different airport. Federal officials then rented a fleet of vans to carry concealed [[radiation detector]]s around the city but forgot to bring the tools they needed to install the equipment. The incident was later found to be a [[hoax]]. However, the government's response made clear the need for an agency capable of effectively responding to such threats in the future. Later that year, President Ford created the [[Nuclear Emergency Search Team]] (NEST), which under the [[United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954|Atomic Energy Act]] is tasked with investigating the "illegal use of nuclear materials within the United States, including terrorist threats involving the use of special nuclear materials".<ref name="nv.doe.gov">{{cite web | url=http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/FactSheets/NEST.pdf | title=Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) | publisher=U.S. Department of Energy | access-date=2012-10-21 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923060954/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/factsheets/NEST.pdf | archive-date=2006-09-23 }}</ref>

One of its first responses by the Nuclear Emergency Search/Support Team was in [[Spokane, Washington]] on November 23, 1976. An unknown group called the "Days of Omega" had mailed an [[extortion]] threat claiming it would explode radioactive containers of water all over the city unless paid $500,000 (${{Inflation|US|500000|1976|r=-5|fmt=c}} today). Presumably, the radioactive containers had been stolen from the [[Hanford Site]], less than 150 miles to the southwest. Immediately, NEST flew in a support aircraft from [[Las Vegas, Nevada|Las Vegas]] and began searching for non-natural radiation, but found nothing. No one ever responded despite the elaborate instructions given, or made any attempt to claim the (fake) money which was kept under surveillance. Within days, the incident was deemed a hoax, though the case was never solved. To avoid panic, the public was not notified until a few years later.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19810208&id=BvQjAAAAIBAJ&pg=7016,3271794| title=The day they said they'd nuke Spokane-Part 1| last=Peck| first=Chris| work=[[The Spokesman-Review]]| page=17| date=1981-02-08| access-date=2012-10-21| format=scan| archive-date=2023-03-15| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315023412/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19810208&id=BvQjAAAAIBAJ&pg=7016,3271794| url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19810208&id=BvQjAAAAIBAJ&pg=6964,2969786| title=The day they said they'd nuke Spokane-Part 2| last=Peck| first=Chris| work=The Spokesman-Review| page=24| date=1981-02-08| access-date=2012-10-21| format=scan| archive-date=2023-03-15| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315023412/https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19810208&id=BvQjAAAAIBAJ&pg=6964,2969786| url-status=live}}</ref>