A number of recent studies have concluded that the United States is vulnerable to attack from terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Depending on the circumstances, a terrorist attack with nuclear or radiological weapons could cause more destruction and casualties than one with other types of WMD. Four strategies for improving U.S. capabilities to counter nuclear or radiological terrorism are often proposed: (1) to improve intelligence capabilities to gain better knowledge of terrorist intentions and capabilities; (2) to improve security measures in nuclear facilities throughout the former Soviet Union (FSU) and elsewhere, so terrorists will have more difficulty acquiring nuclear materials; (3) to deter terrorists from conducting nuclear or radiological attacks, particularly in the United States; and (4) to improve America's response capabilities to terrorists that have already acquired nuclear or radiological weapons. This thesis evaluates current U.S. capabilities and activities in each of these areas and provides recommendations for improving America's counter-terrorism strategies to defend against terrorists armed with nuclear or radiological weapons.

For nearly eight decades, the world has been navigating the dangers of the nuclear age. Despite Cold War tensions and the rise of global terrorism, nuclear weapons have not been used in conflict since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Efforts such as strategic deterrence, arms control and non-proliferation agreements, and the U.S.-led global counterterrorism have helped to keep nuclear incidents at bay. However, the nation's success to date in countering nuclear terrorism does not come with a guarantee, success often carries the risk that other challenges will siphon away attention and resources and can lead to the perception that the threat no longer exists. This report found that U.S. efforts to counter nuclear or radiological terrorism are not keeping pace with the evolving threat landscape. The U.S. government should maintain a strategic focus and effort on combatting terrorism across the national security community in coordination with international partners, State, Local, Tribal and Territorial authorities, the National Laboratories, universities and colleges, and civil society. Developing and sustaining adequate nuclear incident response and recovery capabilities at the local and state levels will likely require significant new investments in resources and empowerment of local response from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and National Institutes of Health.

The United States currently lacks a comprehensive strategy for countering the threat of terrorism involving nuclear, radiological, chemical, and-most glaringly -- biological weapons. Although federal, state, and local governments have made impressive strides to prepare for terrorism involving these weapons, the whole remains less than the sum of the parts. As a result, the United States is now at a crossroads. Although credit must be given where due, the time has come for a cold-eyed assessment and evaluation based on program reviews and other measures of effectiveness. This report offers such an assessment, providing a road map of near- and long-term priorities for senior federal officials to marshal federal, state, local, private sector, and nongovernmental resources for defending the U.S. homeland against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism.

Contents: the defense counter-proliferation initiative; the spread of weapons of mass destruction; responding to radical proliferators; history's lessons for preemptive counter-proliferation decisions (preventing Nazi A-Bombs; bombardment of Tokyo's nuclear reactor; Israel's Osirak attack; India thwarts Israeli destruction of Pakistan's Islamic BombÓ; Iraq destroys Iran's Bushehr Reactor; lessons of the Gulf War; the missile crisis: an air strike deferred); dealing with a potential Nuclear HitlerÓ; the proliferation challenge of North Korea.

The single greatest national security question currently facing the U.S. National Command Authority is how best to counter violent extremism. The National Command Authority has four broad strategies through which it may employ military forces to counter violent extremism: counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, support to insurgency, and antiterrorism. The Long War is anticipated to continue for decades, perhaps generations. Thus, it is imperative to select the best strategy or strategies for employing military forces. Based on historical lessons in combating terrorism, the best strategy is efficient and sustainable and avoids overreacting, acting incompetently, or appearing to be either over reactive or incompetent. Counterinsurgency is neither efficient nor sustainable from a military, economic, or political perspective. It is a high risk strategy because it is a large, highly visible undertaking through which the United States may easily overreact, act incompetently, or be perceived as overreacting or being incompetent. Counterterrorism, support to insurgency, and antiterrorism are each both efficient and sustainable from a military and economic perspective. These three strategies each have inherent political concerns, hazards, or constraints. However it is considerably less likely that the United States will overreact, behave incompetently, or be perceived as overreacting or being incompetent through engaging in one or more of these three strategies than by engaging in counterinsurgency. Support to insurgencies is economically and militarily efficient and sustainable, but it carries substantial political risks. Thus, an overall strategy combining counterterrorism and antiterrorism is the best means of employing military forces to counter violent extremism.

Report on the capacity to monitor and detect illicit shipments of nuclear materials at entry points into the United States and key transportation nodes overseas.