Mohamed Sid-Ahmed discusses the growing threat of nuclear terrorism The advent of the nuclear age, which began when America dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagazaki just before the end of World War II, introduced an altogether new dimension to the arms race worldwide. In fact, it changed the very notion of warfare as the realisation set in that humankind now had the means to turn the planet into a wasteland incapable of sustaining life. For the first time in its long history, the human race was at risk of extinction not through an act of nature but by its own hand. At the same time, however, the emergence of a new world order in the aftermath of the war served to prevent the risk from materialising even as it lent impetus to a deadly arms-race of the summit of the global community. The post-war world had become sharply polarised along ideological lines between a capitalist pole led by the United States and a communist pole led by the Soviet Union. As each sought to assert its supremacy over the other, the world was held hostage by an arms race between two camps capable of exterminating the inhabitants of the planet not once but several times over. Although one of the two poles developed a greater overkill capability than the other, this hardly mattered. After all, you can only die once. Thus despite this discrepancy the two poles enjoyed a kind of parity which prevented the Cold War between them from hotting up into an armed conflict. Mutual deterrence or, more precisely, mutual neutralisation, proved to be the most effective way of preventing the outbreak of what would have been the third, and probably final, world war. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the bipolar world order that had prevailed since the end of World War II came to an end. America, with its military and economic pre-eminence over all other nations combined, was now the sole remaining superpower, without any constraints on its freedom of manouevre. This created an imbalance in the world system and tempted the US administration to pursue its own agenda without regard to considerations of international law, state sovereignty or international public opinion. To give its exercise of brute force a semblance of legality, it came up with its doctrine of pre-emptive wars, like the one it launched against Iraq. It is becoming increasingly clear that the onset of a unipolar world system has made the world more dangerous place, not the opposite. The most critical moment was the one when the Soviet Union collapsed and fragmented into a number of independent republics. The lack of a central authority in a vast nation with massive arsenals of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction raised the nightmare prospect of those weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible parties who would not hesitate to use them. Despite the acute contradiction on which it was based, the bipolar world order was an international system in which nations could be in a state of conflict but where they were also members of the United Nations, related to each other via agreements, accords, treaties, etc.. that is, through a system of mutual obligations, which restricted, to one extent or another, their freedom of action. The disappearance of the Soviet Union left the field clear not only to the United States at the summit of the global community but to the forces of international terrorism at its base. These forces are waging a war on the international system unbound by any constraints. It is a war waged by "irresponsible" groups who do not expose themselves to the accountability of the world system, nor to transparency in any form. That is why terrorism is so difficult to cast light on and can represent a greater danger than wars waged by regular armies. During the Cold War, the overkill capabilities developed by the superpowers allowed them to use deterrence as a device to prevent nuclear conflagration; there was a tacit agreement between them that while they could, and did, engage in brinkmanship by threatening to use their weapons of mass destruction, they would desist from actually doing so. In the absence of any kind of parity between the protagonists in today's shadowy war on terror, mutual deterrence has been replaced by a process of pre-emption that incites the enemy to take anticipatory measures. The devastating attack of 11 September 2001, which claimed nearly 3,000 victims, is a case in point. What provoked the attack? Why that particular type of anticipatory blow? Is there an explanation for the sequence of events that began with raids against two US embassies in Africa, followed by the attack on an American destroyer close to Aden and climaxed with 9/11? It was a practice run for an even more devastating attack involving nuclear weapons. But if Osama Bin Laden was in possession of nuclear weapons at the time, why did he choose to go for an intricate plan entailing the hijacking of four passenger planes, tight synchronisation and split-second timing? Surely triggering a nuclear device would have been easier. Settling for the low-tech alternative of turning planes into missiles indicates that Bin Laden was not then in possession of nuclear weapons. Actually, the idea of linking terrorism to prohibited weapons of mass destruction came from Bush, not from the terrorists themselves, and was aimed at establishing some sort of link between Iraq and terrorism to legitimise his war against Saddam Hussein. We have reached a point in human history where the phenomenon of terrorism has to be completely uprooted, not through persecution and oppression, but by removing the reasons that make particular sections of the world population resort to terrorism. This means that fundamental changes must be brought to the world system itself. The phenomenon of terrorism is even more dangerous than is generally believed. We are in for surprises no less serious than 9/11 and with far more devastating consequences. A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
