United Nations nuclear inspectors, barred from Iraq by Washington, are increasingly worried that the widespread looting and ransacking of Iraq's nuclear facilities may result in terrorists building a radioactive "dirty bomb".
The author looks at the growing threat of cruise missiles, especially given recent tests by North Korea and Iraq, and argues that a sound defense against cruise missiles "depends as much on developing more effective nonproliferation policies as it does on planning for more versatile missile defenses."
In the wake of reports this week that the United States is considering ? and planning ? pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iraq, experts said a nuclear threat might deter Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction, but could also distance the United States from its allies.
The White House chief of staff refused yesterday to rule out the possibility of using nuclear weapons during a war with Iraq to prevent what he called a "holocaust" caused by the possible use of weapons of mass destruction by Baghdad.
William Arkin argues that U.S. preparations for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq set a dangerous precedent that will ultimately make the world "infinitely more dangerous than it was two years ago."
An excellent overview of the challenges U.N. investigators face in trying to verify if Iraq (or any nation) has a program to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The author speculates on the minimal requirements are for Saddam Hussein to make a nuclear weapon or 'dirty' bomb.
Israel?s firing off a nuclear weapon in retaliation for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?s attacking it with a chemical or biological weapon looms as the No. 1 nightmare if the United States goes to war against Iraq, according to a wide spectrum of government and private arms specialists pondering the ?what-if? scenarios.
A new CIA assessment warns that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of initiating a terrorist or conventional attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force.
Michael Levi argues that if the U.S. removes the threat of Saddam Hussein while leaving the rest of its nonproliferation policy unchanged, it will achieve only a marginal improvement in our security against nuclear terror.