What do you think?
Rate this book
Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe
"Allison's comprehensive but accessible treatment of this vital subject is a major contribution to public understanding." -The New York Times Book Review
Americans in the twenty-first century are keenly aware of the many forms of hijackings, biological attacks, chemical weapons. But the deadliest form is almost too scary to think about-a terrorist group exploding a nuclear device in an American city.
In this urgent call to action, Graham Allison, one of America's leading experts on nuclear weapons and national security, presents the evidence for two provocative, compelling conclusions. First, if policy makers in Washington keep doing what they are currently doing about the threat, a nuclear terrorist attack on America is inevitable. Second, the surprising and largely unrecognized good news is that nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable. In these pages, Allison offers an ambitious but feasible blueprint for eliminating the possibility of nuclear terrorist attacks, if we are willing to face the issue squarely.
Americans in the twenty-first century are keenly aware of the many forms of hijackings, biological attacks, chemical weapons. But the deadliest form is almost too scary to think about-a terrorist group exploding a nuclear device in an American city.
In this urgent call to action, Graham Allison, one of America's leading experts on nuclear weapons and national security, presents the evidence for two provocative, compelling conclusions. First, if policy makers in Washington keep doing what they are currently doing about the threat, a nuclear terrorist attack on America is inevitable. Second, the surprising and largely unrecognized good news is that nuclear terrorism is, in fact, preventable. In these pages, Allison offers an ambitious but feasible blueprint for eliminating the possibility of nuclear terrorist attacks, if we are willing to face the issue squarely.
275 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
Graham T. Allison
30 books35 followersLibrarian Note: Also writes under the name Graham Allison.
Graham Tillett Allison, Jr. (born 23 March 1940) is an American political scientist and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He is renowned for his contribution in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the bureaucratic analysis of decision making, especially during times of crisis. His book Remaking Foreign Policy: The Organizational Connection , co-written with Peter Szanton, was published in 1976 and had some influence on the foreign policy of the administration of President Jimmy Carter which took office in early 1977. Since the 1970s, Allison has also been a leading analyst of U.S. national security and defense policy, with a special interest in nuclear weapons and terrorism.
Allison is best known as a political scientist for his book Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971), in which he developed two new theoretical paradigms — an organizational process model and a bureaucratic politics model — to compete with the then-prevalent approach of understanding foreign policy decision making using a rational actor model. Essence of Decision swiftly revolutionized the study of decision making in political science and beyond.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
Graham Tillett Allison, Jr. (born 23 March 1940) is an American political scientist and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He is renowned for his contribution in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the bureaucratic analysis of decision making, especially during times of crisis. His book Remaking Foreign Policy: The Organizational Connection , co-written with Peter Szanton, was published in 1976 and had some influence on the foreign policy of the administration of President Jimmy Carter which took office in early 1977. Since the 1970s, Allison has also been a leading analyst of U.S. national security and defense policy, with a special interest in nuclear weapons and terrorism.
Allison is best known as a political scientist for his book Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971), in which he developed two new theoretical paradigms — an organizational process model and a bureaucratic politics model — to compete with the then-prevalent approach of understanding foreign policy decision making using a rational actor model. Essence of Decision swiftly revolutionized the study of decision making in political science and beyond.
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
December 16, 2013
I can't in good conscience give this much support as a go-to text in arms control theory. Leaving aside my personal stance on how to control proliferation of nuclear and radiological weapons let alone the urgency, this short exposition on the darkside of nuclear containment suffers too many shortcomings to be much help to us today. From the level of detail (low) to the tone of the argument (alarmist) to the ideological position (liberal-hawkish), not much can be gained from either subject matter expert to the uninformed neophyte.
First, one must ask who the actual audience of this book was intended. It might seem that the layman who might have gotten a bug to investigate such issues post-911 might be served by this, except only a superficial addressing of nuclear issues is attempted here. The problem with this is, due to the complexities of nuclear science, without going into more detail about types of radiation, why it is so difficult to detect certain kinds, and how these characteristics play out in a nuclear weapon, the unaware reader would walk away with a serious misunderstanding of the nuances of containment, detection, and even interdiction. So, somewhere along the way of this book, one begins to assume that the audience is actually intended to be much more informed and the customary discussion on basic facts is just good etiquette (if not space-filler).
There is a very odd construction to the book with the first half being very alarmist in tone and very complementary or flattering towards the post-911 Bush Doctrine modicum. At the time, this was just another in a long line of folks who suffered the 912 hangover that the next terrorist attack was just moments away and the only solution was a wide-eyed, all-encompasing vigilance. To be clear, there have been several terrorist incidents since that time but it is completely unclear whether they are all part of the on-going war formerly called the global war on terror (GWOT) or merely a reaction to this contrived notion. Regardless, in the vein of nuclear terrorism, there is little innovation. There are essentially a handful of concerns and little has changed in this regard well before the GWOT was established and going back to at least the 1980s; those concerns can be broken down to eastern europe and the so-called Newly Independent States (NIS), Russia, Iran, Pakistan/India, North Korea, Libya/Iraq (now completely shutdown), and non-state actors (which is a very dubious concern). Very quickly lets be clear Iraq and less so Libya were very low on, say, a five scale color-coded chart; essentially Green. Russia/NIS/Eastern EU are yellow at best just due to the limited coherent intel that comes from these areas and a handful of nuclear/radiological control failures. Pakistan/India might be orange might but lets be clear, these are established, vested nation-states who are much more concerned with their own sustainability then they are nuclear annihilation. Finally Iran and North Korea which on this relative scale we could definitely make red, but again these nation-states have very little interest in committing suicide by actually using a nuclear weapon. For any established nation there is essentially zero strategic sense in using a nuclear weapon under any scenario. Attempts to show any of the nuclear states as being unstable or unpredictable is essentially a self-serving characterization.
Meanwhile, the second half of this pamphlet suddenly takes a hard left turn. Now, the 912 hangover turns into skeptical criticism of the Bush Doctrine when it is applied to Iraq. The legitimate argument is raised that it was a major diversion to the GWOT rather than any type of out-of-the-box tactical thinking of it. The bottom line is the plans for Iraq were long on the table and 911 just laid the red carpet to rolling out those plans unheeded. But Allison's protest is a tad reprehensible since the only real problem with using the full forces of the armed forces on Iraq is that they didn't have any nuclear weapons and were unlikely to ever; the attack would have been completely justified if it has been used on North Korea or, almost explicitly stated, on Iran. Beyond this proposition, Allison lays out a policy for addressing nuclear terrorism which really is just a proposition that has been around for years by the hard-liners of the proliferation world. The bottom line is don't let anyone else get weapons by any means necessary and limit those nuclear states from becoming nuclear weapons exporters. The major means to prevent other states from getting nuclear weapons is a) making nuclear technology unaffordable and b) threat of violence or overt attack for those that do. For the existing states, you force the scaling-up of capability a red line.
To some extent all of this has come to pass at the very least by President Obama and at best we can claim mixed results. On the one-hand, a major breakthrough has occurred with Iranian nuclear capability; yes, they probably have a few weapons and they will continue to have the potential, but there will be no production of nuclear weapons unless its a clandestine operation (which cannot be discounted) so that threat of violence looms. Meanwhile, North Korea has continued to be the ignored step-child and they have quietly since the book was written tested three increasingly complex weapons, have tested several ever-increasing delivery systems, and undergone a significant internal regime change that ensures the status quo for the next several decades. All the while, several programs have ramped up since 911 involved with ensuring that loose nukes are a non-issue (remote sensing, second line defense, intelligence, etc., etc.). If anyone seriously thinks there is a real or urgent threat to the US or most of the world to nuclear attack, they are sadly mistake. For those who fear an radiological dispersal device (RDD), all I can say is, two weeks ago a truck containing a highly radioactive cobolt-60 gamma source was stolen from a medical waste truck in Mexico. The robbery was almost certainly a crime of convenience since the crooks tried to break into the source shielded by very dense lead. The crooks were exposed to likely tens of thousands of rem over the course of a few hours, enough to kill a person almost immediately. All I can say is, if that had been somebody who knew what they were doing, things could have had a much different ending.
First, one must ask who the actual audience of this book was intended. It might seem that the layman who might have gotten a bug to investigate such issues post-911 might be served by this, except only a superficial addressing of nuclear issues is attempted here. The problem with this is, due to the complexities of nuclear science, without going into more detail about types of radiation, why it is so difficult to detect certain kinds, and how these characteristics play out in a nuclear weapon, the unaware reader would walk away with a serious misunderstanding of the nuances of containment, detection, and even interdiction. So, somewhere along the way of this book, one begins to assume that the audience is actually intended to be much more informed and the customary discussion on basic facts is just good etiquette (if not space-filler).
There is a very odd construction to the book with the first half being very alarmist in tone and very complementary or flattering towards the post-911 Bush Doctrine modicum. At the time, this was just another in a long line of folks who suffered the 912 hangover that the next terrorist attack was just moments away and the only solution was a wide-eyed, all-encompasing vigilance. To be clear, there have been several terrorist incidents since that time but it is completely unclear whether they are all part of the on-going war formerly called the global war on terror (GWOT) or merely a reaction to this contrived notion. Regardless, in the vein of nuclear terrorism, there is little innovation. There are essentially a handful of concerns and little has changed in this regard well before the GWOT was established and going back to at least the 1980s; those concerns can be broken down to eastern europe and the so-called Newly Independent States (NIS), Russia, Iran, Pakistan/India, North Korea, Libya/Iraq (now completely shutdown), and non-state actors (which is a very dubious concern). Very quickly lets be clear Iraq and less so Libya were very low on, say, a five scale color-coded chart; essentially Green. Russia/NIS/Eastern EU are yellow at best just due to the limited coherent intel that comes from these areas and a handful of nuclear/radiological control failures. Pakistan/India might be orange might but lets be clear, these are established, vested nation-states who are much more concerned with their own sustainability then they are nuclear annihilation. Finally Iran and North Korea which on this relative scale we could definitely make red, but again these nation-states have very little interest in committing suicide by actually using a nuclear weapon. For any established nation there is essentially zero strategic sense in using a nuclear weapon under any scenario. Attempts to show any of the nuclear states as being unstable or unpredictable is essentially a self-serving characterization.
Meanwhile, the second half of this pamphlet suddenly takes a hard left turn. Now, the 912 hangover turns into skeptical criticism of the Bush Doctrine when it is applied to Iraq. The legitimate argument is raised that it was a major diversion to the GWOT rather than any type of out-of-the-box tactical thinking of it. The bottom line is the plans for Iraq were long on the table and 911 just laid the red carpet to rolling out those plans unheeded. But Allison's protest is a tad reprehensible since the only real problem with using the full forces of the armed forces on Iraq is that they didn't have any nuclear weapons and were unlikely to ever; the attack would have been completely justified if it has been used on North Korea or, almost explicitly stated, on Iran. Beyond this proposition, Allison lays out a policy for addressing nuclear terrorism which really is just a proposition that has been around for years by the hard-liners of the proliferation world. The bottom line is don't let anyone else get weapons by any means necessary and limit those nuclear states from becoming nuclear weapons exporters. The major means to prevent other states from getting nuclear weapons is a) making nuclear technology unaffordable and b) threat of violence or overt attack for those that do. For the existing states, you force the scaling-up of capability a red line.
To some extent all of this has come to pass at the very least by President Obama and at best we can claim mixed results. On the one-hand, a major breakthrough has occurred with Iranian nuclear capability; yes, they probably have a few weapons and they will continue to have the potential, but there will be no production of nuclear weapons unless its a clandestine operation (which cannot be discounted) so that threat of violence looms. Meanwhile, North Korea has continued to be the ignored step-child and they have quietly since the book was written tested three increasingly complex weapons, have tested several ever-increasing delivery systems, and undergone a significant internal regime change that ensures the status quo for the next several decades. All the while, several programs have ramped up since 911 involved with ensuring that loose nukes are a non-issue (remote sensing, second line defense, intelligence, etc., etc.). If anyone seriously thinks there is a real or urgent threat to the US or most of the world to nuclear attack, they are sadly mistake. For those who fear an radiological dispersal device (RDD), all I can say is, two weeks ago a truck containing a highly radioactive cobolt-60 gamma source was stolen from a medical waste truck in Mexico. The robbery was almost certainly a crime of convenience since the crooks tried to break into the source shielded by very dense lead. The crooks were exposed to likely tens of thousands of rem over the course of a few hours, enough to kill a person almost immediately. All I can say is, if that had been somebody who knew what they were doing, things could have had a much different ending.
October 21, 2019
Marie Kondo asks us to wonder "does this spark joy?," while I can confidently say the topic of this book does not, it is a merit-worthy and I am glad I read it. Allison in my opinion remains a great luminary of political science. His book reads well and provides a lot of useful, albeit scary, information. It lost a few points in my mind for being redundant at several points. However, I think this could have also been a strategy to really drive a point home. I think more people should read this and be talking about a preventable catastrophe.
As an aside, it is very curious reading this book knowing in what time period it was written. Allison makes it a point to discuss how President George W. Bush and his regime damaged America's standing in the world. Sadly, the caveats he offered seem to have fallen to deaf ears.
As an aside, it is very curious reading this book knowing in what time period it was written. Allison makes it a point to discuss how President George W. Bush and his regime damaged America's standing in the world. Sadly, the caveats he offered seem to have fallen to deaf ears.
November 14, 2022
Written in 2004, this book is now outdated but still provides essential yet terrifying analysis on the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack against the United States.
The main message of the book is that a nuclear terrorist attack is inevitable unless the government (as well as the international community) commit to attacking the problem head on. I was shocked to learn actually just how easy it would be for terrorists to acquire materials, build a nuclear weapon and deliver it to the US. I find myself wondering why something hasn't happened already, and would love to read a more updated version.
The main message of the book is that a nuclear terrorist attack is inevitable unless the government (as well as the international community) commit to attacking the problem head on. I was shocked to learn actually just how easy it would be for terrorists to acquire materials, build a nuclear weapon and deliver it to the US. I find myself wondering why something hasn't happened already, and would love to read a more updated version.
July 9, 2019
Depressing
According to a growing number of authorities I have read in recent years, a nuclear attack on the United States is almost inevitable. The bomb(s) will not come by intercontinental missile, but will be smuggled into the country, carried by car to mostly likely New York or Washington D.C., and detonated. Hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people will die. It will be the worst catastrophe to befall the US ever and may result in world-wide social, political and economic chaos. The US may or may not know who planted the bomb, but you can be sure that some action will be taken, possibly of a nuclear nature.
Where will this bomb come from? Graham Allison, the founding dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, an expert on nuclear proliferation, gives these likely possibilities: from the inadequately accounted for Russian arsenal; Pakistan; North Korea, Iran's incipient program, or the bomb may be made from fissile material available on the black market. Allison makes it abundantly clear that how to make a bomb is not a problem. The information is readily available on the Web.
The question that daunts me is how will the US know for sure where the bomb originated and who planted it? It doesn't seem possible that after a nuclear explosion there could be a forensic signature in the rubble. Herein lies a big problem. Suppose the US thinks the bomb came from Russia, sold to Al Qaeda by a disgruntled group of ex-Soviet scientists and military people. How does the US retaliate? Bomb Russia? That would usher in a very quick WWIII with consequences too horrific to contemplate. Bomb western Pakistan where bin Laden may (or may not) be hiding? That seems pathetic.
The fact of the matter as I see it, the US will not be able to retaliate in kind to a suitcase bomb exploded in one of our cities. Consequently there is no deterrent available such as the kind that kept the Cold War cold with Mutually Assured Destruction. Furthermore, the people who would plant such a bomb are religious fanatics of the Al Qaeda variety who wouldn't care if we killed them or not.
Therefore, this "inevitable" catastrophe has to be prevented. How? Allison proposes a most ambitious program using carrots and sticks on rogue incipient nuclear states to persuade them to give up their nuclear aspirations. The fewer bombs there are in the world the less likely one is to turn up in the hands of bin Laden. That makes sense. At the same time, spend whatever amount of money it takes (he estimates between 30 and 60 billion dollars will be necessary--a fraction of the amount we have already spent in Iraq) to buy up and otherwise acquire and deactivate any bombs that may be unaccounted for or produced. Additionally, we have to shore up our borders so that bombs cannot get in. How much this would cost, Allison doesn't say, and indeed his tone makes it clear to me that he doesn't think it will happen. There is a joke he relates. How do you smuggle an atomic bomb into the US? You wrap it in marijuana.
Although Allison gives us a program of how we might drastically decrease the odds of a bomb getting into the US, I don't think he makes much of a case for demonstrating how we can develop the political will to do it. Clearly the Bush administration is not getting the job done. The borders are as porous as ever. Iran and North Korea are moving ahead with their bomb-building programs. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are healthy and gaining recruits. Nuclear security in Russia is abysmal. I wonder if Bush thinks that the Rapture will come soon, making nuclear terrorism a moot issue.
Allison does not say this, but it is clear that he doesn't think the Bush administration is doing anywhere near what it should to prevent nuclear terrorism. I really do wonder why. Does it seem too overwhelming a task? Or is it incompetence or stupidity? Or something more sinister?--like actually inviting a pretext for an all-out war with Islam, which we would presumably win, and gain great favor with the Almighty in doing so.
This is a good book, extensively documented, clearly presented, and it couldn't be timelier. But it is ultimately dissatisfying because most of the information about what the US is or is not doing to meet the nuclear threat is classified and does not appear in the book. In reading this I felt like I was reading a manuscript that had great portions of it excised so only the most obvious information was available. Despite my cynicism, surely the Bush administration IS doing everything it can to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yet we really know nothing specifically about just what action it is taking. Is there a plan to surgically bomb North Korea's nuclear facilities if negotiations don't work? At what point will Israel or the US wipe out Iran's nascent bomb-building program? Clearly from what we know of the fanaticism of the ruling theocracy, they will have no compunction about using nuclear weapons if they have them--or better yet, giving them to Al Qaeda to use.
So this book is good up to a point--up to the point of what is really going on. Unfortunately we will not know that until some decades down the road when the relevant documentation is declassified.
Meanwhile, I would NOT recommend relocating to New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago or any other tempting target. As Allison relates, Al Qaeda wants four million dead Americans and they won't get them by hijacking planes or dynamiting school children.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the sensational mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
According to a growing number of authorities I have read in recent years, a nuclear attack on the United States is almost inevitable. The bomb(s) will not come by intercontinental missile, but will be smuggled into the country, carried by car to mostly likely New York or Washington D.C., and detonated. Hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people will die. It will be the worst catastrophe to befall the US ever and may result in world-wide social, political and economic chaos. The US may or may not know who planted the bomb, but you can be sure that some action will be taken, possibly of a nuclear nature.
Where will this bomb come from? Graham Allison, the founding dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, an expert on nuclear proliferation, gives these likely possibilities: from the inadequately accounted for Russian arsenal; Pakistan; North Korea, Iran's incipient program, or the bomb may be made from fissile material available on the black market. Allison makes it abundantly clear that how to make a bomb is not a problem. The information is readily available on the Web.
The question that daunts me is how will the US know for sure where the bomb originated and who planted it? It doesn't seem possible that after a nuclear explosion there could be a forensic signature in the rubble. Herein lies a big problem. Suppose the US thinks the bomb came from Russia, sold to Al Qaeda by a disgruntled group of ex-Soviet scientists and military people. How does the US retaliate? Bomb Russia? That would usher in a very quick WWIII with consequences too horrific to contemplate. Bomb western Pakistan where bin Laden may (or may not) be hiding? That seems pathetic.
The fact of the matter as I see it, the US will not be able to retaliate in kind to a suitcase bomb exploded in one of our cities. Consequently there is no deterrent available such as the kind that kept the Cold War cold with Mutually Assured Destruction. Furthermore, the people who would plant such a bomb are religious fanatics of the Al Qaeda variety who wouldn't care if we killed them or not.
Therefore, this "inevitable" catastrophe has to be prevented. How? Allison proposes a most ambitious program using carrots and sticks on rogue incipient nuclear states to persuade them to give up their nuclear aspirations. The fewer bombs there are in the world the less likely one is to turn up in the hands of bin Laden. That makes sense. At the same time, spend whatever amount of money it takes (he estimates between 30 and 60 billion dollars will be necessary--a fraction of the amount we have already spent in Iraq) to buy up and otherwise acquire and deactivate any bombs that may be unaccounted for or produced. Additionally, we have to shore up our borders so that bombs cannot get in. How much this would cost, Allison doesn't say, and indeed his tone makes it clear to me that he doesn't think it will happen. There is a joke he relates. How do you smuggle an atomic bomb into the US? You wrap it in marijuana.
Although Allison gives us a program of how we might drastically decrease the odds of a bomb getting into the US, I don't think he makes much of a case for demonstrating how we can develop the political will to do it. Clearly the Bush administration is not getting the job done. The borders are as porous as ever. Iran and North Korea are moving ahead with their bomb-building programs. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are healthy and gaining recruits. Nuclear security in Russia is abysmal. I wonder if Bush thinks that the Rapture will come soon, making nuclear terrorism a moot issue.
Allison does not say this, but it is clear that he doesn't think the Bush administration is doing anywhere near what it should to prevent nuclear terrorism. I really do wonder why. Does it seem too overwhelming a task? Or is it incompetence or stupidity? Or something more sinister?--like actually inviting a pretext for an all-out war with Islam, which we would presumably win, and gain great favor with the Almighty in doing so.
This is a good book, extensively documented, clearly presented, and it couldn't be timelier. But it is ultimately dissatisfying because most of the information about what the US is or is not doing to meet the nuclear threat is classified and does not appear in the book. In reading this I felt like I was reading a manuscript that had great portions of it excised so only the most obvious information was available. Despite my cynicism, surely the Bush administration IS doing everything it can to prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yet we really know nothing specifically about just what action it is taking. Is there a plan to surgically bomb North Korea's nuclear facilities if negotiations don't work? At what point will Israel or the US wipe out Iran's nascent bomb-building program? Clearly from what we know of the fanaticism of the ruling theocracy, they will have no compunction about using nuclear weapons if they have them--or better yet, giving them to Al Qaeda to use.
So this book is good up to a point--up to the point of what is really going on. Unfortunately we will not know that until some decades down the road when the relevant documentation is declassified.
Meanwhile, I would NOT recommend relocating to New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago or any other tempting target. As Allison relates, Al Qaeda wants four million dead Americans and they won't get them by hijacking planes or dynamiting school children.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the sensational mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
November 1, 2020
As a political science scholar, having read various books on International politics; Allison makes the wonderfully argument about how nuclear materials should be secured in order to prevent future attacks; which he argues are not too far from reality. Looking into the different nuclear opportunities by states such as Pakistan, Iran, Russia and how these materials are readily available, Graham Allison uses government sources to successfully make his argument and even looks into future scenarios.
I wish I would’ve read this before. But also, if anyone liked this book, you should read 1) The Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt 2) Destined for War by Graham Allison.
I wish I would’ve read this before. But also, if anyone liked this book, you should read 1) The Shield of Achilles by Philip Bobbitt 2) Destined for War by Graham Allison.
October 18, 2022
Needs an update (published in 2004; much has changed about terrorism and global balance since then). Well-organized into two sections: 1) "Who/What/When/How" of terrorist groups acquiring nuclear weapons; 2) Actionable steps that the international community, led by the US, ought to do to prevent Part 1 from happening.
January 16, 2018
Graham Allison’s famous book. Read it while taking Allison’s National Security class at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. A breathtaking book. Drawn to it so much I did my thesis on an issue regarding the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
March 22, 2022
Written in 2004 and just as terrifying today.
October 17, 2023
Scary is the possibility - reassuring is the lack of action
December 28, 2008
Graham Allison's nuclear terrorism prevention strategy is a perceptive and tough look at a nagging problem of grave national importance. It's perhaps the best strategy possible given America's current structure. Allison warns that if terrorists get weapons of mass destruction, then the game is over because these weapons will probably be used against us, and therefore a rigorous strategy of locking down weapons worldwide is sensible. Allison fails to explain how the United States can act as the world's nuclear policeman. His book is loaded with practical suggestions like using financial incentives in nations like Russia to encourage foreign officials to lock up or destroy excess weapons, giving money to non-nuclear states to produce less dangerous plutonium and uranium, having a more humble foreign policy, improving intelligence, strengthening global alliances, and so on. But there's a sense that even if all of these suggestions were followed to the letter, the United States would remain vulnerable.
So, in my view, Allison's strategy is flawed.
The correct strategy, in my view, is to reform America in serious ways to substantially reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. And that means a new understanding of terrorism as well as substantial political reform that requires, in effect, a Second Constitutional Convention.
Allison, along with experts such as Bruce Hoffman as well as most people, see terrorism as essentially a government and military and police problem. And I think that's a mistake. I think terrorism is a bigger problem -- it's a citizens' problem. We're the ones who suffer when it happens. So citizens need to prevent it. And as citizens we have wider latitude and authority to act than government officials have.
Terrorism, in my view, is "violence against individual rights". Begin with my definition and a solution will follow. One can suppose there are three types of terrorists -- criminals (neighbors who violate our rights), tyrants (our own government officials who violate our rights) and foreign terrorists (powerful individuals abroad or heads of state.) All three types of terrorism must be prevented, in my view. It's not enough for government by itself to try to fight terrorism, because in trying to fight terrorism, government may become a terrorist towards its own people. It's a multi-faceted problem, larger but solvable, in my view. We can't try to fight one form of terrorism by exacerbating another. But this happens routinely in airports: to prevent airline hijackings (crime) security guards frisk every passenger without cause (a form of tyranny that passengers put up with despite being treated like criminals.)
My book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon & Kindle, 184 pages) spells out the logic for a prevention strategy. The essential concept linking an effort to prevent each type of terrorism is the application of light (meaning information, exposure, awareness.) For example, to prevent crime, we must identify all movement in public while strengthening privacy. For this to happen, citizens must agree to such monitoring, and for this to happen, people must become real citizens, not merely apathetic consumers and shoppers which characterize most Americans today. The concept of citizenship is examined (again, a type of light); citizenship should be a contract between individual and state with specific responsibilities and privileges. It's possible to prevent every instance of home-grown terrorism using this method. The rest of my book shows how one can apply the concept of light to exposing the other types. For example, I think the architecture of government requires an overhaul so that America can make steady long-term foreign policy, consistently rewarding friends and punishing enemies; but today it can't do this because administrations change every eight years, sometimes after only four. I propose a revised architecture based on lessons from history and political philosophy.
My strategy will prevent all types of terrorism, including smuggled nuclear bombs. Allison's won't. My strategy is brief, rational, non-religious, written by a citizen for citizens, non-technical. Be prepared: there are some controversial ideas (one expert found it "bracing"). But my book can protect America. It's plain logic from one citizen to another. Allison's tough strategy is perhaps the best that America can do given the current constraints, and I respect Allison as an expert on foreign policy, but I argue that we need to reform America in serious ways using my strategy to protect ourselves. If reforming America is impossible, then Allison's strategy is the next best thing. Please read my book and judge for yourself.
I challenge Mr. Allison to debate the merits of my strategy.
So, in my view, Allison's strategy is flawed.
The correct strategy, in my view, is to reform America in serious ways to substantially reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. And that means a new understanding of terrorism as well as substantial political reform that requires, in effect, a Second Constitutional Convention.
Allison, along with experts such as Bruce Hoffman as well as most people, see terrorism as essentially a government and military and police problem. And I think that's a mistake. I think terrorism is a bigger problem -- it's a citizens' problem. We're the ones who suffer when it happens. So citizens need to prevent it. And as citizens we have wider latitude and authority to act than government officials have.
Terrorism, in my view, is "violence against individual rights". Begin with my definition and a solution will follow. One can suppose there are three types of terrorists -- criminals (neighbors who violate our rights), tyrants (our own government officials who violate our rights) and foreign terrorists (powerful individuals abroad or heads of state.) All three types of terrorism must be prevented, in my view. It's not enough for government by itself to try to fight terrorism, because in trying to fight terrorism, government may become a terrorist towards its own people. It's a multi-faceted problem, larger but solvable, in my view. We can't try to fight one form of terrorism by exacerbating another. But this happens routinely in airports: to prevent airline hijackings (crime) security guards frisk every passenger without cause (a form of tyranny that passengers put up with despite being treated like criminals.)
My book "Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism" (Amazon & Kindle, 184 pages) spells out the logic for a prevention strategy. The essential concept linking an effort to prevent each type of terrorism is the application of light (meaning information, exposure, awareness.) For example, to prevent crime, we must identify all movement in public while strengthening privacy. For this to happen, citizens must agree to such monitoring, and for this to happen, people must become real citizens, not merely apathetic consumers and shoppers which characterize most Americans today. The concept of citizenship is examined (again, a type of light); citizenship should be a contract between individual and state with specific responsibilities and privileges. It's possible to prevent every instance of home-grown terrorism using this method. The rest of my book shows how one can apply the concept of light to exposing the other types. For example, I think the architecture of government requires an overhaul so that America can make steady long-term foreign policy, consistently rewarding friends and punishing enemies; but today it can't do this because administrations change every eight years, sometimes after only four. I propose a revised architecture based on lessons from history and political philosophy.
My strategy will prevent all types of terrorism, including smuggled nuclear bombs. Allison's won't. My strategy is brief, rational, non-religious, written by a citizen for citizens, non-technical. Be prepared: there are some controversial ideas (one expert found it "bracing"). But my book can protect America. It's plain logic from one citizen to another. Allison's tough strategy is perhaps the best that America can do given the current constraints, and I respect Allison as an expert on foreign policy, but I argue that we need to reform America in serious ways using my strategy to protect ourselves. If reforming America is impossible, then Allison's strategy is the next best thing. Please read my book and judge for yourself.
I challenge Mr. Allison to debate the merits of my strategy.
May 31, 2014
The book I read to research this post was Nuclear Terrorism by Graham Allison which is an excellent book which I bought from a local bookstore. This book is about the possibilities of nuclear attacks by terrorist organizations which in theory could put even the attacks on the World Trade Center in the shade. According to this book it is more a question of when than if. In Chechnya Soviet forces found a so called dirty bomb before it could be detonated and that is currently the closest we have come to a nuclear terrorist attack. A dirty bomb is any kind of nuclear waste that is in a container along with an explosive that helps spread it around. With a dirty bomb there wouldn't be many immediate deaths although years later people would succumb to things like cancer as a result. It would cost a lost a lot of money to clear up the nuclear waste and render the area safe though. There is a much greater chance of terrorists building a dirty bomb than using a nuclear warhead as many sites like hospitals house radio-active material that could potentially be used. When the Soviet Union disintegrated many nuclear weapons went missing and almost certainly some of these must either be in terrorist hands or countries with terrorist connections. It's interesting that not a single nuclear weapon that disappeared in this way has been recovered. A 10 megaton nuclear weapon set off in central New York would probably result in 1 million deaths not counting those who would die of things like cancer much later. There have been cases where terrorists have demanded a ransom in exchange for not setting off a nuclear weapon and these have been hoaxes luckily. There are countries like North Korea & Iran who have nuclear power stations and have a nuclear weapons capability. Most of the information on how to build a nuclear power station is freely accessible and anyone with the money can probably develop a nuclear capability in 5-10 years. This book is very disturbing but is on a brilliant subject and is really well written and is a reasonable length at around 240 pages.
January 11, 2014
A shocking expose of the most pertinent and immanent threat to the United States and the world.
I knew about the threat of nuclear terrorism, but after this, the fear of the threat was confirmed, and even made more and more aware. The facts were shocking, such as the 250 unsecured "suitcase" warheads that the soviets made and are still unaccounted for.
One positive aspect of the book was it tells how misallocated our fight against terrorism is. Our fight against terrorism should not be about toppling regimes that support terrorism, but keeping nuclear fissile material out of the hands of the terrorists. We made a huge deal out of Saddam and Iraq saying that they had WMD's, but they never found WMD's.
If we can account for missing nuclear warheads, secure our fissile material, and do not allow any more nations to have nuclear capabilities (especially nations seeking the ability to produce their own fissile material or parts for a warhead),and change our foreign policy to more egalitarian than unilateral espiecally in terms of security and terrorism, then terrorism is no longer a threat. Easier said than done, but a thermonuclear catastrophe is something that should never be realized in our time or ever again.
I knew about the threat of nuclear terrorism, but after this, the fear of the threat was confirmed, and even made more and more aware. The facts were shocking, such as the 250 unsecured "suitcase" warheads that the soviets made and are still unaccounted for.
One positive aspect of the book was it tells how misallocated our fight against terrorism is. Our fight against terrorism should not be about toppling regimes that support terrorism, but keeping nuclear fissile material out of the hands of the terrorists. We made a huge deal out of Saddam and Iraq saying that they had WMD's, but they never found WMD's.
If we can account for missing nuclear warheads, secure our fissile material, and do not allow any more nations to have nuclear capabilities (especially nations seeking the ability to produce their own fissile material or parts for a warhead),and change our foreign policy to more egalitarian than unilateral espiecally in terms of security and terrorism, then terrorism is no longer a threat. Easier said than done, but a thermonuclear catastrophe is something that should never be realized in our time or ever again.
September 7, 2012
Graham Allison's book on nuclear terrorism is a very informative read. Depending on how serious you take his warning, it can also be a very frightening read. The book serves as a great introduction to one of the most important foreign policy issues for most nations. There is great insight into the dealings of high-level members of the US government pertaining to this issue. The first half of this book, the informative part, is an eye-opening read containing facts that everyone should be made aware of.
As for the second half, the persuasive part, Allison makes a decent attempt at building a strategy for prevention. However, in certain parts it stinks of American exceptionalism until he makes the brief suggestion that all nations to disarm themselves from nuclear weapons. While this would be an ideal choice from a global perspective, the author doesn't spend much time exploring this option. However, take it for what it is: a book written by a former advisor to the secretary of defense who holds reputable but biased insight.
Overall, a read well worth it.
As for the second half, the persuasive part, Allison makes a decent attempt at building a strategy for prevention. However, in certain parts it stinks of American exceptionalism until he makes the brief suggestion that all nations to disarm themselves from nuclear weapons. While this would be an ideal choice from a global perspective, the author doesn't spend much time exploring this option. However, take it for what it is: a book written by a former advisor to the secretary of defense who holds reputable but biased insight.
Overall, a read well worth it.
Read
February 5, 2009Chemical weapons can kill in the thousands. Over the same area, a football-sized nuclear packet could kill half a million. With Iran and North Korea joining the fray, Russia's massive supplies, and Pakistan's black market, we're in Big Trouble. Allison, who served under the first Clinton administration, models his argument on the successful Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program he helped implement when the Soviet Union collapsed. Nuclear Terrorism, well-written, lucid, and above all horrifying, offers a blueprint for preventing nuclear terrorism. Reviewers generally agree with Allison's points, but ask how he would implement his goals in politically diverse climates. How does one conduct nuclear power plant inspections with corrupt officials, for example? Allison himself admits that his plan will take a "long, hard, slog"
July 14, 2015
Graham Allison's Nuclear Terrorism has been getting some duff reviews for A) being insufficiently technical and B) being too alarmist.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but did none of these reviewers look at the cover, or read the introduction?
This book is not a textbook, and it is not an objective academic study. The purpose of the book is to argue for Mr Allison's position on nuclear reform, and to do this it has to give a level of detail that will support his case without frightening off normal 'civilian' readers who do not have any level of familiarity with the science or engineering of nuclear weapons.
The book is pretty readable, if generally quite alarmist, and although it is clearly now out of date in terms of geopolitics its argument still holds water, and the book is still interesting and informative.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but did none of these reviewers look at the cover, or read the introduction?
This book is not a textbook, and it is not an objective academic study. The purpose of the book is to argue for Mr Allison's position on nuclear reform, and to do this it has to give a level of detail that will support his case without frightening off normal 'civilian' readers who do not have any level of familiarity with the science or engineering of nuclear weapons.
The book is pretty readable, if generally quite alarmist, and although it is clearly now out of date in terms of geopolitics its argument still holds water, and the book is still interesting and informative.
March 24, 2008
I wasn't sure how much I'd learn from this book given that I took a class on this stuff last fall, but I found it pretty informative (not to mention frightening). The reiteration over and over of the main points was sometimes a little annoying (yes, I got the point 40 pages ago), though.
Also, one big qualm: from the introduction, it seems the author has a very mistaken idea of where Houston's Chinatown is located.
Also, one big qualm: from the introduction, it seems the author has a very mistaken idea of where Houston's Chinatown is located.
August 6, 2009
An excellent book, and serious, about the most important problem today that no one is paying attention to. "It's the plutonium, stupid" is the way that Professor Allison summarized it elsewhere. If the world can control the extraction and distribution of the plutonium, then we're all pretty safe. If not...
January 21, 2015
If you are really interested in knowing what happened to the nuclear rod that was stolen from a reactor in Africa; How the Father of Pakistani Nuclear Program was associated with Libyan autocrat; who sold the nuclear secret to whom.
Is terrorist organisation really capable of pulling a nuclear devise, the answer is in this book. An amazing work!
Is terrorist organisation really capable of pulling a nuclear devise, the answer is in this book. An amazing work!
July 11, 2015
In all honesty I feel the book is poorly written and repeats itself a lot. I have read far better books on nuclear disaster/terrorist prevention, I feel the book has been some what dumbed down and this spoils it a lot, not 1 I would recommend to read!
January 17, 2016
What a frightening account. I hope the reason that there hasn't been a nuclear detonation in the 12 years since the publication of this book is due in part to the implementation of the recommendations made by the author.
August 18, 2007
Yet another must-read before 2008
August 29, 2009
Terrifying look at the ease with which a nuclear bomb could be smuggled into the United States. The reality of this book makes it hard to sleep at night.
Read
December 11, 2010Author makes good points on our ability to prevent this unthinkable catastrophe.
August 27, 2017
Excellent overview of the major challenges the world faces in this arena.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews