Print Friendly, PDF & Email
In last Thursday’s presidential debate, Democratic contender John Kerry accused the Bush administration of doing too little to secure so-called loose nukes: nuclear weapons, materials and components that terrorists might be interested in buying or stealing from Russian sources.

As in other areas, he blithely promised to do better than the president — cutting the time required from 13 years to just four — without making clear how this would be accomplished.

Unfortunately, the problem is not simply one of American money or desires. There are several other factors at work that make securing Russia’s nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) problematic:

The Russian government continues to conceal the full extent and whereabouts of all of its WMD. Notwithstanding the openness (glasnost) former president Mikhail Gorbachev promised before the end of the Soviet Union and pledges by his Russian successors to permit greater transparency, even now only the Kremlin knows how much of its arsenal remains undeclared and hidden. We can’t secure covert biological and other weapons we don’t know about.

As long as Russia continues to produce more nuclear materials and weapons, American funds supplied to secure older ones can amount to little more than a subsidy for their replacements. At a minimum, money being fungible, Russia is freed from spending its own resources on what should be as much of a priority for it as for the rest of us: putting WMD beyond the reach of terrorists — be they Chechens or others.

American money spent on better sensors, locks, fences and the like to protect former Soviet WMD may be worse than wasted if those responsible are corrupt members of the KGB or mafia. Russian police officers have taken relatively small bribes to allow suicide bombers onto passenger planes. Our security assistance may simply enable their counterparts to enjoy a more certain monopoly, thereby commanding higher prices for betraying their duties.

As long as the Russian government and its personnel are an increasing problem — something Sen. Kerry seemed more inclined than President Bush to acknowledge last Thursday — giving them still more U.S. money for loose nukes may make us feel better, but not more secure.

Frank Gaffney, Jr.
Latest posts by Frank Gaffney, Jr. (see all)

Please Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *