Budget cuts could increase risk of nuke terror attack

Last April, President Obama hosted an unprecedented Washington gathering of representatives from 47 nations, to discuss what he described as "the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term"--the prospect of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear weapon.

But less than a year later, proposed budget cuts could badly hamper America's ability to counter that threat. Nuclear-security experts are expressing alarm about the potential impact of steep cuts to the country's nuclear nonproliferation program--as well as intense frustration at what they see as the White House's failure so far to push back against the cuts. Critics say rolling back nonproliferation funding could undermine a cornerstone of Obama's foreign-policy agenda.

The budget passed last week by the House of Representatives cut total funding (pdf) for nuclear security programs by more than $600 million. Before any cuts are enacted, of course, the Senate and the Obama administration will weigh in. But specialists in nuclear security are blunt about how the House cuts would weaken this critical initiative.

"These cuts make it easier and more likely that a terrorist is going to acquire a nuclear weapon, and attack the United States," Jim Walsh, a nuclear proliferation expert at MIT's Security Studies Program, told The Lookout. The human and economic cost of such an attack, Walsh added, would be "off the charts." Experts say that if terrorists detonated a nuclear device in a high-density area like Times Square, the attack could ultimately kill hundreds of thousands of people and do tens of billions of dollars worth of damage.

Perhaps Obama's central policy achievement as a senator came when he teamed up with Sen. Dick Lugar, an Indiana Republican, to pass a bill that secured $48 million in funding for nonproliferation efforts. And as president, Obama used an April 2009 speech in Prague to lay out his vision for a nuclear-free world, boldly declaring that he aimed to secure all loose nuclear material around the world in four years.

Obama is far from alone in stressing the urgency of the issue. During a 2004 presidential debate, both candidates were asked what they viewed as the greatest threat to national security. "Nuclear terrorism," answered Sen. John Kerry. Said President Bush: "I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing the country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."

But the House budget would cut $97 million from programs to remove highly enriched uranium--which terrorists could use to build a nuclear device--from unsecured sites around the world. That would make Obama's four-year goal all but impossible, according to Walsh. "If we make these cuts, there's no way we're going to meet that goal," he said.

Alexandra Toma, a co-chair of the Fissile Materials Working Group, a coalition of nonproliferation organizations, said that one of those programs, run by the National Nuclear Security Administration, has secured enough nuclear material to make more than 120 weapons. "Cutting this program would mean we secure less material," Toma told The Lookout.

And Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, noted that Ukraine and Belarus--two former Soviet republics that are hotspots for unsecured nukes--recently agreed to voluntarily give up their bomb-grade uranium. But amazingly, because of funding constraints imposed by Congress--some of which pre-date last week's House budget--the United States can't yet take them up on the offer.

"So, nuclear material that countries are willing to give up is going to sit in those countries," Luongo told The Lookout, "because Congress is essentially playing politics with national security."

Beyond the issue of securing loose nukes, the proposed cuts also would hamper America's ability to stop a weapon from getting into the country--and to mitigate the damage in the event that terrorists carry out a successful attack. A program that conducts international inspections of shipping containers--the most likely way that terrorists could smuggle a bomb into the country--would lose $61 million. A separate program that detects efforts to import nuclear material into the United States would be stripped of $31 million. And a program to fund weapons-of-mass-destruction training for first responders would be cut by 51 percent, meaning that 46,000 first responders wouldn't be trained.

In short, experts say, the proposed cuts would jeopardize all three lines of defense--stopping nukes from getting into the wrong hands; detecting them before they get into the country; and limiting the cost of an attack.

After devoting so much past rhetoric to the issue of nuclear security, the Obama White House has so far offered little public push-back to the proposed cuts. And that's causing confusion and anger among those who worry about terrorists getting nukes--an endeavor that Osama bin Laden has called a "religious duty" for al-Qaeda.

"I have not seen Word One from the White House on the importance of this particular agenda item," Luongo said. "And I'm not sure I understand why that is."

"It's inconsistent with the president's objectives, it's inconsistent with the president's image, and it's inconsistent with U.S. national security," he added.

Toma agreed. "They stopped traffic for four days back in April," she said, referring to the Washington summit. "And yet they're not putting their money where their mouth is. I'm frankly very disappointed they haven't done more."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As damaging as the 9/11 attacks were, Toma said, the next terrorist incident could be far worse if nuclear security efforts are downsized. "God forbid 9/11 was with a nuclear weapon, and not three planes."

(President Barack Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, April 13, 2010: Susan Walsh/AP)