24 or the Real World? The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Posted by Tara Foley
January 16, 2008
Terrorism Response Exercise in Seattle

What do Senator Hillary Clinton, President George Bush, and the Pope have in common? (A bit of a brain teaser, that one, I know.) Answer: They're all very concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Last week, at the Democratic primary debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, the very first question posed by moderator Charles Gibson was about the threat of nuclear terrorism. Confronted with a hypothetical scenario of a nuclear-equipped al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton said, "I think it's important... because obviously that's the most direct threat to the United States." She then went on to describe five steps she would take in that scenario.

Days later, Pope Benedict gave his annual "state of the world" address in Vatican City. He called on world leaders to strengthen their joint efforts to "prevent terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction."

For his part, President Bush says that, "The greatest threat we face today is the possibility of a secret and sudden attack with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons."

Across the board, the State Department, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, Congress, the White House, and many others are working to prevent terrorists from acquiring and using nuclear weapons and materials, and to plan how to respond to a nuclear terrorist attack if one were to occur.

For some people, though, the threat of nuclear terrorism belongs more in the plot line of a Jack Bauer escapade on the television drama 24 than on the priority lists of presidents and popes. Still, many people are aware of and concerned about the threat.

A recent public opinion survey by the Saga foundation found that 62% of Americans are concerned about the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while 38% are not concerned. The same survey found that 49% of Americans think Al-Qaeda poses a greater nuclear threat to the United States than another country armed with nuclear weapons.

I wonder where DipNote readers fall on this question:

Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism? Why or why not?

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts!

(Note: I had a lot of fun blogging about my experiences in Saudi Arabia last year. As I continue to reflect on my time in Riyadh, I'm sure I'll have more posts about Saudi in the future. But I'm also going to start sharing some of my experiences with my current position with the Office of WMD Terrorism here in Washington. I'm looking forward to continue engaging on both topics – keep those comments coming!)

Comments

Comments

Shawn
January 16, 2008

Shawn writes:

The threat of nuclear terrorism is certainly plausible and would certainly prove to be catastrophic. However, in a free society (if we're to remain a free society) there is only so much we can realistically do.

It seems to me that we're spending a large amount of our time formulating policy based on fighting the symptoms of terrorism rather than the causes. This is a losing battle. We may get very good at stopping individual terrorist cells from carrying out attacks but, even as the President himself has stated, they only need to get it right once, we need to get it right every time. This is a bad bet.

So, while we certainly need to remain vigilant against immediate threats, why are we not, instead, discussing, "Why would anyone want to detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States?**" This is certainly a harder problem to solve and could take years to address, but our chances of success are much greater than trying to stop every lunatic with ill intent.

** I'll give you a hint... It's not because they "hate us for our freedom".

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
January 16, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

If anything, I worry about the plausibility of it happening on a smaller scale involving Israel more than anything else, which would lead to a larger scale war.

The repeated open threats by Iran both politically and religiously are and should be taken seriously by this administration. Even if peace were possible with Palestine including the Gaza strip, Iran leaves no open door and continues to be offensive in all talks. Iran only verbally is giving ground, while incorporating more defensive support from Russia. This puts them where they were two years ago offensively.

With Russia taking back many human rights within their country and taking over most Industrial and Energy concerns as well a free press, all alliances of Russia should be circumspect. Why is the fact that over 3,000 centrifuges is not problematic if Russia aids or sells the enriched U to them? It's not a downgrading of threat, only an increase in actuality.

On our soil, there is always that possibility if anyone actually wanted an end game; but, the fall out in destroying America's farm land alone would make a large scale attack not probable by any major power as that is our major resource. We still continue to out produce and feed the world.

The same ideology is the major problem with feasibility of large scale nuclear war in the Middle East. The world is a giant Economic base which runs on energy. The #1 Energy source is still oil and the oil sources would be useless after such a war ...unless you believe Chavez would start one there to make his oil worth more for leverage... LOL. I mean what could you think a person is capable of who meets with the FARC one week and the next people are kidnapped by them while Chavez acts as the negotiator. While this example seem lunacy, it does cast light on the major problem, that some low level world leader with the mentality of a Mercenary or fanatical Religious leader would use a WMD without forethought.

On a small scale in the U.S.A., I believe that it is already in place. To believe otherwise would be blissful ignorance. We have been through this before and know what Russia has done, or claimed to in the past and now know what the rest of the world is capable of.

It's not a manifested paranoia, it is premised on history and the level of leadership outside the U.S.A. who may or already have WMDs.

Dan
|
District Of Columbia, USA
January 16, 2008

Dan in Washington, DC writes:

Tara -- I am highly concerned about this issue, as it is an extremely serious threat. Terrorists, like those that executed the 9/11 attack, would seemingly not think twice about using any type of attack they could carry out, including a nuclear one. I understand that executing such a nuclear attack would not be a simple, easy thing to do, but by no means does this difficulty suggest that such an attack is impossible. Indeed, many have said that such an attack is quite possible.

In this regard, here are some interesting excerpts from a speech that late Senator / Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave which address in part this issue of terrorists and nuclear attacks ... (this is taken from an address Moynihan made to the graduating class of Harvard University in 2002 ... the entire speech is found at

http://www.commencement.harvard.edu/2002/moynihan.html

Begin quotes from Moynihan:

The terrorist attacks on the United States of last September 11 were not nuclear, but they will be. Again to cite Huntington, "At some point, a few terrorists will be able to produce massive violence and massive destruction. Separately, terrorism and nuclear weapons are the weapons of the non-Western weak. If and when they are combined, the non-Western weak will be strong."

This was written in 1996. The first mass murder by terrorists (on 9/11) came last September. Just last month the vice president informed Tim Russert that "the prospects of a future attack are almost certain. Not a matter of if, but when." Secretary Rumsfeld has added that the attack will be nuclear.

We are indeed at war and we must act accordingly, with equal measures of audacity and precaution. ...

Reason and careful moral reflection teach us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it.

But there is more. Forty-seven years ago, on this occasion (Harvard's graduation ceremony), General George C. Marshall summoned our nation to restore the countries whose mad regimes had brought the world such horror. It was an act of statesmanship and vision without equal in history. History summons us once more in different ways, but with even greater urgency. Civilization need not die. At this moment, only the United States can save it. As we fight the war against evil, we must also wage peace, guided by the lesson of the Marshall Plan -- vision and generosity can help make the world a safer place.

End quotes from Moynihan.

Ginny
|
Ohio, USA
January 16, 2008

Ginny in Ohio writes:

I lived in Iran when the first Americans were killed there in the 70s, and I found that the best way to deal with the ever present threat was to be reasonably careful - lock the doors and look both ways before crossing the street, and other than that to not think about it. It can be paralyzing if you dwell on things you can't do anything about.

Ronald
|
New York, USA
January 17, 2008

Ronald in New York writes:

Absolutely concerned about the threat of nuclear terrorism:

I have lived my whole life with the specter of nuclear disaster in the background. Bomb-tests, cold-war, Cuban missile crisis, loose-nukes, suitcase bombs, accidental detonations and deliveries... The U.S.A. has created these nightmares by establishing nuclear weapons as the gold standard for human security ...now, nukes are free-floating in the FSU, CAR, and moving in our direction in the hands of global criminals and terrorists ...it is, unfortunately the next link on the geopolitical chain.

P.S.: so glad you had "fun blogging about...Saudi Arabia."

Ralph
|
Greece
January 17, 2008

Ralph in Greece writes:

Since you mentioned "24", then I would say that one way to help with the WAR on Terror & terror attacks is to allow the fine agents of the FBI, CIA, DoD, NSA, etc to do their jobs.

If our federal agents are allowed to do their jobs without worrying about getting in trouble for tickling terrorists, then maybe they can focus on catching the bad guys instead of watching their backs.

I only wish our agents were able to do some of the stuff that Jack Bauer of "24" does. I believe that like Jack Bauer in the fictional "24" series, our Federal agents have our (USA) national interests & safety first and foremost at heart.

I certainly believe federal agents to be more trustworthy than the agenda toting journalists trying to discredit them.

Phil
|
Illinois, USA
January 17, 2008

Phil in Illinois writes:

It's good that you're asking this question because it's not asked enough. The answer is yes, I am concerned--nuclear terrorism is the gravest threat to U.S. national security. First, it wouldn't be that hard for terrorists to build a device considering the ease of acquiring fissile nuclear material on the black market, sympathies in Pakistan for Islamic militants and the ease of acquiring the knowledge necessary to detonate it. Second, we don't have any credible deterrence options against a scattered terrorist organization that openly seeks martyrdom. I also wouldn't put any stock in moral outrage or the nuclear taboo as a sufficient deterrent. Third, nuclear terrorism makes strategic sense from Al Qaeda's point of view since it would sow sufficient panic that either a) we would lash out in another unwise and costly war b) we and foreigners would lose all confidence in investing in the future of the U.S. economy or c) we would give in to their (now seemingly low cost) demands. Fourth, our 'last line of defense'--port security--is pretty porous, even with radiation detectors. We have a pathetic record of keeping contraband out of the country. I am really pessimistic on this issue, I know, but I feel that it's probably safer than being optimistic. I'm curious to know what others think.

Rachel
|
Texas, USA
January 17, 2008

Rachel in Texas writes:

The threat of nuclear terrorism is a very real and present danger.

With North Korea, Pakistan and Iran possessing the capabilities of building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal, the power no longer lies solely with the signers of the NPT. Furthermore, the Cold War policy of MAD doesn't seem to apply as a deterrent any longer. Especially if we don't know how to retaliate on a target that networks through any number of countries.

Really, I'm not certain I see a "Sum of All Fears" scenario. Despite the fact that most Americans do not consider the security measures taken at our ports of entry, the reality is that if someone wanted to smuggle a bomb of sorts into the U.S., they likely would have done so already.

The situation that worries, me though, is that I can see an attack on a country like Italy, the U.K., Israel, or Kuwait and we, the United States, are helpless to respond. Once that occurs, what happens to the balance of world leadership? Britain isn't in a situation to lead, neither is France or Germany. We'd be left with a geopolitical power vacuum that would have to be filled.

The distinguishing characteristic of American foreign policy has been that even though we were offered the chance of an empire on numerous occasions, we declined. How can we be sure that another country would do the same?

It's in America's best interest, and in the best interest of the world in general, that America maintain her position at the top of the world hierarchy. The only way to do that is keep a tight lid on nuclear proliferation.

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
January 18, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

Not to enforce insecurity, but this week Russia produced another TU-160 Blackjack Bomber. It's an upgraded version of the past ones and much like our B1. It provides a 12,000 km flying range, night refueling being practice has been reinstituted and though no match for our new bombers, it carries an extensive payload with specialized new micro nuclear missiles and bombs. We both have about 100 long range bombers, but Russia is continuing more production on this line...for what reason? They have money now, work beyond their population base, energy, gold, 70% of all large scale Steel and Aluminum manufacturing, proximity to natural resources....and an arsenal which could cause world annihilation already. What is the purpose?

India is on the same path...Why? China is on the same path, Japan wants to produce more military hardware.

It has to end somewhere, sometime. How and when are the only questions at this juncture of history?

Democratic States and Countries seem to be the best solution. Does anyone have a better idea?

Ronald
|
New York, USA
January 22, 2008

Ronald in New York writes:

Nuclear Terrorism: In the 1990's, I made a few trips to Russia and heard about unsecured nuclear facilities; and the movement of nuclear materials on the black market. Money was very scarce, descent jobs in the soviet science industries were gone, and there was a rise in organized crime and terrorist groups (Chechens, Taliban). Very little has been done to address these issues, and the opportunities for nuclear smuggling has become greater than ever. Why do we wait, when we know the facts?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 22, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Oh my, Tara...if you are inviting the public to write the script..."we the people" and all concerned would most probably be in favor of seeing a WMD-free world no later than July 2045, which would mark 100 years since the first nuclear device was detonated on this planet.

Personally, I think it's do-able and a reasonable target date if we are witness to a fundamental shift in mindset now, and one far beyond those realizations come to as a result of 9/11. Building on the raw gut instinct for self preservation inherent of the human species.

The intent of the NPT has not fully been met by nations. Trust issues remain like echoes of the cold war in a dense fog of vetted ambiguity, perceptions of intent, along with failure to comply.

However,

We have an opportunity to preserve this currently existing momentum of international cooperation in non proliferation, counter terrorism that as it is reflected in this country's long term security and the world's in standing up against those that commit crimes against humanity; Our commitment to this is only going to be fully manifest by the replacement of the ABM treaty with one that builds on the progress made, and prevents the militarizing of space. Without this as a goal, it's like quitting a job with none to go to.

All in all, nuclear war is in my mind the ultimate terrorist act. Terrorists just about started one between India and Pakistan in 2002 (hat tip to folks at State for "stopping the car in time"), but few seem to grasp the fact that a terrorist like Bin Laden knows how to play a situation for all it's worth, and will use any and all weapons at his disposal, including old animosities among nations.

As a citizen who knows the history involved, coming from a reliable source, if you will, when I consider the overall international failures to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and associated technology, and the current situation, putting the genie back in the bottle requires a miracle, you cannot un-invent something. From a cold standpoint of probability, nuclear weapons will eventually be used at some point unless the current world situation changes drastically for the better.

Ok, so we need a dramatic ending to this sitcom. We have lived so long with the reality of imminent destruction that we've become numb to it in ways that are as dysfunctional as the "Simpsons".

One cannot simultaneously plan for the "American dream", and prepare for Armageddon. Thus we need to have a proper attitude to approach the solution with, and conclude the episode so to speak.

Picture this:

All the nations of the world have simultaneously duck-taped all the pissed off preachers of the world to all the nuclear missiles of the world and have themselves one heck of a fireworks display on the Moon for New Years next year with the world as witness.

I mean it seriously, this would be the best public diplomacy stunt ever. Folks would be talking about it for centuries.

Thanks for your consideration in this grave matter. For with these thoughts put forward (as they be a radical departure from any plan, or policy I have seen offered up...); I hope they serve to broaden the possibilities and inspire debate, and resolution of these issues.

Arthur
|
Greece
January 22, 2008

Arthur in Greece writes:

I will answer to that question why

The U.S. military budget is 200 times more than Russian armies...

The TU -160 is nothing in comparison what the U.S. is producing...

I would give to JOE the same question why?

In case if the U.S. has more than 10.000 nuke warheads why it is producing more???

Recently I was watching documentary about the Russian submarines...After the "Perestroika" The U.S. Navy became so powerful that Russia could not even resist to the U.S. "invasion".

In back to 1990 the equipment was old and deteriorated... The Russian Navy was in brake of catastrophe... the Nuclear submarines just left to catch rust...Because Gorbachev was interested in closing the military manufacturing rather than producing submarines... redesigned one of the best submarine factories to kitchen utensils producer... It was the result of Regan Gorbachev notorious treaty about the friendship and cooperation.

But what happened in the reality was that the U.S. submarines were coming closer to the Russia's borders and even worse getting deep down to the Russia's territorial waters because Americans knew that there is no fleet that can resist.

Russian military representatives where telling that we could see on radars the U.S. submarines but we were unable to do anything.

But now everything is different because Russia is doing well in economy and can afford to produce not a quantity but high quality 4th generation nuclear submarines that are even better than American analogues...

And you see as a result no American submarines are crossing the Russian borders anymore...

Regards.

Arthur
|
Greece
January 22, 2008

Arthur in Greece writes:

I will answer to that question why

The U.S. military budget is 200 times more than Russian armies...

The TU -160 is nothing in comparison what the U.S. is producing...

I would give to JOE the same question why?

In case if the U.S. has more than 10.000 nuke warheads why it is producing more???

Recently I was watching documentary about the Russian submarines...After the "Perestroika" The U.S. Navy became so powerful that Russia could not even resist to the U.S. "invasion".

In back to 1990 the equipment was old and deteriorated... The Russian Navy was in brake of catastrophe... the Nuclear submarines just left to catch rust...Because Gorbachev was interested in closing the military manufacturing rather than producing submarines... redesigned one of the best submarine factories to kitchen utensils producer... It was the result of Regan Gorbachev notorious treaty about the friendship and cooperation.

But what happened in the reality was that the U.S. submarines were coming closer to the Russia's borders and even worse getting deep down to the Russia's territorial waters because Americans knew that there is no fleet that can resist.

Russian military representatives where telling that we could see on radars the U.S. submarines but we were unable to do anything.

But now everything is different because Russia is doing well in economy and can afford to produce not a quantity but high quality 4th generation nuclear submarines that are even better than American analogues...

And you see as a result no American submarines are crossing the Russian borders anymore...

Regards.

Arthur
|
Greece
January 22, 2008

Arthur in Greece writes:

:)))

JOE
|
Tennessee, USA
January 28, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

Your timeframe referencing is incorrect for premises.

You are using a communist era as an example, so unless you do not believe in democracy, why would you not feel Russia a military threat? From the 1960's they openly admitted a desire to overthrow us. Their attempt both in house, which means within our boarders, and outside to destabilize any democratic union makes them an active enemy, not passive. I don't believe you have studied the historical lines of statistical threat against the U.S.. From the list of internal violations of National Security to their covert operations to destabilize third world democratic countries is well documented. So the question is: Do you believe in a Democracy, Socialism or Communism/Marxism? You need to state a side first.

You are incorrect in assuming Russia was broke to begin with. No one knew how much Russia had in Gold reserves and why would you believe the statistics almost a decade latter? They were and still are holding the fourth largest gold reserves in the world, had oil even in the last oil crisis, have vast natural mining resources from steel to uranium and in three days devalued the U.S. dollar with one Wheat Futures deal back in the 70s. They were the reason we went off the gold standard. The fact they did not give back to their people or simply stopped wasting money on military hardware does not mean they were broke by a long stretch.

Deception is the Devils best weapon. They took the U.S. for over 16 billion when the wall went down, sucked in our technology and are now promoting war and economic conflict worldwide again. They have even bought back over 70% of all past private banking, energy and media resources. So, there is an evolution back, so to speak, of Putin's KGB days. Which means what?

Since those old days of the Great Game, China is a new comer in offensive military might in trying to dispose the U.S.. There are more fanatical leaders who have access to WMD as we write now?

Like it or not the United States of America does represent Democracy at its best. Even with all our faults, mistakes, varied cultures, good and bad leadership legislation, who is better off in the world? We are the only Governmental Democratic system which still adheres to protecting the citizen, the foundation of democracy. It can adjust because of our framework of separation of powers, which does not exist anywhere else and that State must stay supreme to exist today.

It is sad that the situation exist as it does today, but military deterrents are always absolute.

The saddest part of it all is: Nothing has changed and we are being pushed by the pursuit of existence to either have one world with independent democratic nations or a finial conflict...so it seems.

On a personal level the decision comes back to: What type of government do you want to live under and how far would you go to protect it.

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
January 28, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

I answered this last week....

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
January 29, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Dear Tara,

On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President, I wrote,

"This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons."

I wonder if he had a chance to read it. "Inside Box 1663" may still be in the White house library for those interested in whether or not I speak the truth.

Took a decade and 9/11 for folks to wake up, and I hope not too late, now that everyone seems to be quoting me.

With no ego do I say this, but with a sense of sadness and disappointment that I was not able to successfully drive the point home and park it in the global mindset long ago.

As a member of one of America's first nuclear families, these subjects are unavoidably personal, my granddad did his job during a time of war, and helped end it. Family duty being what it is, I must follow through today.

In some ways, thinking about the subject can make one crazy, and it's true enough that a normal existence cannot be lived with the possibility at the forefront of daily conscious thought.

( which in my case may have given rise to a sense of humor that can find a use for duct-tape that not even John Ashcroft and the entire Dept of Homeland Security could have envisioned in their wildest counterterrorism scenarios. -see previous post-)

The only way to uninvent something is ban it, including eliminating all knowledge associated, and isolating those with that knowledge from being able to teach future generations how to construct a device.

One must not only ensure the political will of nations to do so, but the popular will of people globally. Getting the hardware and material off planet is simple by comparison, and that's what it would take to make sure it wasn't accessed at some future date.

It will take a generation or more for the knowledge to die with those that know how to build them presently, yet therein lies another hurdle.

Having been institutionalized into the military industrial complex of several nations, there lies an economic aspect involved in maintaining nuclear arsenals that defies a more logical way of putting the money to work getting rid of them for the good of all, once and for all. I believe only by tragic example will mankind ever find the incentive, cynical as that may sound.

And for all the danger associated, there are worse things than nukes. Folks in Los Alamos do disease outbreak simulations on anthrax and smallpox, but not on something like a Crimean-Congo fever/Ebola cocktail that's been weaponized. I'm sure the reason why is as obvious to you as it is to me, but for those living in ignorant bliss, it's not studied simply because the end result once "in population," is all too predictable. The virtual extinction of humankind.

WMD in the hands of terrorists kind of makes global climate change look like a nat's bite on an elephant's backside in threat comparison.

Arthur
|
Georgia, USA
January 30, 2008

Arthur in Greece writes:

@ Joe in Tennessee -- I believe in Democracy and share the Values ...but it doesn't really means that one who believe in Democracy have to be an anti-Russian too.

Russia is a new democratic country. Maybe not perfect however the country choose the right way of the system and the progress is obvious. From the ashes it is gaining back the power again.

If you would see the current Russian policy there is nothing to do with what it used to be during the Soviet Era.

The national goals are totally different that it was used to be. Now they are struggling for prosperity. It is even unfair to have the biggest natural resources of the world and to have people who live in poverty. Russia is going to be one of the biggest powers in the next twenty years. And all is because of the Democratic system.

This fact is not welcomed from some couturiers (like the U.S., England etc.) because they afraid that Russia can misuse that power in order to increase the influence on International arena. For that reason you can see an increasing anti-Russian propaganda again.

However, what Russians do they just want to increase the living standard of the country. Make more prosperous and powerful. By occupying a foreign country and waging wars for whatever reason you wont achieve it, they learn it from the history very well in contrast of Americans. And the reason is simple: money like stability. You can see the situation in Iraq... is the US gain prosperity by occupying that country?

In 1960 Soviet Union and the US were in confrontation called Cold War. Both sides where using something which is called War Propaganda. The Mass Media is very powerful and effective weapon than any kind of armors or missiles. Both sides used a technique which is called "Brain Washing". Because it is always easy to blame for any vice (even your personal failures) to your "enemy". And this part (psychological) of human nature was manipulated from both sides with "high efficiency".

Back to that time there was no Internet invented otherwise I am sure the people of the Soviet Union and United States could overcome fears of the Mechanism of Propaganda and differentiate between TRUE and FALSE. All in all we are just human beings (no matter under what rule we live) and everybody want to live in Peace.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
February 5, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I agree with you Arthur, the whole point in advocating democracy (in all it's various forms as systems of governance), is to lift people up, not keep them down.

On the whole however, humanity suffers the echoes of a mindset that helped create a situation where one may call themselves civilized, while governments make it possible to exterminate the species, via biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry.

It becomes an issue of trust. Is an emerging, or even existing government, stability and sanity become essential.
To prevent non-state entities from using WMD, if nothing else.

It's probably fair to point out that Russia has some 12 time zones, and is as diverse in population as the US. As a nation, Russia has some good basic things going, including the means to support its people with its resources.

In the past, Russia has had government that has not allocated resources to the best interests of the people, and my own gov. has been guilty of same.

And if anyone can tell me that the end of civilization is in anyone's best interest, then perhaps a rational explanation will be offered as to why we believe having these weapons some how makes us safe.

"Safe" must be a relative concept.

I try to see a silver lining in how humanity has by a thin probability, managed NOT to blow ourselves to oblivion simply by accident, up till now.

Whereas today, some would seek to do so by design.

Lends impetus to solve the biggest paradox of all, and it be all nation's task to arrive at a mindset we ( humanity that is ), can live with.

Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and all that other good stuff.

The end of terrorism and the end of a certain dysfuntionality among the family of nations will come hand in hand I believe, but it requires realization.

When battleships give way to sailboats, how does the world realize its true self?

.

Latest Stories

July 27, 2009

Seizure of Power in Niger

Feb. 19, 2010: Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs William Fitzgerald comments on the situation following the overthrow of President… more
July 27, 2009

Foreign Policy Priorities

Feb. 24, 2010: Secretary Clinton testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY2011 International Affairs Budget. more

Pages