"There is a significant danger that the black market will put Pakistani nukes ... in terrorist hands."Pakistan's nuclear program poses two serious threats to global security, argues Graham Allison in the following viewpoint. First, he asserts, terrorists could obtain Pakistan's nuclear weapons. In fact, Allison claims, intelligence reveals that officials of Pakistan's atomic-energy program have met with terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Second, the tenuous leadership of the current Pakistani regime leaves open the possibility that Islamic factions in Pakistan will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, is author of Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe.As you read, consider the following questions:According to Allison, what was Pakistan's response to the story that the founder of its nuclear-weapons program has sold nuclear technology on the black market?What has Pakistan done to prevent India from destroying its nuclear arsenal, in the author's opinion?Who might be the unlikely savior of the nuclear dilemma in Pakistan, in the author's view? Not since the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 have I been as frightened by a single news story as I was by the revelation [in 2003] that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the founder of Pakistan's nuclear-weapons program, had been selling nuclear technology and services on the black market. The story began to break ... after U.S. and British intelligence operatives intercepted a shipment of parts for centrifuges (which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs as well as fuel) on its way from Dubai to Libya. The centrifuges turned out to have been designed by Khan, and before long investigators had uncovered what the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has called a "Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation"—a decades-old illicit market in nuclear materials, designs, technologies, and consulting services, all run out of Pakistan. The Pakistani government's response to the scandal was not reassuring. Khan made a four-minute televised speech on February 4 [2004] asserting that "there was never any kind of authorization for these activities by the government." He took full responsibility for his actions and asked for a pardon, which was immediately granted by President Pervez Musharraf, who essentially buried the affair.... Pakistan's official position remains that no member of Musharraf's government had any concrete knowledge of the illicit transfer—an assertion that U.S. intelligence officials in Pakistan and elsewhere dismiss as absurd. Meanwhile, Pakistani investigators have reportedly questioned a grand total of eleven people from among the country's 6,000 nuclear scientists and 45,000 nuclear workers, and have refused to allow either the United States or the IAEA access to Khan for questioning. Two Main Threats Pakistan's nuclear complex poses two main threats. The first—highlighted by Khan's black-market network—is that nuclear weapons, know-how, or materials will find their way into the hands of terrorists. For instance, we have learned that in August of 2001, even as the final planning for [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,] was under way, [terrorist leader] Osama bin Laden received two former officials of Pakistan's atomic-energy program—Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Abdul Majid—at a secret compound near Kabul. Over the course of three days of intense conversation bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, grilled Mahmood and Majid about how to make weapons of mass destruction. After Mahmood and Majid were arrested, on October 23, 2001, Mahmood told Pakistani interrogation teams, working in concert with the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], that Osama bin Laden had expressed a keen interest in nuclear weapons and had sought the scientists' help in recruiting other Pakistani nuclear experts who could provide expertise in the mechanics of bomb-making. CIA Director George Tenet found the report of Mahmood and Majid's meeting with bin Laden so disturbing that he flew directly to Islamabad to confront President Musharraf.

In an age of "frighteningly normal" and mundanely average political leaders who conscientiously do their jobs, we must understand that the distinction between right and wrong, between evil and good, too often becomes a matter of perspective, of political expediency or "national security." To paraphrase Bosmajian: Euphemistic terms by making tolerable the intolerable, and justifiable the unjustifiable, also make manifest an ugly truth about human nature—humans are gullible folk whom the unscrupulous manipulate happily. In the name of national security, our leaders justify "pre-emptive strikes" upon, and "regime change" in whichever country they deem "evil" or part of the "axis of evil." Now, humanity faces a new threat: The use of a weapon of mass destruction in response to the use of any other type of weapon of mass destruction: chemical, biological or nuclear. But this time, the enemy isn't the USSR. Wish it were that simple and predictable. This time, the enemy can be anyone who harbours terrorists, anyone who threatens the security of the United States or any of its allies. As we have witnessed in Iraq, even with the slimmest evidence, or no evidence at all, [U.S. president George W.] Bush will attack. Now that we have witnessed the flagrant violation of UN [United Nations] principles by the United States, citizens everywhere must demand that nuclear weapons use be banned. That any world leader who uses any type of nuclear device as a weapon be charged with a crime against humanity and be brought to justice before the World Court. Must one ask if the use of nuclear weapons or any other weapon is a "crime against humanity?" Terrorism has been defined as a crime against humanity. Death by stoning has been called a crime against humanity. Rape, abortion, electro-convulsive shock, and the slave trade have been defined as crimes against humanity. Using weapons of mass destruction should certainly be added to this list. But has any nation or international body clearly defined any use of nuclear weapons as a crime against humanity?

There are reports of a US program to design a new generation of sturdier, more reliable nuclear weapons. Do you think that technological advancements of, for instance, tactical nuclear weapons, could spawn a new arms race?In 1997, the Clinton Administration deployed a modified nuclear bomb, the B61-11, with increased capability to penetrate subterranean bunkers. This shows that the United States has already done this sort of modification of existing nuclear weapon types, and what the Bush Administration has been pushing for is research and the eventual development of warheads modified to yield even more earth-penetrating capability. Although the US Congress decided in 2004 to not fund further research on a so-called "robust nuclear earthpenetrator," the Bush Administration has recently again sought funding for the research. The claim is that the project is just research, and that the decision about development, meaning engineering for mass-production and deployment, would be made later.Limited funding has been available for "advanced concepts" research, which was pushed in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review of the Department of Defense signed by secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But last year Congress deemed it imprudent, funding instead a "reliable replacement warhead" program. What this would consist of would probably be modifications of existing weapons types, or possibly new designs. New or modified warheads would supposedly be more "robust," meaning they would last longer and there would be less concern about their reliability. Research on "replacement warheads" raises three main concerns. First, it manifests an intention to maintain large, modernized nuclear forces for decades to come, despite the NPT obligation of reduction and elimination of nuclear arsenals. Second, while the weapons designers may say that modified or new warheads need not be tested, the Department of Defense may insist on testing prior to deployment. Third, while the focus of research may be "robustness," enhancement of military capabilities is not foreclosed.

Nuclear weapons are destructive devices that derive their power from nuclear reactions. The term weapon refers to devices such as bombs and warheads designed to deliver explosive power against an enemy. The two types of nuclear reactions used in nuclear weapons are nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. In nuclear fission, large nuclei are broken apart by neutrons, forming smaller nuclei, accompanied by the release of large amounts of energy. In nuclear fusion, small nuclei are combined with each other, again with the release of large amounts of energy. Fission weapons