In June 2005, Senator Richard Lugar released the findings of a survey he commissioned of nonproliferation experts. Eighty-five of us responded. Here are some of our pessimistic findings:
Question 1: In your estimate, how many nations that do not currently possess a working nuclear weapon will be added to the nuclear weapons club during the next 5 years?
More than 78% of respondents agreed that one or two new nations would acquire nuclear weapons during the next five years. More than 89% agreed that between one and three new nuclear nations would emerge during this period.
Question 4: In your opinion, what is the probability (expressed as a percentage) of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 5 years?
Almost 60 percent of respondents judged the risk of a nuclear attack during the next five years to be at least 10%. Almost a third of respondents thought the risk was 20% or more. Nine experts thought the risk was at least 50%.
Question 9: In your opinion, what is the probability (expressed as a percentage) of a major biological terrorist attack that inflicts numerous fatalities in the next 5 years?
The group judged a major biological attack to be slightly more likely than a nuclear attack. More than half of respondents saw the risk of a biological attack in the next five years as between 10% and 30%. Three respondents thought the risk was zero, while three others saw the risk as above 75%.
Question 11: In your opinion, what is the probability of a major chemical weapons terrorist attack that inflicts numerous fatalities in the next 5 years?
The risk of a major chemical attack was judged to be similar to the risk of a biological attack over the same period. As with a biological attack, about half of respondents estimated the risk of a deadly chemical attack over the next five years to be between 10% and 30%.
Question 13: In your opinion, what is the probability of a terrorist attack using a radiological dispersal device (dirty bomb) that affects a major portion of a city during the next 5 years?
In general, respondents judged the probability of a major radiological attack over the next five years to be greater than the probability of a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack over the same time period. The average and median responses (27.1% and 25%) were higher for a radiological attack than for the other three types of WMD attack. Even within the limited time span of five years, 82% said that there was at least a 10% chance of a radiological attack that affects a major portion of a city.
It has been four years since this survey was released, and we have somehow managed to avoid worst cases. I am lousy at statistics, but it would appear that, for the five-year estimates provided to Senator Lugar to have validity, 2010 will be a very gruesome year.
Truly bad news could happen tomorrow, but many yesterdays have passed without major incident. What accounts for the prevalence of proliferation pessimism? Richard Betts has a simple, but persuasive answer:
Those interested in the question [are] those inclined to be worried about it.