Nukes, Terrorists and Rogue States - A Measured Response

When the Cold War ended we all breathed a sigh of relief.  For the first time in more than forty years mankind no longer faced global nuclear destruction.  Surely we could now look at moving forward, living together peacefully under the new world order?  Alas, life is never that simple.  As the threat of mutual self-destruction receded, the prospect of rogue states or -even worse – terrorist organisations acquiring nuclear weapons increased. 

It is fair to say that for any terrorist organisation, being in possession of a nuclear weapon would constitute their holy grail and its use would be assured.  During the Cold War, military leaders would consider the nuclear option - pre-emptive or retaliatory – as part of their tactical thinking but this is becoming less so as the fall of communism fades further into the past.  Terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda, however,  have in the past and will continue to use weapons capable of causing huge destruction and if this option becomes available to them, it will surely be used.

A recent article in the Journal of Military Ethics by John Mark Mattox - Nuclear Terrorism: The 'Other' Extreme of Nuclear Warfare- raised, among other things, questions about reacting to a terrorist nuclear attack.  Over the next two posts I wish to examine what Mattox writes about, consider his ideas and discuss similar scenarios. 

Assuming a terrorist organisation managed to acquire a nuclear warhead with a missile launched capability and that they successfully used it, would the host nation be complicit? - Palestinian terrorists striking Israel from Syrian territory for example.  Would then an Israeli response, matching like for like and thus ensuring the death of thousands of innocent Syrians, be considered acceptable?  The result could be to vilify the Israelis, even though the Palestinians were the aggressors.  Suddenly it is they and not the terrorists who have to answer questions about the violation of human rights.

Moving away from terrorist groups and on to state sponsored aggression, let me put another scenario forward; if – say - North Korea launched a nuclear strike against their South Korean neighbours, would a US retaliatory nuclear strike be acceptable?  This question is more applicable when a belligerent regime is deeply unpopular within its own boundaries.  Again, the question of human rights violations comes to the fore.  Should the population of a country ruled by a brutal dictatorship be answerable for an act of aggression carried out by the tiny ruling elite?  Are their human rights violated if a retaliatory nuclear strike takes place? 

To complicate matters however, if a lesser response happens – targeted conventional missile hits for example – could that not encourage terrorists or rogue states to launch further attacks knowing that a like for like retaliation is unlikely to happen?  And if so, does this underwhelming reprisal indirectly violate the human rights of the nuclear victims?

Over the next few weeks I intend to publish further posts to discuss the two scenarios I’ve raised in more detail and I aim to examine what human rights protection the innocent victims from both sides can expect.  The probable result is that more questions will arise rather than answers are found.

Kevin