Levi's Argument Against Nuclear Terrorism

In his concise take on the subject, Council of Foreign Relations Senior Energy Fellow Michael Levi develops various policy strategies and methodologies to combat the idea of nuclear terrorism. Above all, Levi argues that the policy of the United States against nuclear terrorism should be one of proactive defense measures. He contends that control over the supply of nuclear materials will severely limit the abilities of terrorists to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. Moreover, Levi posits that the US’ approach to counter-proliferation should always be multifaceted. For example, Levi thinks that efforts to stifle terrorist funding would prove useful as these groups would not be able to buy nuclear material without large sums of money and the odds that a terrorist group could steal nuclear material are slim.
Broadly, he argues that the US needs to step back and assess how well its counter-proliferation programs are running both individually and as a whole. He equates this methodology to that of a baseball manager studying how well his team plays together. The manager can assess how individual players play together in dyads or many different combinations. Moreover, a manager can examine …show more content…
Many nuclear scholars and political scientists contend that states would rarely if ever give up or sell their nuclear materials, but this argument only operates on the national level. Using the example of A.Q. Khan, Levi argues that subnational actors do not always have the same limitations and interests as national actors. Regardless of how robust the worlds nuclear control systems might be, the risk that nuclear materials will get into the hands of terrorist groups will always exist, which is is why the US’ best chance of countering nuclear terrorism is to ensure that government entities are sharing information and working together in a multifaceted fashion to disrupt terrorist