Nuke Terror: No Biggie?

Everyone from George Bush to Barack Obama is spooked about the idea of terrorists getting a nuclear bomb. "It’s the No. 1 security threat right now," says International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed El-Baradei.

But one of the country's best-known counterterrorism analysts says the nuclear risk isn't nearly as bad our leaders have made it out to be. "Al Qaeda has actual nuclear ambitions, there is no doubt about that," RAND Corporation's Brian Jenkins tells* National Journal*. But while "nuclear terrorism is a frightening possibility, [it] is not inevitable or imminent, and there is no logical progression from truck bombs to nuclear bombs."

In fact, Jenkins argues, overyhyping the nuclear threat actually plays into Osama's hands.

Terror is the use of violence to create an atmosphere of fear that causes people to exaggerate the strength of the terrorists, and they are very good at that. So in Al Qaeda's media jihad there is a recurrent theme of nuclear terrorism. They realize that if they put the words "terrorism" and "nuclear" in proximity to each other it creates added fear. It also excites their constituency, because nothing excites the powerless more than the idea of ultimate power...

Rather than telling Americans constantly to be very afraid, we should stress that even an event of nuclear terrorism will not bring this Republic to its knees.

Jenkins has been pooh-poohing the threat of nuclear terror since 1975, at least. Is he right? Maybe I've seen too many episodes of 24 -- or internalized too much political scare-talk. But unlike some other unconvential threats, the nuke risk, to me, is one that can't be taken too seriously.

UPDATE: Drew Conway flags a new article which takes Jenkins' thesis even further, arguing that maybe the whole transnational terror thing is no big deal.