The Lugar Survey On Proliferation Threats and Responses JUNE 2005

Richard G. Lugar, United States Senator for Indiana

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

According to the experts throughout the world surveyed, the odds of some type of WMD attack occurring in the continental United States during the next decade are extremely high. Because the risks of each individual type of WMD attack are not statistically independent, one cannot calculate the risk of a WMD attack by just compounding through mathematical formula the median or average percentages for a nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attack. But the survey responses suggest that the estimated combined risk of a WMD attack over five years is as high as 50%. Over ten years this risk expands to as much as 70%.

There was broad agreement within the group that nuclear weapons will proliferate to new countries in the coming years. Estimates of how many countries would be added to the nuclear club over the next five and ten years were extremely consistent. Large majorities judged that one to two new nuclear nations would be added during the next five years and that two to five would be added during the next ten years. Answers diverged somewhat when the group was asked to estimate how many new nuclear states would emerge over 20 years, but almost three-quarters estimated a number between four and ten.

There was strong, though not universal, agreement that a nuclear attack is more likely to be carried out by a terrorist than by a government in the next ten years. The group was split 45% to 55% on whether terrorists were more likely to obtain an intact working nuclear weapon or manufacture one after obtaining weapons grade nuclear material. The results underscore the need to improve security around tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear material in Russia and expand our ability to detect transfers of weapons or materials from rogue states to terrorist organizations. A majority of the group designated a black market purchase as the most likely method by which terrorists could obtain nuclear weapons or fissile material.

Almost four-fifths of the experts surveyed said that their country was not spending enough on nonproliferation objectives. None of the experts believed that their country was spending too much on non-proliferation. More than half of the experts recommended an increase of 50% or more in their nation’s non-proliferation budget.

A plurality said the top non-proliferation priority should be to secure and dismantle weapons and materials of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. More than a quarter of the respondents either listed by name the Nunn-Lugar Program, saying the top priority should be to implement, strengthen or expand it, or listed as the top goal a particular Nunn-Lugar objective, such as securing former Soviet weapons, employing former weapons scientists, or gaining access to Russia’s biological weapons labs. The second most frequently listed ‘top goal’ was containing the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea. The experts had a number of different ideas about which area of non-proliferation work was most in need of more attention. The most commonly cited area, by about 10 per cent of respondents, was the need to expand efforts to prevent terrorist use of chemical and biological weapons. Others said we should do more to prevent weapons scientists from selling their knowledge, to shut down black market networks, or to secure ports and shipping.