• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Nuclear Levees

Officials have groped for references to atomic bombs to describe the destruction that Hurricane Katrina brought to the southeast United States. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said, “I can only imagine that this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago.”  But Hiroshima was much worse.  The bombing killed 140,000 people either immediately or within the year and destroyed or damaged 70,000 of the 76,000 buildings in the city.  Experts have warned for years of the real danger of a Hiroshima-size terrorist attack on an American city but, like the known risk to New Orleans, the government response has been woefully inadequate.  Now is the time to shore up the nuclear security dams and levees that can prevent this ultimate disaster.   (Read More)

Link Copied
By Joseph Cirincione
Published on Sep 6, 2005

Officials have groped for references to atomic bombs to describe the destruction that Hurricane Katrina brought to the southeast United States. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said, “I can only imagine that this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago.”  But Hiroshima was much worse.  The bombing killed 140,000 people either immediately or within the year and destroyed or damaged 70,000 of the 76,000 buildings in the city.  Experts have warned for years of the real danger of a Hiroshima-size terrorist attack on an American city but, like the known risk to New Orleans, the government response has been woefully inadequate.  Now is the time to shore up the nuclear security dams and levees that can prevent this ultimate disaster.  

Storm Warnings

Dozens of experts and reports have issued blunt warnings of the danger. The most prominent of these perhaps is the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations that the country had to make a “maximum effort” to prevent a nuclear 9/11.  Commission Chair Thomas Kean said, “A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is the single greatest threat that faces our country today.” Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton said “You have to elevate this problem above all other problems of national security, because it represents the greatest threat to the American people.” 

The report’s recommendations have been largely ignored.  Former Senator Sam Nunn says, “American citizens have every reason to ask, ‘Are we doing all we can to prevent a nuclear attack?’  The answer is ‘no, we are not.’” 

An Action Agenda

The number one goal should be to ensure that terrorists remain non-nuclear. As President George W. Bush has said, “The nations of the world must do all we can to secure and eliminate nuclear…materials.”

“Doing all we can” should mean moving out forcefully to:

·       Secure What Exists Now.  State-of-the-art security must be applied to all nuclear weapons and weapon-usable materials, whether civilian or military, everywhere. Where effective security is impossible, materials should be relocated or eliminated.

·       End Production of Weapon-Usable Materials.  The production of highly enriched uranium should be permanently ended and the separation of weapon-usable plutonium should be suspended until current stocks are drawn down.  No new countries should build or operate enrichment or reprocessing facilities.

·       End Use.  Civilian research, power and naval reactors that run on weapon-usable fuels should be converted to alternative fuels or shut down.

·       Eliminate Surplus Materials.  Large stockpiles of weapon-usable materials in countries around the world should be securely eliminated. 

These recommendations are elaborated in the 2005 study from the Carnegie Endowment, Universal Compliance:  A Strategy for Nuclear Security.  The Carnegie report provides a road map for how to prevent nuclear terrorism and reduce the risks from other global nuclear dangers. 

There is no need for any American official to someday be in the position that the heads of FEMA and the Homeland Security Department now find themselves:  the day after the disaster trying to explain why they did not do all they could have done.  A comprehensive effort to prevent nuclear terrorism is both practical and affordable; we only lack the political will to do it. 


Related Links:

"Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security," Carnegie Report by George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, Jon Wolfsthal, March 2005

"The 9/11 Commission Report," Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 22 July 2004

"The Day After an Attack, What Would We Wish We Had Done? Why Aren't We Doing It Now?"
Testimony by Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Before the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, 27 June 2005

About the Author

Joseph Cirincione

Former Senior Associate, Director for NonProliferation

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security<br>With 2007 Report Card on Progress
      • +2

      George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, …

  • Article
    The End of Neoconservatism

      Joseph Cirincione

Joseph Cirincione
Former Senior Associate, Director for NonProliferation
Joseph Cirincione
North AmericaUnited States

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Commentary
    NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions Simmer

    On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.

      Tejas Bharadwaj

  • Commentary
    TRUST and Tariffs

    The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.

      Arun K. Singh

  • Commentary
    The India-U.S. TRUST Initiative: Advancing Semiconductor Supply Chain Cooperation

    As part of the TRUST initiative, leaders of the two countries committed to building trusted and resilient supply chains, including for semiconductors and critical minerals. India and the United States have made steady progress in this area over the years. This essay explores the takeaways from discussions on semiconductor supply chains that took place at Carnegie India’s 9th Global Technology Summit.

      Konark Bhandari

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.