Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
rs7 asks why a rogue state with nukes would arm terrorists. The answer is simple: to avoid retaliation.
There is another motivation for arming terrorists with nukes. Money, pure and simple. It's the same reason N. Korea sells missiles to states like Yemen that have no use whatsoever for them.
I can accept your responses. I do not agree, but, as always, I am willing to admit that I am not an expert in these matters. All I have is my somewhat limited amount of common sense. So going on this, here is why I disagree.
First: A rogue state that would arm terrorists with nukes.....what would lead you to believe that this would "avoid retaliation"? We have seen that terrorists are not exactly the kinds of deal makers that can be trusted. We armed Saddam. We armed and trained Bin Laden. They have no interest in loyalty. But more importantly, even the most unstable rogue states have more to lose than to gain. Let's say, for example, North Korea sells (or gives) nukes to Al Qaeda. (Not that they have the kind of arsenal to afford to let them go, but again, this is all hypothetical). So now, Al Qaeda has what they consider a "source". What is to prevent Al Qaeda from using the threat to use bomb #1 to obtain more bombs from N. Korea? In this scenario, N. Korea has already demonstrated that they have the weapons, and have shown enough weakness as to part with them. And a terrorist organization with a nuke is not (as we have seen) an easy target to argue with (or attack). The bomb, once in the hands of terrorists, can be placed anywhere. Including right in N. Korea. What easier way to blackmail them into giving up more? A no win situation.
Germany helped the Palestinian terrorists who committed the murders at the '72 Olympics in Munich. They thought if they cooperated with the terrorists, then the terrorists would leave Germany alone. Didn't work. There is no honor among these people. They will strive to achieve their goals in any way they can. They have no allegiances to any legitimate government. Rogue or not. And in the case of N. Korea, to stay with the example, and to also stay with Al Qaeda, N. Korea is a bunch of "infidels", so they are just to be used and then discarded. So avoiding retaliation seems a pretty risky business.
The second point...."money pure and simple".
Any country with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons has money. Yes, there is never enough money to satisfy any government. But selling obsolete (or ineffective) missiles to Yemen is a far cry from selling nukes. The missiles can never be a threat to N. Korea. A nuke can be.
Besides, how much money is a nuke worth? How much money can a terrorist organization put together to buy one? And how much money does a nation (even N. Korea) have relative to a terrorist organization. Now if Saudi Arabia had nukes, maybe they would give them away to al Qaeda. But they would not do it for the money. They would more likely supply the money if a nuke were on the market. As the case really is though, the Saudis are more likely to be buyers than are any terrorist organization. They really do have the money. And somewhere in Russia, there must be a few unaccounted for nukes. But so far as we know, this hasn't happened (yet).
North Korea, and Pakistan have nukes. But do they have enough to spare? Pakistan is a very nervous state with an unfriendly neighbor with their own nuclear weapons. So their interests are in keeping their arsenal intact. N. Korea also has nukes. But they too need as many as they can produce as a "deterrent" to their unfriendly neighbors.
I think the great danger is not the buying or selling of these weapons. It is the possible stealing of them from a somewhat dismantled and disorganized Soviet arsenal. While N. Korea and Pakistan may have a few bombs, the Soviet Union had tens of thousands. Keeping track of them......well so far it seems a miracle that to our knowledge none have gotten into the hands of any terrorist groups. If they had, we most likely would have already seen them used.
Bottom line though is this. No government will trust a terrorist group. Not to the extent of providing them with a nuclear bomb. Too risky. There is no trusting a Bin Laden. Even the craziest of the rogue states recognizes this. Or should. They all have their history books. They all have internet access. They all know that a deal with the devil is never equitable.
Peace,
rs7