Why is the current risk of a nuclear attack considered very low?

Why is the current risk of a nuclear attack considered very low?

• A. Terrorists lack the ability to deliver a weapon via missiles or bombs
• B. Nukes are no longer a threat
• C. Nations have eliminated all nuclear weapons
• D. The weather prevents nuclear delivery

Answer: (A)

The main idea being tested is the importance of delivery capability in assessing the risk of a nuclear attack by terrorists. Even if nuclear materials exist in the world, the key barrier for nonstate actors is being able to deliver a weapon to a target in a credible way. Delivering a nuclear device requires access to a workable warhead or fissile material, a reliable delivery system (such as a missile or aircraft-delivered bomb), technical expertise to assemble and arm the device safely, and the ability to overcome security and interception measures. International controls, security screening, and intelligence efforts have made obtaining and successfully employing a nuclear weapon far more difficult for terrorists, which is why the current risk is viewed as very low. The other statements aren’t accurate reflections of the situation. Nuclear weapons still exist and are controlled by nations, so the idea that they’re no longer a threat isn’t correct. Eliminating all nuclear weapons globally hasn’t happened, so that premise isn’t true either. Weather can affect certain operational aspects of an attack, but it doesn’t eliminate the fundamental barrier of delivering a weapon, so that option doesn’t explain why the risk remains very low.

The main idea being tested is the importance of delivery capability in assessing the risk of a nuclear attack by terrorists. Even if nuclear materials exist in the world, the key barrier for nonstate actors is being able to deliver a weapon to a target in a credible way. Delivering a nuclear device requires access to a workable warhead or fissile material, a reliable delivery system (such as a missile or aircraft-delivered bomb), technical expertise to assemble and arm the device safely, and the ability to overcome security and interception measures. International controls, security screening, and intelligence efforts have made obtaining and successfully employing a nuclear weapon far more difficult for terrorists, which is why the current risk is viewed as very low.

The other statements aren’t accurate reflections of the situation. Nuclear weapons still exist and are controlled by nations, so the idea that they’re no longer a threat isn’t correct. Eliminating all nuclear weapons globally hasn’t happened, so that premise isn’t true either. Weather can affect certain operational aspects of an attack, but it doesn’t eliminate the fundamental barrier of delivering a weapon, so that option doesn’t explain why the risk remains very low.