�€œThe US looks at the US-Russia relationship of the 1990s as model to be preserved. For us in Russia, this was our weakest moment, a disaster, never to be repeated�€, said Dr Alexei Arbatov, when I met him in Moscow last month. Dr Arbatov is member of the Russian Parliament (State Duma) and the Program Chair for nuclear non-proliferation at the prestigious Carnegie Moscow Center.

Dr Arbatov believes that there are new poles that are emerging and trying to come together to counterbalance US power. These include Germany and Japan, and the power that they wield would be more of an economic nature than of military might.

On Iran and the current crisis, Dr Arbatov has an interesting perspective. He believes that the US nuclear policy towards Iran is heavily tilted because of the US hatred of the current regime in Iran. What is ignored is that the US itself had started the Iranian nuclear programme under the Shah, when some 20 or 30 nuclear reactors were planned. Russia is not so worried. It does not think that a change in Iranian regime is required as long as it adheres to international law. Therefore the Russians look at Iran fundamentally differently than the US. A vast majority of the Russian elite would prefer Iran having a nuclear weapon, rather than have another war. And weaponization is far away as the Iranians at present only have an enrichment policy, not a nuke. To be able to change their nuclear policy, Iranians need to believe that the US is planning to withdraw from Iraq at some stage in the near future. This is unfortunately not a signal that the Republicans can give, as it would be seen as a defeat in Iraq that would strengthen Iran.

Dr Arbatov was a member of the Blix Commission that submitted its report on Weapons of Terror. He believes that the threat of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a terrorist organization is very real and large. The AQ Khan network in Pakistan may have started this trend, and the network has not been dismantled or dealt with adequately because of President Musharraf�€™s support to the US post-9/11. The Americans believe that the Pakistani General can somehow prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands and that after him this would no longer be the case.

There are some terrorist groups are actively working on getting nuclear material, and the most probable group that has nuclear weapon grade uranium is the Al Qaeda, given the fact that their goals go well in terms of using a nuclear weapon against a western target. And the Al Qaeda is once again growing in terms of manpower, as well as popularity because of the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, the success of Iran in using the Hezbollah against Israel�€��€�

The most efficient uranium bomb requires about 10 kilograms of uranium, where all the material is used to bring about a critical mass. For a terrorist group the modus operandi would be different. Using 80 kilogram of weapons grade uranium, the crudest of devices could wreak destruction equivalent of that of the Hiroshima bomb.

Dr Arbatov outlined a scary and rather realistic scenario: A terrorist group plants 20 kiloton weapons in Moscow, Washington and London. They go on air and make an announcement that they have the weapons in place- perhaps placed in basements in populated areas of these cities. And of course they can make whatever demands they want and the governments of the world would be forced to take them extremely seriously. The challenge for the terrorist group would be to acquire 20-30 kg of enriched (90%) uranium- not an impossible task given the way in which certain countries have managed to get their nuclear programmes started.

For a terrorist group, a nuclear weapon is ideal. A bio-weapon or chemical weapon could not achieve the same end. The terror group might not be able to prove that they were responsible for the effects of such a weapon, as it may be seen as a natural outbreak. Also, a lot more can be done to protect people against biological or chemical weapons and treat victims of such attacks.

So what can be done to prevent this scary scenario from taking place? There is a need for UN Conventions to entrust the Security Council to investigate leakage of nuclear weapons into the hands of non-state actors. The IAEA could be used to carry out international investigations. There is a need to have information available in time so that the UNSC can carry out the required investigations. If a country refuses to let the investigators carry out their duties, force could be used. However, all this would be possible only if the P5 were seriously interested in non-proliferation and not just in paying lip service to it, believes Dr Arbatov.