“Within the next half century, perhaps even within a decade or two, a nation might be vanquished -- not by a foreign terrorist organization or by the military strength of a foreign power, but by a small group of domestic evildoers ruthlessly using weapons of mass destruction against their own country,” Ikle writes. In the ensuing chaos, those behind the attack and their political allies could sweep into power with promises to restore order, much as Lenin and the Bolsheviks did when they seized control of Russia in 1917. Hitler also used this tactic in 1933, when he used the burning of the Reichstag as an excuse for declaring a state of emergency and expanding his dictatorial powers.

Of course, an al Qaeda-style attack out of the blue is always possible. But any group that is serious about gaining political power would have to lay the groundwork first. Ikle argues that this could be accomplished through what he calls the “dual power” stratagem. Basically, “an aspiring dictator implants some of his political followers in the incumbent government -- for example, by forming his own legitimate party that gains a minority status in the parliament. Meanwhile, his more brawny followers can be trained to help with the forcible overthrow of the incumbent government.” The dual power stratagem is a time tested method of seizing political power, as the Bolshevik Party in Russia and the Hitler's National Socialist Party demonstrate. Other terrorist groups, such as the ETA in Spain and the IRA in Great Britain, have attempted the dual power stratagem with less success.

Countries with large Muslim populations, particularly those ruled by authoritarian leaders, present special risks. Because of the quasi-political nature of Islam, Muslims in countries like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan -- as well as Russia – don’t necessarily need to create formal political parties. A sufficiently charismatic imam (think Muqtada al-Sadr) can amass a large group of followers outside of the traditional political system. If the capital of one of these countries disappeared in a nuclear attack, the imam and his followers might stand a good chance of seizing power.

In Ikle’s view, decapitating a democracy is more difficult. That’s especially true for the United States, which has time-tested methods for political succession and a citizenry imbued with deep respect for the Constitution. Nevertheless, such an attack would undoubtedly cause widespread paranoia and fear, particularly if the culprits remained unknown. One shudders to think of what might happen next:

We also know from history that even the best and the brightest often lose their moral compass during times of war or during periods when nations fear a devastating surprise attack. The confrontation with wanton carnage, deception and cruelty summons the Furies of revenge, who can convert peace-loving, liberal-minded elites into promoters of genocide. During World War II, J. Robert Oppenheimer, who frequently articulated ethical values that resonated with liberals, wanted to spray Strontium 90 (a baleful carcinogenic element) on Germany. According to Joseph Rotblatt (a nuclear scientist from the era of the Manhattan Project), Oppenheimer wrote in 1943 to Enrico Fermi, who was in charge of the first reactor in Chicago, that he should not begin the project until he could produce enough Sr-90 to kill half a million people.

Fortunately, there are steps we can take to reduce (but not eliminate) the growing threat. Foremost among these is the development of what Ikle dubs an “Ultimate Emergency Plan.” Such a plan would involve redoubled efforts to design and deploy a new generation of nuclear bomb detectors, as well as steps to ensure the continuity of the U.S. government. While senators killed in a sneak attack could be replaced in most instances by the governors of their states, members of the House of Representatives would have to be replaced by special elections in their districts. This would take months, time the nation would not have during a national crisis. This issue has been studied endlessly and several workable solutions have been proposed; what’s needed now is political leadership to resolve it.

Ikle also notes that the United States desperately needs to revise its immigration and asylum laws, which make it absurdly easy for terrorists to enter the country. “In times of domestic upheaval as well as in wars between nations, a country's sovereign territory is the decisive arena,” Ikle writes. Somehow we’ve lost sight of this elementary fact.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for the current state of affairs. Ikle is particularly critical of the misguided “Atoms for Peace” program launched by President Eisenhower in 1953, which spread nuclear technology around the world under the guise of “peaceful use.” At a deeper level, however, humanity simply cannot handle the ever-accelerating stream of discoveries produced by the scientific revolution:

Science and technology do not have a final goal. They pursue a continuing conquest of nature in which disproved theories are replaced by new knowledge. But political endeavors have finite goals. Marxism did not aspire to be followed by capitalism, Islam does not seek to be replaced by Christianity, America’s propagation of democracy does not strive to be succeeded by autocratic governments. ... The widening divergence in human culture might overwhelm the political order of the world in a way that endangers the survival of all nations.

This is the key issue driving international affairs today. Anyone who wants a better understanding of this dilemma and where humanity is heading needs to read Fred Ikle’s book.

For more: Josh Manchester, the host of the blog The Adventures of Chester, interviewed Ikle last month. You can listen to a podcast of the interview here.