realist theory and nuclear capabilities

Today's digression onto the topic of nuclear weaponry was interesting. Nuclear weapons do play into the power politics of the realist theory, but what the realist theory does not account for is the presence of non-state actors such as terrorist organizations. To the best of our knowledge, terrorist groups do not yet have nuclear capabilities, but the question was posed as to whether it is likely that they can acquire this power in the near future. The concept of a non-state actor possessing a nuclear weapon is a terrifying though because the concept of mutually assured destruction does not apply when there is no concrete state or territory to retaliate against.

Whereas there is always a possibility that a nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of a terrorist, I believe that this is a highly unlikely occurrence. First, nuclear weapons can be traced back to their origin, meaning a state supplying a weapon could easily be identified. No state willingly put themselves in such a position -- the resulting repercussions would be tremendous. Second, if the plans for a nuclear weapon were bought, the expertise as well as the expenses required would be too diverse and large for a non-state actor with limited resources. Stealing or buying a loose Soviet nuclear weapon is another possibility, but again, the chances of this are slim, considering the ease of origin identification and code locks. Also, it has been a relatively long period of time since a loose has been turned up, and so there may not even be that there are any more to account for.

That aside, I think that a major fault of the realist theory is this lack of acknowledgement for non-state actors. In the past couple of years, the presence of these actors has grown significantly, and it would be a grave mistake to discount their influence on acquiring a peaceful balance. Whether they have nulcear capabilities or not, they do have a growing presence in our political world.