U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) called North Korea’s nuclear deal with the United States “relatively meaningless” in a panel discussion entitled “Nuclear Proliferation in the Age of Terror” in Copley Formal Lounge on Tuesday.

Schiff’s fellow panelists, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Harvard University Professor Graham Allison, and Stephen Rademaker, U.S. assistant secretary for state arms control, had difficulty reaching an agreement on the issue. Allison called the deal “a great step forward,” while Schiff said that he felt the talks were moving in the wrong direction and that the United States should be willing to use both incentives and pressure in assuring North Korea’s disarmament.

The panel was united in at least one respect, though: All acknowledged the real threat of a nuclear attack on the United States.

“I believe that there’s a 51 percent chance or greater that a nuclear bomb explodes in one of our cities in the next decade,” Allison predicted, summing up much of the general sentiment at the table.

The panelists also stressed the ease with which a crude, homemade bomb could be developed. Rademaker noted that design information could be found relatively easily on the Internet, while Shays said that, “It is basically a no-brainer how to build a nuclear weapon out of enriched uranium.”

Rademaker qualified Shays’ statement by explaining that nuclear materials, as well as technical capability, are required to build a nuclear weapon. He cited two key fears regarding nuclear resource availability: the lax Russian attitude toward post-Soviet weaponry, and the assistance provided to terrorist societies by rogue nations.

“To imagine terrorists in possession of a nuclear weapon one has to assume that behind the terrorists is a government,” he said.

The panelists largely refrained from refocusing the debate on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, though there was mention of the defunct Libyan nuclear program, which Rademaker said might have been abandoned because of the situation in Iraq. Robert L. Gallucci, panel moderator and dean of the School of Foreign Service, then suggested that Libya’s disarmament had less to do with American belligerence in Iraq than with the decade-long negotiations between Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and Britain.

Both Rademaker and Allison also said they recognized a great amount of general concern with regard to Iran, which Allison said has been left to pursue its weapons program in freedom.

Rademaker also mentioned Russia’s “loose nukes” as a potential source of nuclear material. American funds are currently being spent to help with Russia’s nuclear clean-up programs, but fears that such funds might simply be subsidizing a Russian nuclear program have led to American insistence that such clean-up programs be transparent, he said. Rademaker added that American demands have, in turn, led to a widely harbored suspicion in Russia that American aid is primarily focused on espionage.

“They’re not prepared to concede that their security service is unreliable,” he said. “There’s good will on both sides. … [but] there are conflicting views and conflicting concerns on both sides.”

Allison criticized the Bush administration for having failed to significantly increase the pace at which nuclear weapons are secured after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also referred to the lack of international monitoring that Iran has enjoyed and North Korea’s development of eight nuclear devices.

Overall, he gave the administration a “D-plus” grade, though he expressed hope for its second term.

Rademaker defended the administration’s handling of the problem, noting the difficulty and complexity of the issue and pointing to Libya as evidence of progress.