What is considered more important in counter proliferation than a criminal conviction?

In the context of counter-proliferation, interdiction is often considered more critical than a criminal conviction because it involves actively stopping the illicit transfer of weapons or materials that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Interdiction focuses on preventing dangerous goods and technology from reaching rogue states or terrorist organizations, thereby mitigating immediate threats to national and global security.

The essence of interdiction is proactive engagement aimed at disrupting the flow of prohibited items before they can be utilized for nefarious purposes. This approach prioritizes preventing potential harm over the often lengthy legal processes involved in securing convictions. While convictions can serve as a deterrent, the immediate benefits of successful interdiction in safeguarding citizens and maintaining international security are paramount.

In contrast, while license verification, detention of shipments, and export compliance play important roles in regulating and monitoring the movement of goods, these measures may not be as effective in real-time threat mitigation as interdiction. They can help enforce regulations but do not address the immediate risk posed by the proliferation of weapons and technology. Hence, in counter-proliferation efforts, successful interdiction stands out as a critical and immediate measure for ensuring safety.