Why hasn't any of those nefarious regimes detonated a nuke yet?

[SgtSpike]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world.  With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like?  What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

[1715336479]

1715336479

[1715336479]

1715336479

[bonker]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world.  With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like?  What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

"I've heard"

Perhaps that's your answer right there. Where did you "hear" this information? A guy in a train?
A boat magazine? Rabble-rouser Alex Jones? A homeless guy dancing for fiddy dolla?

[SgtSpike]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world.  With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like?  What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

"I've heard"

Perhaps that's your answer right there. Where did you "hear" this information? A guy in a train?
A boat magazine? Rabble-rouser Alex Jones? A homeless guy dancing for fiddy dolla?

Am I wrong?

[bonker]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world.  With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like?  What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

"I've heard"

Perhaps that's your answer right there. Where did you "hear" this information? A guy in a train?
A boat magazine? Rabble-rouser Alex Jones? A homeless guy dancing for fiddy dolla?

Am I wrong?

I've no idea. You could be spot on for all I know.

[MysteryMiner]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world

Most likely it is not true. Also missile is only carrier medium like a bomber. The payload (nuke) is separable from missile in most cases.

With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like? What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

Nukes are high-tech devices and nuke is almost impossible to detonate if it is unmaintained for long time or is damaged in smuggling or handling. Exception is a "gun" type nuke that was dropped on Japan. Also there is actually not so many people with both means and possibilities to use nuke. USA actually are both paranoid and playing ace card against regimes they want to topple and install puppet regime. USA is only nation in history who used nukes in combat.

[Third Way]

But nuke tests are carried out by the hundreds throughout the years since before '45.

[theymos]

I'd guess that conventional weapons are a lot more cost-effective than black market nukes.

[DeathAndTaxes]

It is unlikely there are that many nuclear devices unaccounted for.  Also many unaccounted devices are simply irrecoverable. Devices that were lost at sea (submarine accidents) may have sank thousands of feet below their crush depth.  The weapon is "lost" and will never be recovered but nobody is going to use it as a weapon.    

The biggest obstacle is that modern thermo nuclear devices require a never ending army of maintenance technicians.  Any device lost more than a decade ago would require some very sophisticated experts and access to precision equipment, tools, and material to get it weapon ready again.   A nuclear device is continually undergoing nuclear decay and has lots of volatile components like deuterium and tritium gas (which slowly leak through just about any barrier made by man).   Combine that with unstable components like precision timed implosion explosives, triggers, a neutron emitters and you have a device which doesn't "age" well.  The nuclear decay continually warms the device (like a never ending 200W lightbulb) which leads to problems like drying lubricants and explosives.  Eventually even the metal will undergo fatigue from the continual neutron bombardment.  In theory weapons are designed with a strong link, weak link design so that internal system failures will break the weak link first and render the device inoperable (rather than having a volatile unpredictable device and still operational device).

The US spends about $30B a year to maintain these ancient killing things.  This is a cost which will continue literally forever or the weapons will eventually become nonfunctional. 

[MysteryMiner]

I'd guess that conventional weapons are a lot more cost-effective than black market nukes.

Depending on situation. Nukes are practically only weapon that allows smaller army to stop invading fleet. Small tactical nukes are also perfect in air-to-air combat as they allow to engage enemy aircraft with less advanced missiles or aircraft. Example is Genie missile. With conventional explosives the missile must come close to enemy aircraft to take it down and also must avoid to been diverted by countermeasures or superior maneuvers.

The fear is that nuke can be used as a revenge weapon like german flying bombs was used in WW2. They will not turn the war outcome. But the losing side will not care about cost and benefit also.

[thebaron]

The truth is that there probably isn't enough centrifuged uranium to even make 5% of the nukes the countries claim to have. It takes an insane amount of raw material to make a nuke.

[MysteryMiner]

The truth is that there probably isn't enough centrifuged uranium to even make 5% of the nukes the countries claim to have. It takes an insane amount of raw material to make a nuke.

Uranium is just a one of possible materials for making nuke. Nuclear reactor also can produce a plutonium as a byproduct. Or nuclear waste can be used to salvage usable isotopes.

And also it is possible that number of nukes are exaggerated to impress enemy.

[Lethn]

The truth is that there probably isn't enough centrifuged uranium to even make 5% of the nukes the countries claim to have. It takes an insane amount of raw material to make a nuke.

That and a lot of the nuke fear mongering is really just a load of bullshit American propaganda designed to scare everyone into giving them the responsibility of hunting down imaginary nukes in unstable countries that have oil and precious metals, if there really were evil terrorists out there who wanted to nuke us they would have done it already, ironically the only country in history to have used a nuclear device on another country has been America as far as my knowledge goes anyway.

[ElectricMucus]

There are people who claim there are no such things as nuclear weapons.
Here you have it an explanation.

Google nuke lies if you like.



Seriously maybe they are just scared of fallout?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

The next best weapons of choice would be dirty (nuke) bombs, bio, and chemical weapons.

[cedivad]

Why should a terrorist blow a nuke in the US?
Because you know, they did nothing on 11/9 and Bin Laden did not took responsibilities for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

[MysteryMiner]

Why should a terrorist blow a nuke in the US?
Because you know, they did nothing on 11/9 and Bin Laden did not took responsibilities for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

+1000

[SgtSpike]

Thanks for the answers, interesting discussion here. 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why should a terrorist blow a nuke in the US?
Because you know, they did nothing on 11/9 and Bin Laden did not took responsibilities for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

+1000

I'll lean the same way, and didn't even click the video (yet), for I'm sure I've already seen it.

[cedivad]

Why should a terrorist blow a nuke in the US?
Because you know, they did nothing on 11/9 and Bin Laden did not took responsibilities for that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

+1000

I'll lean the same way, and didn't even click the video (yet), for I'm sure I've already seen it.

It's a funny one, its worth viewing, whatever your position is.

[Luno]

The point of nukes is to have them, not use them, it's the great deterrent.

What I don,t understand is the way Iran is trying to get them? Usually you enrich natural Uranium, as they do, but only a little portion. Then you mix it with more natural Uranium for a combined low degree of enrichment of say 5%. Then you build a big, several tonnes of Uranium, inefficient reactor and let it run for a year. Then you dissasemble it and extract Plutonium, which is a lot easier, and build some nukes.

Iran have a few reactors, why don't they go the Plutonium way? Istead of having thousands of centrifuges?

They could still argue that they produce Plutonium for power generation? They have 5 civil reactors now, they could make 40 Kilos a year of Plutonium enough for 5 20kilotonne nukes?

They could be interested in making a pure Uranium bomb, like "Little Boy" which is low tech to make and used 64 Kilos of highly enriched uranium, but that doesn't make sense to use the most difficult and industrial process today when there are a lot of international eyes on Iran. If they instead had extracted a little Plutonium over the years, and hid it in a bucket (for safty make that two buckets) in some old womans basement. They could have focussed on the more easily hidden tech side of things. The Plutonium bomb was invented in 1944, before computer simulation and was set off with a simple altimeter switch. Plutonium bombs being sphere shaped, also fit more easily in the nose of a rocket.

The easiest thing, as they are friends with Russia, would be to get a few nukes from them. If Russia feel uneasy about selling them the bomb, they could just smuggle a single one to them, which the Iranians could set off as an underground test blast. That would scare off the world, and give them working space to make their own in the open.

[SgtSpike]

The point of nukes is to have them, not use them, it's the great deterrent.

Perhaps when it comes to countries and (some) regimes, but I have a feeling that a terrorist organization would be looking for ways to demolish a first world country the moment they laid their hands on one.

Just a feeling.

[MysteryMiner]

The point of nukes is to have them, not use them, it's the great deterrent.

Only in a case if all of them cannot be destroyed in single strike by black operation or by destroying government that controls them.

What I don,t understand is the way Iran is trying to get them?

You cannot believe everything that the western media is saying. Probably the scale of enrichment and the reasons are different. It is also possible that Iran really don't want to get the nuke ASAP. Now in that case they are really crazy because western capitalism will destroy them if not deterred by nuke. Probably they also are confident that they can repel any conventional attack upon Iran and the all nuclear enrichment is a one big real life trolling to make zionist controlled nations reveal their true nature.

Iran have a few reactors, why don't they go the Plutonium way?

Plutonium bombs are still difficult to make but probably should not be problem for Iranian scientists. Little boy style is almost guaranteed to work first time every time.

The easiest thing, as they are friends with Russia, would be to get a few nukes from them. If Russia feel uneasy about selling them the bomb, they could just smuggle a single one to them, which the Iranians could set off as an underground test blast. That would scare off the world, and give them working space to make their own in the open.

In a world full of spies the next day after Russia talks about the option of giving fireworks to Iran, the black monkey will read it in his daily briefing.

[dotcom]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

[MysteryMiner]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

Probably a minivan with kamikaze inside will do the job. At least if americunts invade the country like in Iraq.

[DarkHyudrA]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

Probably a minivan with kamikaze inside will do the job. At least if americunts invade the country like in Iraq.

They could send a nuke warhead in a bottle trough the ocean activate it with a radio trasmission.

Also, nice Toxin General pic

[SgtSpike]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

Yes, certainly that does pose a challenge.  They have methods that *could* work, but at great risk of being caught, in which case, it was all for naught anyway.  Seems like there have been a large number of bombing attempts in the US lately, none of which have been successful.  If one of those were a nuclear bomb, it would simply be confiscated, and the organization would be out the hundreds of millions spent on it.

[vampire]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

Probably a minivan with kamikaze inside will do the job. At least if americunts invade the country like in Iraq.

Their nukes are too smal. The biggest nuke that NK has would barely cover the downtown of Manhattan. It would very deadly there, but in Iraq with low density of population wouldn't be really effective.

USA would then completely terminate that country.

edit:

The best bet would taking like a national airline (are there like NK airline or Iran/etc), putting a 6kt bomb and flying over Manhattan and blowing it up.

[kronosvl]

I remember that in a movie with George Clooney his character said something like: 

I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one

[MysteryMiner]

Seems like there have been a large number of bombing attempts in the US lately, none of which have been successful.  If one of those were a nuclear bomb, it would simply be confiscated, and the organization would be out the hundreds of millions spent on it.

Not all of them were real bombing plans. It is like in Stalinist Russia where numerous "plans" were uncovered. Most of them were either non-existant or a false flag operations of secret police to advance agenda of inventing "enemies" and continuing genocide. Does a FBI selling a fertilizer bomb to half-retarded muslim convert and then busting him count as real bombing plan? Or tortured Iraqi resistance fighter revealing plan to bomb white house when waterboarded and sleep deprived is a bombing plan prevented?

Their nukes are too smal.

Korean nukes? They still are good deterrents from invasion. Who will cross the border first knowing that it is sure death even when "protected" in his main battle tank?

I would probably arm my nation with small and lightweight nukes and replace conventional explosives with them as much as possible. It will give superiority in air-to-air combat, anti-air defenses, anti-warship defenses, they could be used to cause EMP and destroy enemy satellites. Radiological and chemical weapons will be employed as area denial weapons if enemy infantry still breaks through. Multiple-megaton weapons stationed in outer space orbits can be delivered to enemy cities if my country are under attack and the situation is not looking good.

Some argue that nukes and chemical and bio-weapons are wrong. It is like saying that firearms are bad. Actually weapons of mass destruction are great equalizers that every nation now matter how small or big have a tool to effectively defend themselves against aggression. It is like a firearm that allows physically weak or elderly people to shoot young and healthy attackers.

Should I change my avatar to nuke general?

[thebaron]

Delivery of said nuke is a feat in of itself. Which is one of the things that the war-monger politicians in the U.S. never seem to want to say is that even if Iran did have a nuke they still have no way to deliver it.

They just need to consult with a Silk Road seller for stealth package shipping advice.

[Luno]

Moving a nuke around is not that easy. There are multiple monitoring stations in most western countries to monitor airborne isotopes. They are used to monitor for nuclear accidents in far away contries. A truck with a nuke would trigger a few alarms if it drove cross country. i would also imagine that ports are screening shipping containers.

A boat might do the trick but an Iranian fishing boat or coaster in the Atlantic would be swept by coast gaurd as it approached national waters maybe even before.

So a terrorist organisation would need some nuke capable state behind it to do the delivering or supply a delivery system, it is not enough to buy a bomb in the black market. If you manage to get an old russian warhead as depicted in movies, It would be booby trapped to prevent enemy theft or reprogramming in war time. It would just blow convetionally but kill you off.

I would imagine that the supply for black market nukes is quite small and the fact that is has never been attempted not even a dirty bomb proves that. There has been some sting operations which caught people trying to get uranium and other isotopes, but they were lone wolf types and not capable to pull such a feat off in my opinion, even if one managed to make a dirty bomb and contaminate a whole neighbourhood and make headlines, the damage would be too localised to terrorize a whole country, as a real nuke would.

So would a state risk retaliation by helping out some terrorists? Would a Russian missle, with a willing crew, be for sale on the black market? I don't think so, it's just too much of a 007 scenario.

In Brazil 25 years ago a decommisioned Cobalt cannon from a closed hospital ended up in a scrap yard and the Cobalt source got smelted into new sheet steel which was sold to a table leg manufacturer.
So suddently a lot of school children got strange skin conditions on their lower legs before they found out what had happend. Several hundred was in contact with the Cobalt and no one died. A dirty bomb has nothing stealth about it so the only fatalities will be the victims of the blast.

[TheButterZone]

Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.

So, what this implies is that if a dirty bomb WERE to go off, it would be better for the government to treat it like an ordinary bomb, BLEVE, or natural gas explosion, and not actually contain and decon anyone in the vicinity. If individuals went in with their own properly calibrated Geiger counters and dosimeters to the active scene of every bombing, there would be less chance of a coverup, but more chance of mass panic and the government having to admit "the war on terror failed that day".

[MysteryMiner]

Moving a nuke around is not that easy. There are multiple monitoring stations in most western countries to monitor airborne isotopes. They are used to monitor for nuclear accidents in far away contries. A truck with a nuke would trigger a few alarms if it drove cross country.

True but it still have various workarounds. Some of them deal with with package and some deal with detectors.

i would also imagine that ports are screening shipping containers.

Yet they fail to detect hundreds of kilos of drugs, despite being engineered to do just that. With radioactive material is little bit different because of radiation leaking trough isolation, but many guards are willing to let some containers pass trough completely unchecked if the price or way of asking is right.

A boat might do the trick but an Iranian fishing boat or coaster in the Atlantic would be swept by coast gaurd as it approached national waters maybe even before.

Boat flying Iranian flag with ticking nuke is probably good for action movie. Or CIA press release to scare americunt sheep into supporting aggressive US politics. In reality a speedboat with kamikaze with no identification marks are highly likely to hit the target. USA have such large coastline that it is impractical to cover every mile of it from sudden attack.

And don't forget that Iran have Kilo-class diesel submarines. They are stealthy and can be used as attack weapon if needed.

If you manage to get an old russian warhead as depicted in movies, It would be booby trapped to prevent enemy theft or reprogramming in war time. It would just blow convetionally but kill you off.

Probably not all of them. As I know the safety was rigged to launch rockets, not the warheads because of reliability problems. It would be a bad day for Kremlin if majority of launched warheads failed to explode. Electronic reliability was not good then.

So would a state risk retaliation by helping out some terrorists? Would Russian missle, with a willing crew, be for sale on the black market?

It is so because James Bond movies and Santa Claus cartoons fall in the same category.

[SgtSpike]

Moving a nuke around is not that easy. There are multiple monitoring stations in most western countries to monitor airborne isotopes. They are used to monitor for nuclear accidents in far away contries. A truck with a nuke would trigger a few alarms if it drove cross country. i would also imagine that ports are screening shipping containers.

A boat might do the trick but an Iranian fishing boat or coaster in the Atlantic would be swept by coast gaurd as it approached national waters maybe even before.

So a terrorist organisation would need some nuke capable state behind it to do the delivering or supply a delivery system, it is not enough to buy a bomb in the black market. If you manage to get an old russian warhead as depicted in movies, It would be booby trapped to prevent enemy theft or reprogramming in war time. It would just blow convetionally but kill you off.

I would imagine that the supply for black market nukes is quite small and the fact that is has never been attempted not even a dirty bomb proves that. There has been some sting operations which caught people trying to get uranium and other isotopes, but they were lone wolf types and not capable to pull such a feat off in my opinion, even if one managed to make a dirty bomb and contaminate a whole neighbourhood and make headlines, the damage would be too localised to terrorize a whole country, as a real nuke would.

So would a state risk retaliation by helping out some terrorists? Would a Russian missle, with a willing crew, be for sale on the black market? I don't think so, it's just too much of a 007 scenario.

In Brazil 25 years ago a decommisioned Cobalt cannon from a closed hospital ended up in a scrap yard and the Cobalt source got smelted into new sheet steel which was sold to a table leg manufacturer.
So suddently a lot of school children got strange skin conditions on their lower legs before they found out what had happend. Several hundred was in contact with the Cobalt and no one died. A dirty bomb has nothing stealth about it so the only fatalities will be the victims of the blast.

Some good thoughts in here, I think.

I suppose what I am thinking is that a fast boat, but still large enough to carry a very capable nuclear bomb, could steer its way towards San Fransisco.  How close would they be when the coast guard found out?  1 hour away?  2 hours?  And if they refuse to acknowledge the coast guard, but instead pretend that their radio is not working, would the coast guard actually do anything to stop them, not knowing the reason for their lack of response?  Would they sink a ship without proof that its intent was harmful?  If not, the ship pulls into the bay, the dude onboard hits the trigger, and it's goodnight San Fran.

I hope that the coast guard and other homeland security departments already have such a scenario covered with a contingency plan of some sort, but you just don't know.  The government works slowly, and when faced with a potential threat that could turn out to be someone completely innocent, decisions sometimes cannot be made quickly enough.

[Luno]

SgtSpike and Mysteryminer, delivery is not totally impossible but it need really careful planning and execution, even more so than 9/11 and such a coordinated effort has become a lot harder to pull off.

The real hurdle is still getting a working nuke.

Outta thread:

Lone wolf terrorism has become pop culture. As easy as the state can label anyone a terrorist, just as easy anyone can be a self proclaimed Jihadist or right wing extremist, and mix some detergents in his bedroom.

It's like an ethical barrier has been crossed. It used to be abortion cliniques and animal testing labs that got blown up after closing hours. The stakes have gotten higher, you have to at least try to kill a bunch of people to get through to the media it seems.

It's the whole hate and disrespect culture in politics that marginalise the whole population into different fractions that wage war on and demonize people with different opinions, and the most polarised portion of each fraction is willing to get physical in their rethoric. Sad sad sad...

[vite]

I've heard there are hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear missiles unaccounted for across the world.  With some of them most certainly available on the black market, why is it that no terrorist groups have yet acquired and detonated one against someone that they don't like?  What is the limiting factor preventing them from doing so?

Fear of becomming sterile and impotent. So fear of not being able to perform sex prevents them from using Nukes.