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?

[1714787261]

1714787261

[1714787261]

1714787261

[1714787261]

1714787261

[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.